Quantum cats are hard to see
Christoph Simon teaches physics at the University of Calgary. He is part of an international team of researchers who published a paper explaining the difficulty of detecting quantum effects Credit: Courtesy of the University of Calgary
Are there parallel universes? And how will we know? This is one of many fascinations people hold about quantum physics. Researchers from the universities of Calgary and Waterloo in Canada and the University of Geneva in Switzerland have published a paper this week in Physical Review Letters explaining why we don't usually see the physical effects of quantum mechanics.
"Quantum physics works fantastically well on small scales but when it comes to larger scales, it is nearly impossible to count photons very well. We have demonstrated that this makes it hard to see these effects in our daily life," says Dr. Christoph Simon, who teaches in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Calgary and is one of the lead authors of the paper entitled: Coarse-graining makes it hard to see micro-macro entanglement.
It's well known that quantum systems are fragile. When a photon interacts with its environment, even just a tiny bit, the superposition is destroyed. Superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum physics that says that systems can exist in all their possible states simultaneously. But when measured, only the result of one of the states is given.
This effect is known as decoherence, and it has been studied intensively over the last few decades. The idea of decoherence as a thought experiment was raised by Erwin Schrödinger, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, in his famous cat paradox: a cat in a box can be both dead and alive at the same time.
But, according to the authors of this study, it turns out that decoherence is not the only reason why quantum effects are hard to see. Seeing quantum effects requires extremely precise measurements. Simon and his team studied a concrete example for such a "cat" by using a particular quantum state involving a large number of photons.
"We show that in order to see the quantum nature of this state, one has to be able to count the number of photons in it perfectly," says Simon. "This becomes more and more difficult as the total number of photons is increased. Distinguishing one photon from two photons is within reach of current technology, but distinguishing a million photons from a million plus one is not."
Journal reference:
Physical Review Letters
Provided by
University of Calgary
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
33 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Landmark calculation clears the way to answering how matter is formed,
55 comments
-
Research team claims to have found evidence Lake Cheko is impact crater for Tunguska Event,
18 comments
-
Did a 16 year old solve a centuries-old problem by Newton?
2 hours ago
-
Theoretical highest electric charge?
4 hours ago
-
Effect of Damping wave on vibration
5 hours ago
-
How does impulse relate to energy when the net force is zero?
5 hours ago
-
Calculating Saturation Vapor Pressure?
13 hours ago
-
Question about high electric charge.
17 hours ago
- More from Physics Forums - Classical Physics
More news stories
Is a classical electrodynamics law incompatible with special relativity?
(Phys.org) -- The laws of classical electromagnetism that were developed in the 19th century are the same laws that scientists use today. They include Maxwell’s four equations along with the Lorentz la ...
May 24, 2012 |
4.7 / 5 (18) |
43
|
Landmark calculation clears the way to answering how matter is formed
(Phys.org) -- An international collaboration of scientists, including Thomas Blum, associate professor of physics, is reporting in landmark detail the decay process of a subatomic particle called a kaon – ...
May 25, 2012 |
4.3 / 5 (24) |
55
|
Lying in wait for WIMPs: Researchers seek to dramatically increase sensitivity of Large Underground Xenon detector
Although it's invisible, dark matter accounts for at least 80 percent of the matter in the universe. No one knows what it is, but most scientists would bet on weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs.
May 23, 2012 |
4 / 5 (7) |
19
|
Hawaii lab turns laser-powered bubbles into microrobots
(Phys.org) -- A team of scientists from the University of Hawaii are working on microrobots created from bubbles of air in a saline solution. The bubbles take on their title of “robots” as a laser ...
May 23, 2012 |
5 / 5 (4) |
2
|
Sound increases the efficiency of boiling
Scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology achieved a 17-percent increase in boiling efficiency by using an acoustic field to enhance heat transfer. The acoustic field does this by efficiently removing vapor bubbles ...
May 24, 2012 |
5 / 5 (2) |
2
Stunning image of smallest possible five-ringed structure
Scientists have created and imaged the smallest possible five-ringed structure – about 100,000 times thinner than a human hair – and you'll probably recognise its shape.
'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...
Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study
At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...
Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture
When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases – and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if – it will be an expensive undertaking.
T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows
By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...
Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change unrelated to science literacy
Are members of the public divided about climate change because they don't understand the science behind it? If Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, would public consensus match ...
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 3.2 / 5 (6)
If a 'parallel' universe 'exists' in some sense, but is not able to interact with any aspects of 'our' universe, then that renders it indistinguishable (in an operational sense of the word) from that which does not exist. If it *is* able to interact with any aspect of 'our' universe, then its effects are observable, and it is in effect within our observable universe.
Bottom line: a 'parallel universe' is a tautological impossiblity.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (7)
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (13)
As I outlined the other day, there is really only one "possibility" in any deterministic model of the Universe.
When you fip a coin it either lands heads, tails, or very rarely on edge.
But there was only one possibility, because the outcome is pre-determined by the initial conditions and the laws of physics. There were not two possibilities chosen at random. There was one pre-determined outcome chosen by a mathematical formual based on initial conditions.
Additionally, textbook scenarios in physics are always highly improbable, isolated systems where, by design, you creat a system with an uncertain characteristic, but this does not represent REALITY.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (12)
Addtionally, the whole "quantum wave collapse" thing is an absurdity, because in the real world, there are no isolated systems, and in the real world, there's never a time whenever a tiny sub-set of objects or particles "really" only interact with one another; there's always interaction coming from "everything else" in the real universe.
Therefore, the cat is either dead or alive, but not both.
you won't know the difference until you examine it, but rest assured, if there is any order to the universe, determinism ensures there is only one "possibility". All other apparent possibilities are illusions caused by partial knowledge or partial understanding.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (12)
It's an absurdity because the imaginary cat is isolated in an imaginary box, seperating it from the REAL laws of physics and the real interaction of all the real matter and energy in the universe.
"This statement is both truth and false."
That's about equally absurd to the cat in the box problem.
If you had an actual cat in an actual box, and you knew all the laws of the universe AND the exact positon of all forms of matter, energy, and anything else that may exist, then you could tell exactly if and when the cat died, and without looking.
But Shrodinger's cat is neither alive nor dead. It's an absurd, imaginary construct.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (10)
"This statement is false."
That's more simplified.
Now that's a perfect example of a self referencial absurdity. It's nonsense.
That's what Shrodinger's Cat is. Nonsense.
You have to think outside the box. What's happening in the remnant of the universe, etc.
Does a cosmic ray particle or a wave or neutrino or some other shit we don't know about influence the radio nucleid, causing it to decay, killing the cat?
What causes decay? Not the bs half life thing. What causes it?
Of course, the TOTALITY of the laws of physics, not just what we know, nor what we think we know, nor our approximations.
That is why I say the cat is neither dead nor alive. It's an absurdity based on partial knowledge.
Tic-Tac-Toe is on a 3-by-3 grid, and yet you can't play the game without the external universe and it's laws: The paper to write on, gravity, friction for the pen to write, etc.
The answer is outside the box...
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (11)
Determinism is not a settled scientific fact. Chaotic systems are a perfect example. There is no minimum scale on which chaotic attractors are no longer chaotic. Hidden variable theory (which ascribes hidden determinism to quantum mechanics as advanced by Bohm and others) has so far proven unable to account for experimental results. The idea that the universe is a deterministic machine comes from Laplace, Descartes and others, and is just an idea.In your coin flip example, there is not even a clear definition of what separates the edge of the coin from the rest of reality. On an atomic or smaller scale, there is only a probability density.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (11)
To take your coin example: until you check the result, for YOU, it exists in all possible states. Not only heads/tails/edge but also some extremely unlikely but possible results of that coin speeding away into the outer space, disappearing into the thin air and so on.
You will only determine which one took place -for you- when your own waveform interacts with that of the coin, there is a wavefirm collapse and only one of the pissibilities eventuates.
Your illusion that the laws of classical mechanics tell you exactly which on will happen is exactly that - an illusion. It happens due to the fact that the probability of all the other outcomes is exceedingly small so you THINK they don't exist...but they do.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
1 poison filled box
Experiment: 10X 1 cat in box for 10 minutes.
Result: 5 cats are dead. 5 cats come out alive.
Pattern: 50% chance of cat death.
Question: Cat 11 goes in the box for 10 minutes. Does it come out alive or is it dead?
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Half-dead, half-alive.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (3)
You can't see inside of atoms without opening them, but when you open them you destroy their closed system conditions.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (6)
The final state of a deterministic system can be known from knowledge of the present state. Contrasted with a stochastic system that is non-deterministic.
There is good evidence that induction fails for reality's fractal complexity. See the Ludic fallacy, N. N. Taleb.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
You miss the point of the entire Quantum Cat paradox. And that is that the cat must be isolated from the outside world. Not a since photon of energy can interact with the cat from the outside world in a manner that will distinguish it's state.
In essence the cat must become it's own universe, isolated from the world around it. And in such a state it's wave function - it's internal state - is free to evolve in a manner in which it's internal dead/alive state is indeterminate.
Think about that for a moment. For all eternity - as long as the cat is it's own isolated universe, that universe evolves as if the cat had been both alive and dead.
In that isolated universe it may have been alive and lived long enough to have kittens. And if the box is big enough, those kittens may have evolved into a sentient race of cat people who performed the same thought experiment with people. But at the same "time", the cont.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
There you will also find his 'Converging and diverging views' that curses PhysOrg's screamers and disruptors.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
The state function evolves over all possible histories for an isolated universe, and only realizes a state compatible with one of those histories the moment it is touched by an outside observer.
That is what QM tells us.
I don't believe a word of it.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (3)
It is caused by the interaction between the Quarks that make up the particles composing the nucleus and the quantum vacuum in which they exist. Once a vacuum fluctuation of the proper type and sufficient energy and duration is encountered the wave function of the nucleus and the vacuum fluctuation combine to create a disintegrated nucleus plus energy lost back into the void.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Who cares? It's a cat.
Now if it were a dog.... That is a different thing entirely.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
But you should.
In reality we can place a camera in the box and watch the cats evolution in real time.
We don't have a camera small enough to fit inside of an atom to observe the evolution in its natural state. The only way to see the contents of an atom is to break it open.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (8)
Incorrect according to quantum theory.
Interaction with the random fluctuations of the vacuum are the randomizing factor that can not be removed from the equation, and which make the universe non-deterministic.
Those vacuum fluctuations can not be mapped since they lie below the level of detectability.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Your choice.
But so far, that's the best theory we have and it makes predictions which match the observed facts (including your own computer) so damn well, it's hard to just "disbelieve" it.
Unless you can offer something better, you'll just have to live with your disbelief.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (7)
This isn't an absurdity. This is a well-known mathematical proof dating back to the 1930s (if I remember right) which states that any formal logical system by neccessity will have statements which can be neither proved nor disproved.
In simpler terms - they don't make sense WITHIN that theory.
[p.s. My apologies to those who know what I'm talking about - I know I had to cut some corners to simplify it]
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (33)
Actually, it is removed via the procedure of renormalization.
The non-deterministic nature of qm comes about through interpretation of the squared modulus of the wave function being a probability amplitude.
@Grizzled, you may be thinking of Kurt Godel and the incompleteness theorem (?). He used a few methods, diagonal slash and sets that are not members of themselves. :)
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (33)
Fortunately, science isn't about belief .. and Reality is under no obligation to conform to a-priori intuitions of the mind. That is the mistake that Einstein, Dirac, and Schrodinger made in making like statements.
If we demand an intuitive understanding of reality, we in effect, force reality to conform to our own a-priori conceptual structure. We force Reality into paradigms that are dependent on mind,.. time, space, causality. Classical physics can be made consistent and intuitive, but at the quantum level one has to be careful not to interject intuitive biases.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
In reality coherence extends only to the measuring device which provides input to the switch to kill the cat. In doing so the wavefunction collapses at the point of measurement.
The state of anything resembling what we would call a "cat" today within any box that can be constructed by man is effected only by the result of an already collapsed system on the switches measuring device. The cat was never a part of the same coherent system. It is a disservice to invent a scenario which implies something we know to be false.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
You don't find that a tad absurd that you use a thought experiment that could never exist in the real world in an attempt to describe the real world?
"suppose we have pink unicorned elephants that fly at half the speed of light..."
In fact, a pink unicorned elephant that flies at half the speed of light is more realistic than a cat being isolated from the universe.
You're so used to the absurdity that you don't even see it as such.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Schrödinger's cat. The probability expresses the statistical chance for the cat. There's nothing more to say about it. There's something wrong with Schrödinger's theory if this is a necessary implication.
I'd also like to point out that the "mystery" of Schrödinger's cat comes down to the Copenhagen Interpretation, that I follow strictly on the observation point only, of having to be observed for something to exist. Schrodinger's cat goes clearly against this, even as an indirect observation. I therefore think that the whole of this line of thinking (Schrödinger's cat etc.) is flawed. It's almost embarrassing how mistaken it seems in regard to the huge interest.
Schrödinger's cat can also be set up with a rat, by requirement of the ladies, slightly sedated and laid under the guillotine. So when this condition of the atom triggers, the guillotine blade falls and decapitates the rat, rendering it certainly and clearly dead, ...
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Everything in modern technology and applications is based on classical physics.
Quantum physics is used in virtually nothing that I know of in consumer products, although there are Quantum dots and such, but even in such cases, they are produced from a "top down" approach using classical machines...
The weather forecasting is done using purely classical physics, and the resolution of the data is the primary limitation on existing forecasting. In order to get more accurate and precise forecasts, making a stronger computer won't help. they'd need about 4 times more weather stations and more radars and satellites all over the planet in order to get double the precision.
Even then, it wouldn't involve quantum physics.
Rocket science doesn't involve quantum physics. Even ion rockets or solar sails don't use quantum physics.
I don't even know of any practical, "bottom up" quantum technologies in use, except in research labs...
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
We'll probably have quantum computers and quantum networks one day, but it won't be the stuff of science fiction, that's for sure.
I said that to make the point that if Quantum theory is so correct, why do classical predictions work to within exactly the limits of margin of error in instrumentation?
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (3)
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (6)
There are no quantum computers on the market, with one possible exception, which is probably a hoax.
The computer you are using does not use entanglement, that's for damn sure. Neither does it work with individual electrons or photons.
So it cannot be quantum.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (34)
Well, if the wave-function is a linear super-position of all possibilities, only one of which is observable,.... then it stands to reason that observation must force "it" into one reality, thus causing the state reduction ("collapse") and probability interpretation of the wave-function.
What is it that you object to? We can only know about observations.
Schrodinger admitted that his cat example was a bit sillly,... in fact he wished to mock the Bohr interpretation, but it back fired.
In my view, qm is merely an epistemological problem, as above and in relation to Kant's philo.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
http://www.aether...cale.gif
Quantum mechanics predicts, the wave packets of all particles will expand into infinity, general relativity consider gravitational collapse into singularity. So called classical physics is the range, where the predictions of both theories compensate mutually in hyperdimensional reality. The realm of quantum mechanics therefore begins at much larger scale of forces, which are violating inverse square law, like the Casimir force and various dipole forces.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Observation does not force reality.
Only one "possibility" is observable, because the others are not actually possible; they are figments of your imagination caused by some combination of ignorance, partial knowledge, or some other mis-understanding.
"neglecting friction" is not possible either.
"perfect insulation" is not possible either.
"ideal fluid" is not possible either.
"ideal machine" is not possible either.
these are all absurdities which have no place in a physics text, yet you find them there all the time.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (4)
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (34)
Absurdities, according to a mind evolved to operate crudely on the macroscopic scale. By expecting Reality to be burdened with satisfying your intuitive sensibilities, you subject it to all manor of conceptual contortions. Why should one expect Reality to 'think' like a mind does, ... and so be as a mind expects. By conceptualizing Reality, you've added a component to the final knowledge. Leave intuitions out, so physics can proceed .
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Faith in determinism. Trick being there is no exact position per the uncertainty principle.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (9)
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
This is true but, even before the uncertainty principle, (during the heyday of determinism) there were still objections to the above idea - namely: what will you use to predict the outcome? Is the machine you use part of that Universe you model? So it has to model itself too? And it's own running? For completness. But..how could THAT be?
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
Actually, I despise determinism. It's just, I can't explain how reality could be anything else in a purely mechanical fashion, and still have any order.
Moreover, gee, those deterministic computer models do such a damn good job at predicting stuff, and deterministic models using classical physics do such a damn good job of calculating what is necessary for a mission, enabling NASA to land a space probe on Mars, or time a fly-by of Pluto 12 years later.
Pretty convincing stuff for classical physics and determinism.
If determinisme is real, then free will is an illusion.
If determinism is not real, prediction, as well as most of science, is an illusion. i.e. The NHC has no skill, they only appear to have skill, etc. Computer would not work, because computations would be meaningless. Computation on computers requires determinism to be meaningful. Output is determine by input
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Second. The energy of spacetime becomes greater than the gluons can handle. Excess energy is released in the form of photons.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
You are quite clearly wrong.
There are no classical computers using quantum principles.
My computer doesn't have quantum memory, or quantum processors or anything of the such.
In fact, the basics of the technology has not changed in many decades, other than miniaturization.
That's why they are called classical computers, because they are based on classical mechanics.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (31)
Ok, so I get Cantor, Russell, and Godel mixed up.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
See that.
You offered a physical CAUSE, not a random probability.
Now, what causes the cause?
In the real world, stuff happens for a reason.
The problem of shrodinger's Cat is that the question is framed with a lack of information, making it impossible to solve.
It's sort of like if your teacher gave you "Y = X Z" and said "solve for Z" and didn't give you any more information.
The best you could say is "Y - X = Z", but that's a silly response and doesn't say much of anything, other than there's a relationship.
But without knowing at least something about Y and X you can't know what Z is.
Z is determined by the values of Y and X.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (36)
There are no computers making "quantum calculations", yet,.... however, all existing modern computers use solid state devices, diodes, transistors, etc,.. that can only be understood via quantum mechanics.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Interactions of parallel universes result in all the weird things the quantum physics is referring to.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Well yes maybe but the CMBR has all wavelengths - blackbody radiation. Maybe that adds some flexibility to your theory.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
I believe you are mixing up concepts such as the "quanta" in the sense of a discreet packet of a substance, vs the concepts, such as superposition and entanglement.
I don't disregard the idea that matter is made of "tiny things" like atoms and particles.
Superposition and entanglement appear in artificial, "engineered" and highly isolated laboratory circumstances, such as some of the articles we often read posted here. Like for exmaple, they used a laser to vibrate one diamond, and the other spontaneously vibrates with it.
We should not confuse the notion of the particles of matter or energy, which is relevant to miniaturization, with that of superposition or entanglement, which is not, at this time involved in computers.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Quantum theory determines the lower limit of the margin of error.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
Racetrack memory is going to use Spintronics, but even that won't involve entanglement or superposition.
So how do you justify your position, or giving me poor feedback?
Oh wait, I forget, anyone who points out how absurd the existing framework really is gets automatically shunned...
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (12)
Nope, I'm quite clearly right and you are just confused.
Your problem is that for some obscure reason you think of Quantum Physics (in relation to computers) only in the terms of entanglement, Q-bits and such. This is wrong. The simplest P-N transition in semiconductors is Quantum. Just you try explaining it from the classical point of view.
Look, I'm really getting tired trying to hammer home a pretty obvious point - what you call "classical" computers of today simply wouldn't be possible without QM. Same for TV sets, GPS...heck, practically ALL modern electronics.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Then I find no problem to handle parallel universes as separate entities, and still of provable existence because of its mutual interactions. To state that any "thing" which is in interaction with our universe is a part of it, is a cruelty upon logic. We can be in the same room, and still are two separate people. We can talk each other and touch each other, still preserving our integrities and attitude. Can have sex, and even then are two, not one.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Another tautology - the total energy of the universe is 0. Else where did it come from? It seems the universe would not be the complete picture.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Well I think seeing itself is a quantum effect - photons exciting certain photoreceptors in the eye.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
My answer: it is common knowledge that Schrodingers cat destroys Schrodingers theory. That's what the cat was there for in the first place!
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
If you have two ideal mirrors facing one another in assymptotically flat space-time...
You could have a laser aimed precisely aligned and have the light reflect between them transfering momentum from the photons to the mirrors.
If the mirrors are initially 1m apart, then a 1 Watt laser could impart about 300,000,000 Joules worth of Net energy on the mirrors each and every second by pushing them apart, moreover, the very first photon would last for an eternity, eventually providing infinite net acceleration (or limited by C anyway,) if it was ideal mirrors.
It's completely absurd, yes, but it obeys the man-made "laws" of physics!
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Another cruelty of logic - if you're in the same room you must be in the same universe.
I have no problem with multiverses but I suspect the voids are impenetrable to photons, for example. The medium (spacetime) is part of the universe; no medium, no photons or other particles.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
My answer: it is common knowledge that Schrodingers cat destroys Schrodingers theory. That's what the cat was there for in the first place! (I'm sorry to have posted this twice! I just wanted to correct it!)
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Yes I've been wondering about those man-made laws of physics. I suspect nature has its own laws and doesn't really care about the man-made laws.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
And what of neutrinos? Maybe they have one foot in a parallel universe while another is in ours. The one foot in the other allows the neutrino the unprecedented freedom to travel through the planet unimpeded, but is also detectable because it partially coincides with our reality.
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Dec 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
When he opens the door is he alive or dead?
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (9)
By doing so you connect the cat in the box with the outside world and hence it's wave function will collapse whenever the camera communicates with the outside world.
The magic of the box is that not that it is dark, or that it is closed. The magic is that it completely isolates the cat from every aspect of the outside world, and isolates the outside world from every aspect of the cat.
Once one interacts with the other, the cat's fate is realized.
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Measurement (interaction) between formerly isolated systems is the only thing that is relevant.
"But all of you are forgetting one important thing here; the variable of the conscious mind in analyzing all of this. " - Smashin
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
Not quite. The work done in accelerating the mirrors would result in a net loss of energy of the photon doing the pushing.
Now if the mirrors were prevented from moving apart, then the photon would bounce back and forth forever, imparting an impulse with each reflection but depositing no kinetic energy in either mirror.
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (4)
That is the working assumption, but since time loses all meaning as you get closer to the beginning, the initial state of the universe is not even known to have manifested. Hence a blank statement about what was or was not at the "beginning" is pointless unless you manage to find a way to define what it is you mean by "beginning".
So far, physicists have not been able to adequately do that.
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (7)
Macroscopic objects like cats have a large number of opportunities to interact with the surrounding universe, and hence are constantly being observed (interacted) back into a well defined (collapsed quantum) state.
But as the size of an object grows smaller it has less opportunities to interact with the surrounding universe and hence begins to become more like the cat in the box.
Fundamental particles interact with the outside universe only when they are detected, and are free to evolve quantum mechanically during their occupancy in the void - where interactions if they occur are coherent.
You are missing the entire point of the thought experiment. That point being that the fate of macroscopic objects is determined by the results of quantum mechanical effects.
You are also missing the point of the article, that being CONT.
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 3.9 / 5 (7)
The point of the deeper interpretations of the cat and box, have implications for isolated systems of matter, including black holes etc.
Since the interior of a black hole is isolated from the outside world, it's evolution may be that of an isolated wave function.
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Exactly. The omnipresence of consciousness, impossibility to think "outside" of it misleads us to ignore it; yet it is the most important thing in the world.
There is an analogy with gravitation. Prior to Newton and Galilei, nobody, except some excentric philosophers, felt that there can be a problem with things falling down. The popular notion was that Earth is flat and the fact that things falling down is natural-born to all masses. (Aristotle's system with universe's center of gravity in the middle of round Earth was not so widely accepted even in scholar circles.) The civilization needed to "step out" of Earth to really see and accept the fact that gravitation is not trivial and that there are places without it.
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (31)
It is common knowledge that Schrodinger wave-mechanics is still a valid description. Even considering decoherence, there is still a ontological problem.
Schrodinger came up with the cat analogy and Einstein came up with the EPR paradox, in hopes of showing that qm has to be incorrect,.... but both back fired, because neither thought experiment does anything to disprove qm,.. only makes apparent the non-intuitive nature of it.
Now, obviously on the macroscopic scale of things we don't see this odd behavior,.. so whatever the underlying nature of qm is, it must reduce to what we experience on our level. However, since the cat and box is to be considered as an isolated system, the same "issues" arise.
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (2)
Someday, I hope, we will be again forced to "think outside" and see that "Earth is not flat". Maybe, in the 20-50 years timeframe, when quantum information technology penetrates the society, notion that non-mechanical and non-classical information states are important to processes in our brain, will be accepted as the most natural explanation to the conscious phenomena.
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (3)
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (32)
This is why qm is non-intuitive and gives some people great difficulty. I mentioned Immaneul Kant above, who's core philosophy expresses the fact that intrinsic facilities of the mind determine the form of experience. We cannot have a pure and untainted knowledge of Reality because given the nature of mind, we add the conceptual structure which amounts to boxing in or conforming reality, into artificial paradigmns. "artificial" in the sense that Reality as it is in itself (Kant's Noumenal reality), is unconceptualized and so free of these subjective limits.
We can only interact with reality through observations, ... by then we have already subjected reality to conditions of the mind in acquiring knowledge, and so have changed it fundamentally; the Schrodinger evolution breaks at that point.
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 4.1 / 5 (7)
When your wave function interacts with the wave function of the cat, it collapses to a well defined state. Since the experiment was set up so that the ultimate state will either be alive or dead, the cat will be either alive or dead.
It was the act of measurement that caused the state change.
The article argues that for large systems it is very difficult to distinguish between a classical object and a quantum one, with the difficulty growing ever larger as the size of the object increases.
By implication something the size of a cat would then be a dead or alive cat following the normal rules of macroscopic objects.
However, those rules don't apply to the cat in a box situation since by the rules of the game the cat is completely isolated from the rest of the universe and quantum mechanics determines it's fate.
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (32)
Yes, and it is one of the a-priori "artificial" conditions of experience given the nature of mind, mentioned above. Time is not a discoverable physical entity in itself. It is never observed, only applied. It is a Real aspect of phenomenal reality, but by "phenomenal reality", one must realize that we add the conceptual component.
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (32)
That's correct, but there is the "multi-verse" interpretation for people who wish to have faith that the wave-function is a "real entity" and is never "collapsed" via state-reduction, ...despite the fact that it is not observable as such, and does not explain how or why a particular out come manifests to a particular conscious reality, rather than another. So, it causes more issues than it solves.
[Ehelred has trouble with me using Kant's philosophy wrt a epistemological interpretation of the non-intuitive aspect of qm,... but then he accepts the multi-verse interpretation, which imo only adds a consciousness problem, unnecessarily.]
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
------
The premise of the article doesn't seem to be anything different than the normal " Large quantum numbers produce classical effects " statement of the correspondence principle...
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (30)
What do you mean?
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
It is maddening to see physics professors, writers, and masses of "hey, i just thought of why all physics is wrong" folks continually misstating this example and its purpose.
PLEASE STOP DOING THAT.
Now, it wont do any good, but for all of you who dispute the fundamental duality nature of quantum theory because it doesn't make "sense", you are wrong, and there has never been one single experiment to test these matters that has even hinted that they are wrong. The error, dear friends, is not in the stars, it is in how we look at them...
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Einstein was a determinist to his dying day because everything he knew about the universe told him that it was deterministic. He believed quantum mechanics was incomplete. He believed, from his ideas of special relativity, that time has dimensional qualities and like a dimension is transversed from one location to another or more precisely from one event to another. Just like moving one foot to your right or left, that spot doesnt exist all of a sudden just because you move there, but rather was there before you moved your foot. Similarly with time, the future already
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Maybe they prefer the cyclic universe theories.
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
I wish you were right, because like I said, I hate determinism. I'd like to thing there was at least some sort of chance of free will existing.
But the reality is all of science shows the universe to be deterministic. Hawking even said so in his book black holes and baby universes.
The calendar, even very ancient solar/stellar calendars, such as stone henge and the pyramids, always work (when adjusted for precession,) so that they predict every stellar alignment even eons into the future. And of course, precession is baded on classical physics, not QM.
Your car engine and all other machines work because of precise timing coupled with determinism.
the random number generation algorithm on your computer is deterministic, because it's typically based on a seed input and the clock on the computer. The number is not "really" random. It is pre-determined by the initial conditions.
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Sure was up until about 1900.Must have changed his mind. Per http://www.hawkin...tures/64 "scientific determinism, remained the official dogma throughout the 19th century. However, in the 20th century,"
Maybe this century they've decided to go back to the 19th century.
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
The initial state of the universe was manifested when the laws of nature were first enacted.
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
No quantum physicist would dispute this. They would make the point that true randomness only exists in the quantum realm. It is impossible to predict with absolute accuracy, where, for instance, a subatomic particle will land moving through a double slit apparatus. Only its probability of ending up one place or another can be predicted. As I stated above, this applies even to particles as large as bucky balls. To be cont.
Dec 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Tunnel diodes biased into their negative resistance region of operation have been used since the 1960's in analog communication equipment like old TV sets. They use electron tunneling through a potential barrier that classical physics predicts is impossible for the electrons to cross.
Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices are used in MRI machines. SQUIDs use Josephson junctions and their operation is based on electron tunneling.
Those are just 2 quantum devices used every day whose geometry is specifically designed to exploit the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and whose operation cannot be explained with classical physics.
The classical manufacturing methods used to construct them doesn't change how those devices operate.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Actually just like the quote you fail to inccorperate 4th dimension into your story, which would tell us how much time Schroedinger's wife had to prepare for the husband's return. Perhaps he immediatly reopened the door, quickly dashing her plans? Or opened the front of the door and then sat on the otherside of a bullet-proof shatter-proof glass window?
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Some good points on this post but those cricket noises on a summer night seem pretty random to me.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)
Observation doesn't require consciousness. You are just jabbering pointless mumbo jumbo.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
You can't explain how magnets work without quantum mechanics.
You can't explain how atomic spectra work without quantum mechanics.
You can't explain the black body radiation curve without quantum mechanics.
You can't explain how solar cells work without quantum mechanics.
You can't explain how sunlight refracts through an oil sheen without quantum mechanics.
You can't explain how bifringence works without quantum mechanics.
You can't explain how gas lasers work without quantum mechanics.
You can't explain how diode lasers work without quantum mechanics.
You can't think of anything that relies on quantum mechanical effects?
Look around you. The LCD or LED monitor you are looking at right now is based upon those effects.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (6)
I interpret this as being a result of our inability to measure and specify the randomizing vacuum conditions surrounding the object being measured.
Where we can negate the effects of those randomizing conditions - such as when we observe an object rapidly and in succession, it's state is seen to be fixed rather than randomized between observtions.
I interpret this as the observations taking place before the randomizing effects of the vacuum have a chance to significantly alter the state of the observed combined with the quantum alignment of that state with the preferred alignment of the equipment doing the observation.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (7)
Ya, but the rules of QM still don't make any sense.
I accept that they adequately characterize nature. I object to them on the basis that they do not describe any natural process.
They are the intellectual equivalent of the crystal spheres of early Astronomy.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)
The closed box is a metaphor for an interior that is isolated from the rest of the universe.
When you close the box, the cat's wave function evolves as does the mechanism for triggering the machine that may kill it.
After a certain length of time, the machine will have evolved to a state in which it has either killed the cat or not. The wave function of the cat will have evolved into a state that reflects either a dead or alive cat.
However according to the laws of QM, the cat will have evolved into a combined state of dead and alive, and it is only through the measurement of the interior of the box, that the wave function of the cat selects between the two states.
The article argues that since the cat is a macroscopic object it is's wave state is practically indistinguishable from a classical object and hence will take a very, very, very, cont
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)
However, what the article does not mention is that macroscopic or not, the cat is still a wave function. And the random act of killing or not killing the cat - decided upon by radioactive decay - a quantum mechanical effect - must therefore result in a indeterminate state for the cat.
It's wave function - very close to emulating a classical cat or not - must still diverge at that point into a supposition of what is a dead and what is an alive cat.
The cat must be in a supposition of those two states.
Measurement by the outside world "decides" which state the cat is in. Measurement does not reveal the state. The act of measurement fixes the state.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Interesting that you would mention crickets while we have a thread about macroscopic entanglement.
Of course, they are entrained_not_entangled, maybe entrainment is the entanglement in macroscopic objects we are looking for ?
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (32)
Observation by definition requires a conscious mind, imbecile..
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (31)
I think what you mean to say , but are too ignorant to articulate it properly,.. is that 'state reduction does not require an mind', as in decoherence. I mentioned this above.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (32)
-As I already pointed out to you in another thread, the vacuum energy has nothing to do with the nondeterministic nature of qm. That issue is handled via Renormalization. This is justified because, ....as is the case in basic classical physics, ....only relative differences in energy are observable, otherwise it can be considered meaningless.
-You purport to re-interpret quantum indeterminacy issue by invoking an infinite amount of indeterminacy,. ...as you put it the "RANDOMIZING vacuum conditions" !?!
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (33)
Now that I've included my full quote above, we see how VendiTard is a typical dishonest commie.
Where am I not being factual above? The above is wrt the "many-worlds interpretation", which I don't agree with.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (33)
This is an issue with your lack of understanding, not science.
My, so called "mumbo-jumbo" posts above wrt epistemology and Kant, are in support of hard science, and are against the wrong headed emotional expectations that qm should "make sense" and be intuitive, to you.
I am a positivist,... you are a meta-physicists, seeking an emotional and intuitively satisfying comprehension of the underlying nature of reality.
The best that science can do, given the inductive method, is to link observables together consistently as possible through hypothesis and theories. These models should not be interpreted as BEING the reality itself. They are merely a means of obtaining predictive power.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (33)
It is valid to have faith that there is an underlying reality (to qm),.. but this is unknowable even in principal.
The act of conceptualizing Reality, changes it,.. conforms it within epistemologically dependent conditions. This, imo, is why qm cannot be made intuitively consistent.
This does not mean there is no underling reality,... it's just that it cannot be encapsulated in a form dependent on mind, which has evolved to operate on macroscopic reality.
In other words, given the nature of mind, our intrinsic intuitive cognitive faculties, are inadequate in representing qm consistently,... thus qm is non-intuitive.
Science is about making predictions, not about "comprehending" Reality. This was the lesson of the qm revolution, which you missed.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
We say for instance that light behaves as a wave and a Particle. I suggest that light behaves only as a particle and not in anyway as a "wave" in my observation of light some twenty two years I have only been able to conceptualize the behavior of light and its behavior as any other particle of a larger whole. and its not so much that i cant understand as to why light is thought of in the way that it is because for one thing we cant really feel it.... its not a tangible thing and the closest comparison we have is magnetism and electromagnetism yet another force that we can since but can not see and i cant really suggest that people ar
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Your thought experiment sounded so cruel. Besides, the ethnics committees never stopped complaining about setting a bad example. So I only place what is labeled 'dead' in the box.
I hope you like the way I changed the experiment.
I await your reply. And I do not await your reply.
Mfg,
Tauch
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (6)
As I recall, there were still experiments conducted in the early 1980s (published in Physical Review Letters) which eliminated a certain group or class of such possible theories. By now the memory of what exactly that group was is getting a bit hazy here but it was very definitely only a specific (albeit large) group of them but not all.
Do you mean that one or something later which I missed? If so, a link would be appreciated.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (9)
Instruments 'observe' whether there is a qualfied 'mind' to respond to them or not. Would you say that instruments work differently depending on the quality of the mind 'observing' their output? Of course not.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.1 / 5 (34)
christ, are you kidding me!,... to observe requires a mind! If you mean interaction then say interaction!
Please see my entire quote to see what I was talking about in context. I was speaking about many-worlds-interpretation and conscious observation in particular. Yes, decoherence is a valid pov.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.1 / 5 (34)
Yes, no kidding. What's your point? Where did I insinuate that there is something beyond the physical wrt to consciousness?
Above, I am using the word consciousness and observation as it relates to a mind in the appropriate context,... i.e to become aware.
I'm not sure what you point is here? Are you referring to decoherence? If so, decoherence does not collapse the wave-function, nor does it explain the measurement problem.
Kant's philo mentioned above concerns the philosophy of knowledge (epistemology), which of course relates to science, as science attempts to acquire knowledge of reality.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (9)
A tripwire observes the passage of an animal and triggers a camera which takes a picture of it. Or not. The tripwire 'observes' the animal whether a picture is taken for some human with a mind to look at or not.
As someone said in one of these threads, waveforms are collapsed and coherence is lost all the time and we have no clue of it.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (32)
I think I see your trouble wrt Observation,....
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Of course there is nothing beyond physical, however, physics does not end with cog wheels or zeros and ones. The brain is quantum, precisely, it is a network of distributed nano-mechanical quantum processors, i.e. neurons. Or do you think you can have a classical algorithm for 6-plus degree-of-freedom real-time 3D image recognition with 10^15 ops per second, as is anticipated by classical neuronal model of brain? Never.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (32)
This is factually incorrect, and seems like a popular misapprehension on this site.
As I already stated on this thread multiple times, decoherence does NOT collapse the wavefunction. This is where your trouble lies with "observation" above.
A total superposition of the entire systems possibilities still exists and remains coherent as a totality. Decoherence does NOT explain the measurement problem either.
The idea of decoherence is to supply an "explanation for the APPEARANCE of wavefunction collapse", ... that is to say, an explanation of the "mechanism by which the classical limit emerges out of a quantum starting point".
We already knew that classical physics must resolve from the quantum level, so this is not a fundamental discovery in itself. It does not resolve the most perplexing aspects of qm.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (9)
Have you been an idiot all your life, NoumenTard?
"Observation by definition requires a conscious mind, imbecile" - NoumenTard
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (8)
The wave function is a mathematical function. It is a mathematical construct. It is unreal. Unrealized in the real world.
It doesn't represent anything physical as far as is known. It's "collapse", is just another way of saying that the object under consideration becomes localized to a specific point in space rather than being characterized by an extended complex mathematical function.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 3.9 / 5 (11)
Machines have been making and recording observations of physical systems for decades Tard Boy.
Observation = interaction. Nothing more.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.1 / 5 (34)
Wow. It is pointless to debate these semantics with you. You can define interactions as "measurements" and "observations" if you want,... But I know of no one who uses those phrases when the word interactions is available,... except those who INCORRECTLY believe that such unaware "observations" and unknown "measurements", result in wave-function state reduction.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
Nothing was missed. I simply reject the concept as an excuse that old, tired and inferior minds use to avoid thinking about the magical properties of the small that have been manufactured by physicists to predict the outcome of experiments.
One might as well argue that tiny pink unicorns are the grand actors in sub atomic processes.
Nevertheless I accept that the rules work to the known limits of observation.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (9)
It is pointless to try and teach you QM.
If you want and debate philosophy or semantics, then go visit a Religion board and knock your socks off.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (33)
Yes, no shit. Instruments are an extension of a conscious observer. As I said, "You can say instruments observe you if want to,.. but people designed those instruments and people ultimately interpret the results. "
What is the specific point of saying that consciously unknown interactions equates to an measurement???
If you're thinking of decoherence as causing a measurement in the sense of causing a state reduction,... you are misinformed, as decoherence as an interpretation of qm, does no such thing!
I see no other motivation for saying observations or measurements are the same as interactions.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (33)
You're are quit incapable of teaching me qm, as you have demonstrated your ignorance above. You are clearly a bull-shitter as well. The only ones you will fool, are those who are more ignorant than you,.. while those who know something of the subject matter, will see my posts as factual.
I'll give you a chance, ask again,... What is the specific point of saying that consciously unknown interactions equates to an measurement or observation???
Such interactions which presumably cause decoherence, do NOT solve the measurement problem. Therefore phrasing is misplaced.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (33)
I would suggest you study some basic philosophy of physics, epistemology, and scientific method which should all be prerequisite.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (31)
I meant to give you a 5 for this correct explanation.
The Schrodinger wave-function is deterministic and appears to be accurately describing "something", some aspect of underlying reality. But, it is not Observable itself and, as you put it, "It doesn't represent anything physical",.. by which naturally you mean observable. Only observables (dynamical variables) can be measured and known as Real,.....
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (8)
You are free of course to hold whatever beliefs you like but, you can't possibly promote them here, you are just not in the same weight category. Sorry, but that's how it is.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (30)
In fact, in qm nomenclature, the phrase "observable" has a very specific meaning (a dynamical variable operator, and once wave-function collapse due to proper measurement, a specific eigenvalue), and is not applied to wave-function decoherence (interactions generally) at all.
QED.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (30)
Anyone can make such blanket statements with out providing specific points, so either go away, or tell me where I am wrong. I certainly am willing to learn.
Dec 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (33)
If by "destroyed", the author means "collapsed", the article is wrong here. In addition, he/she incorrectly conflates "measured" with "decoherence". I see posters have relied on this faulty information.
From Wiki, "Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the appearance of wavefunction collapse,.... A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level)... Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the measurement problem".
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (7)
That's the problem. You are quite clearly not willing to learn.
He keeps trying to explain to you. Over and over. Others tried too. You just ignore them all and keep repeating the same sensless set of mantras. Just try to stop for a second, take a deep breath, re-read their posts and try to think. It's all there already.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Schrodingers cat in a box thought experiment is meant to differentiate between probabilities and certainties. A highly probable event will most likely occur but it isn't certain until the occurrence.
It is a measurement problem (technological) but it also exemplifies human limits (our inability to consider infinite variables). We are finite creatures and limited in nature. We can't consider all factors as new factors arise constantly.
No matter how probable an event is you can't ever be certain that it will occur.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)
It is deterministic in the way it computes the probabilities of an outcome to an experiment. Or more precisely if you run an experiment many, many times, the distribution of outcomes is computed by summing the wave function as it traverses all possible paths to the 4-voxel of observation, once you multiply the wave function by it's complex conjugate.
No one has yet to find a set of pulleys, levers, strings, or fields that make such a thing possible.
The problem is the conceptual disunion of what appears to be an effect that extends through space but which is somehow localized at the time of detection.
Nature must provide some form of accounting so that the properties of what falls into the void do not dilute and are the properties seen exiting the void, but no machinery for doing this is known.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
Feel free to use semantics to prove otherwise.
"Instruments are an extension of a conscious observer." - NoumenTard
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)
What is the "it" that I have measured if I measure the phase of 100,000 ocean waves relative to some reference wave?
How much of the "it" is inferred?
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Of course, then, consciousness has everything with QM.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (32)
That's pretty vague Grizzled. Since you are being so bombastic in your assessment, I ask you to tell me where i'm wrong. Referring to others post will not work,...
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (31)
Yes, the unitary hamiltonian evolution of the wave function evolves in time accurately until a state reduction occurs. This is the problem with qm. ok.
I understand your problem with it, as everyone has a problem with it. I propose a more positivist approach, and say the rules are the best we can do. An analysis of knowledge leads me there.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (7)
Then you leave physicists with a level of comprehension equal to that of a piece of paper that records those rules. I.E. no understanding at all.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Doesn't that rest on whether the universe is finite vs infinite ?
Sorry if that's a stupid question, I think once again I'm confused.
An infinite universe would mean infinite copies of everything, events included ?
Wouldn't probabilities in QM be determined in a localized probability space ?
..ie, you can only state probabilities of events within a given space.
Thanks for all the great discussions btw, guys.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)
You can reduce that question to a mathematical statement.
Can an infinite set contain a unique subset that is not repeated.
Consider the set of digits of pi in sequence with the digit 2 removed and the union of that set with the set which contains the single number 2.
The subset is the set that contains the number 2.
Is that subset infinitely repeated?
Subset
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)
Theoretically no. But the experiments are not possible to conduct on large scales.
Consider you have a box containing some perfectly reflecting mirrors and a photon bouncing around inside.
In one side of the box you place a tiny hole that you can open and close.
As the wave function of the photon in the box evolves the portion of the wave function that leaves the box can be modulated by opening and closing the hole in the box.
You can thereby create a wide range of pulse trains of various shapes and sizes in the wave function outside.
Yet should the photon be detected anywhere, the wave function vanishes over all of space.
So the wave function is very odd in that it can be sculpted almost at will.
The photon is of course entangled with itself. And "instantaneous communication" between entangled objects is permitted. Hence the excuse for the instantaneous collapse of the wave cont..
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)
Wave functions are non-local and can be arbitrarily shaped.
I can almost accept nonlocality if there was a fixed shape to the wave function. But the shape is arbitrary.
I am stumpted by this.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (9)
Or you could construct a widget to do exactly the same things with no human interaction.Philosophy has the same relationship to science as gullivers travels does to a road map. Dr hawking only pointed out the obvious. Scientific discovery REPLACES philo/religio musing at every step.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (8)
Things like morality can now be explained scientifically, and these explanations consistently show that the haughty philos who concocted their theories within the gloomy laboratories of their own brains, were engaging at best in state-sponsored social engineering; and at worst, shameless deception.
For instance take the word epistemology. You guys like to toss words like this at opponents because you are fairly confident it will throw off their train of thought. 'Epis - what? Huh?' but it is a worthless word which connotes entirely different things depending on which philo from whatever school is using it.
Leave it go man. It makes you look cheap.
'Philosophy is dead.' -Stephen hawking
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (7)
-Worth repeating.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (31)
No, intuitive understanding, true,.. but it allows for predictive knowledge.
I respect your desire to want science to be about explanation,... but that ship has sailed irrecoverably IMO, and the facts do far back that up,.. in addition to a sound analysis of philosophy of knowledge.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (32)
You seem to come off like you know enough about philo to make judgements wrt it's validity, yet don't know what a basic philosophical term like epistemology means.
I expected readers to wiki it, but I also stated it's meaning above. It is an analysis of knowledge, it's scope and limits. Such an analysis is obviously relevant to science generally and qm in particular because we've have reached the point where intuitions failed to provide a conceptual framework in which to model quantum level phenomenon.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (33)
I not going to debate you on this. There are many highly regarded philosophy of physics texts available,... hmm in fact I have one written by Heisenberg.
Your flippant rejection of philosophy is motivated only by your ignorance of it.
It has a long and relevant history with science. In fact interpretations of qm are philosophical in nature.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (7)
So just how many schools with how many interpretations and how many arguments are there? And which ones are only a little less incorrect than the next? And how closely does this whole realm resemble that of the religions? Structurally they are exactly the same which is sufficient grounds for rejection.
But then there are the many scientists like feinman and Krause and Dawkins and yes hawking et al who know far more philos who bug them with theories which these scientists will tell you, are worthless.
I stand on the shoulders of giants.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (8)
-Hey I just looked up ontology (never can keep that pasta straight). 'Ontology is the branch of metaphysics...' -and that's where I stopped. As there IS no meta-physics, how could it have branches? More word spaghetti.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
think about it before you jump on it.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (31)
"In philosophy, Logic is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. Logic [..] is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. [...] In philosophy, the study of logic is applied in most major areas: ontology, epistemology, ethics, metaphysics." - Wiki
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (31)
There is a long list of mathematicians and scientist who are also philosophers. As a very short list, these come to mind;
Blaise Pascal
Bertrand Russel
Alfred North Whitehead
Kurt Godel
Hermann Weyl
Wittgenstein
Gottfried Leibniz
Rene Descartes
Willard Quine
Gottlob Frege
Michael Dummett
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (31)
-Physical cosmology: space, time, the origin and ultimate fate of the universe;
-Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics: energy, work, randomness, information;
-Quantum mechanics: the rival interpretations thereof, and its counterintuitive conclusions.[...]"- Wiki
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (31)
"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." Albert Einstein 1944
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (31)
"How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' - Albert Einstein 1916
Here is a book that might interest you;
http://www.amazon...04E0Z55C
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (31)
I'm still waiting Grizled.
It's not that I think I can't learn from someone else,... Its that the over the top, condescending nature of your post (and VD's) leads me to wonder if you are not just a bs'r.
Please show me where I have been factually wrong and then corrected by VD.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
Which of their works is more applicable today? Which has withstood the test of time? Where in science do ding an sich or dasein belong? OR metaphysics?? NOWHERE.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
And because of their training and experience they KNOW no philo ever had the tools to understand either knowledge or reality.
And so they look at the vast amount of output from philos throughout the ages and conclude that it was a SHAM. A herculean attempt to avoid saying 'I dont know' once god was discarded. A placekeeper for those in Authority until the scientific means to explore these things developed.
You show me where anyone on that list of yours was producing relevant philosophy and I will show you how they were in actuality doing science.
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Quantifying and qualifying the model to real world data turns the art into a picture.
A philosopher is like a painter wheras a physicist is like a verifier of the realisticism of the rendering.
You can't have physical understanding without incorporating the physical values around you. Mass is a number, charge is a number. Etc. I don't know of any ways to deal with numbers other than math.
A physicist is a qualifier of philosophy (whether his own or someone else's).
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 19, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
The cat better be alive when you close the box else what's the point unless it's going to magically come back to life?
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (31)
So if OttoGhost had reading comprehension skills, it would understand that my point is actually aginst the very thing he accuses me of.
As a historical point, Kant's purpose was to show that Metaphysics can NOT be a source of knowledge. I refer the interested reader to "A Critique of Pure Reason",... one of the most influential philosophical texts ever written,... crucial to science IMO. I respect if others disagree. I know that Smolin does for example. IMO it is meaningless to try to 'comprehend' what goes on in between observations.
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (32)
I not going to carry on a debate about the relevance of philosophical notions to someone so suspiciously anti-philosophy.
I provided two quotes from ALBERT EINSTEIN on the importance of an analysis of epistemology, yet you still blather your same non-sense about physicist not respecting philo. Einstein even used the bloody word 'epistemology'.
Heisenberg wrote a book on philosophy and physics! I suspect Neil's Bohr knew of Kant, but can't prove that.
This discussion above is about qm, not philosophy itself. Everyone who engages in interpretations of qm, and other like matters, are engaging in philosophy, despite your personal unawareness of this fact.
You remind me of Ethelred; Anti-philo for the sake of being Anti
Done.
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (31)
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (31)
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (8)
Without god there still needs to be a 'foreverafter' where people can escape to after death; if not in eternally youthful bodies then at least with eternally youthful intellects. Its the same old Lie that keeps people believing and participating; a place to go after we leave this one. An escape from the cage. Alas, it is NOT THERE.
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (8)
In other words, what he meant by epistemology was necessarily completely DIFFERENT from what the normal everyday philo would mean. He would have completely discarded their researchless and experimentless and numberless constructions in favor of those arrived at by painstaking scientific analysis.
In yet other words only scientists can have any clue as to the proper meaning of epistemology. And ontology. And etcetc. This is why they do not keep philo reference books on laboratory shelves. Except maybe for pretense and decoration.
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (8)
Scientists dont use the philo-word to describe what they do. Just because philos do, doesnt make it so. This is only mildly annoying to scientists, and good for the occasional joke during lectures. That is, until grant money or oak-paneled office space becomes scarce. Scientists do have the advantage though as only they ever get tangible results.
'Philosophy is dead.' -hawking. No philo can talk it back to life. Next - Religion!
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (8)
This includes all the many 1000s of working scientists and engineers who do their work quite well in the complete absence of such musings. The philosophy of science only helps to keep desperate philos employed.
"Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics." -hawking
-How could it?
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (7)
LOL you are getting quite desperate. Is Otto actually making some points that are getting through? Are you starting to see your chosen field is a waste of time?
What you are feeling is called cognitive dissonance. You are trying to hold two opposing ideas at the same time. Normal people feel this, but you've been poisoned with bad ideas for so long you may not recognize the feeling.
You now have two options:
1) learn to live with and eventually ignore the dissonance
or
2) drop one of the opposing ideas and regain consonance.
If you go with 2, choose wisely :)
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (3)
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (6)
And then they reach into their novel collection and begin reinterpreting snippets of stuff written by people who could have had no knowledge of developments since they died, and declare it relevent. How is that possible?
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (29)
I assure you, Otto is entirely unprepared to discuss these matters with me. He does not even understand what philosophy is. It does not even appear he reads my posts at all. I can't even tell whether he really understands what i'm talking about. He equates religion to philosophy. That's it, why should I continue with him?
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (29)
Is that so. Tell me big mouth, what two opposing views do I hold at the same time, given my above posts?
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
And each will tell you you dont know near enough to criticize them because, well, basically, you lack FAITH.
Science rejects you. That is enough for me.
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (28)
You're not even close to being qualified to ascertain what I know of philosophy or physics.
"The philosophy of physics studies the fundamental philosophical questions underlying modern physics [....] questions raised by important topics in contemporary physics;
-Quantum mechanics: the rival interpretations thereof, and its counterintuitive conclusions." - Wiki or any modern encyclopedia.
Interpretations of qm are a matter of philosophical discussion, because those issues are not able to be settled now via physics. Every physicist that engages in such discussions, are discussing philosophy of physics. This is not a matter of my personal opinion,... it is a matter of plain fact.
I gain nothing from further discussion with a person of you obvious intellectual immaturity. Go find something shiny to play with.
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (6)
*DING* *DING* *DING*, we have a winner! Otto, of course.
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (28)
"Philosophy of science looks at the underpinning logic of the scientific method, at what separates science from non-science[...]. There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately [epistemology], and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world." - Wiki or any modern encyclopedia
Thomas Kuhn is a well know philosopher of science,.. with a Ph.D. in physics. There are many others. Again, one of the greatest scientist of all time, Albert Einstein, thinks epistemology is vital for science.
QED.
Now, f'off you frustrating adolescent troll.
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (28)
Anyone who is even remotely literate of physics and/or philosophy would see in a minute that the guy is incoherent, mindless, pointless, and obviously immature.
So, if the point was to argue for the sake of arguing until the other guy bailed amongst a barrage of meaningless and pointless non-sense,... then yes, I concede victory to OttoGhost1923. (who i suspect is Ethelred).
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (28)
Did you forget to answer my question FrankHubris, or are you hiding under your desk with Grizled?
I will not discuss anything with Otto, because he does not read my posts, or is profoundly ignorant and is unable to comprehend them. This is clear because my point and Kant's was AGAINST the notion of metaphysics as a means of acquiring knowledge,.. i.e. It is meaningless to seek what the underlying reality is apart from observation.
[he doesn't even know what "underlying reality" in the context of qm!]
Dec 20, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (4)
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
Talk was ALWAYS cheap. Good for impressing rubes of all persuasions however, which is important.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)
You should seek help. It really is a strong sign of serious mental illness when you have to assume everyone that disagrees with you is the same person.
Anyway, Otto has thoroughly destroyed any opinions that may claim philosophy is valuable to science. It's all BS so people who aren't smart enough to actually accomplish anything can claim they are great thinkers.
Look at Aristotle. The Greatest Philosopher single-handedly set back science 2000 years. Good job guys!
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (30)
By concocting an irrelevant straw-man argument, that philo is all bs, you are merely feigning participation in the above discussion. I suspect you are perpetually disinterested in anything, and just argue for the sake of arguing,... like typical no-nothing trolls.
You two bone-heads remind me of religious dolts, who despite a profound lack of knowledge of a subject, pronounce it useless in effecting their faith.
I take it FrankHubris is incapable of answering my question.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Philosophy is the probability factor. Philosophy is the narrowing of the possible into the probable.
There exist an infinite number of possible equations that depict reality.
Without philosophy humans are incapable of answering anything.
In fact, without philosophy there is no question to begin with.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (29)
Christ you are ignorant. Read slowly multi-times, (and then do not bother to respond),...
1) Given the fundamental incompatibility between the unitary evolution of a system, and the state reduction to a observable,... it "appears" that there is an aspect of reality which the quantum formulation has not been able to encapsulate ( i.e, an UNDERLYING REALITY). Thus the proposed incompleteness of qm and the hidden variable theories. This is the context in which I used that phrase given the above discussion.
Vendicar mentioned this above. If you were competent you would agree that there must be an 'underlying reality' relative to what qm is able to describe, ...that is, if you think qm is incomplete and e
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (29)
2) Science cannot know, in advance, that all of reality can be modeled on a one to one basis, consistently across all scales of experience. This is why science is not founded on deductive reasoning, but is instead, founded on inductive reasoning. Rene Descartes deductive scientific method is not correct, and therefore there is a faith that is required in guiding science.
In order to carry on a discussion with you, I have to provide the proper context, facts, history, definitions, and counter arguments. Please PM me you password, and I'll finish the discussion myself., otherwise please bugger - off.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Than how did atomism come about ?
By the debates between Leucippus, Democritus, Heraclitus and Parmenides, these debates also happened in other ancient societies as well.
That is the original standard model.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (29)
Your ignorance is rather astounding. So, Einstein didn't accomplish anything,... because he had a great respect for philosophy and the importance of an analysis of knowledge wrt physics, as is clear from the quote I provided above. What about all the other physicist I mentioned?
It's a truism, after-all that if one proposes to acquire knowledge about reality, that the definition and limits of knowledge be analyzed. Yet, you still can't penetrate into this?
Only a profound ignorance and naiveté, could give one such confidence to proclaim an entire intellectual pursuit useless, especially one that examines they very foundation of scientific reasoning and knowledge.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
Frankly, idle philos sitting in the wings and trying to take credit after the fact for what scientists discover through their training, experience, and hard work, is a little Revolting. Leeches are revolting.
Lets see you guys be honest and use your own educations to list here all the many philo schools throughout the ages which were absolute and utter FAILURES in light of subsequent scientific revelations, even though dozens of proponents wrote hundreds of works and taught thousands of students based on the absolute confidence that what they were selling was an undeniable and exacting description of How the World Works. Come on, cleanse yourselves.
I'll start: Platos forms. Skepticism. Rationalism. Idealism. Transcendental idealism. Ding an sich haha. Dasein HAHAA. The noumenon HAAAHAAAAA!
Okay your turn.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
"At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best, and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities."
"...no sooner has the epistemologist, who is seeking a clear system, fought his way through to such a system, than he is inclined to interpret the thought-content of science in the sense of his system and to reject whatever does not fit into his system. The scientist, however, cannot afford to carry his striving for epistemological systematic that far."
-I extracted these quotes from this pasta vat:
http://171.67.193...science/
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
"[learn] about the historicity of scientific concepts from Mach. But his preferred way of modeling the logical relationship between theory and evidence was inspired mainly by his reading of Pierre Duhem's La Théorie physique: son objet et sa structure (Duhem 1906)."
-Because einstein of course needed to hear Duhem say
"It follows that when there is a conflict between theory and evidence, the fit can be restored in a multiplicity of different ways...No statement is immune to revision because of a presumed status as a definition or thanks to some other a priori warrant."
-because those things would never have occurred to him on his own. What rubbish.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
"Einstein asks how one can assign a definite electrical charge everywhere within a material body, if the interior of the body is not accessible to test particles."
-And then after the quote, which is obviously only einstein describing the relationships of the physics in question and the inferences one can make from them, the author concludes
"One can hardly ask for a better summary of Duhem's point of view in application to a specific physical theory."
-The point is that it is the PHYSICS which shapes einsteins conclusions of the exact relationships he is describing in the quote. THE PHYSICS tells him what conclusions to draw, not some detached system of epistemology conceived by someone with no knowledge of the PHYSICS which einstein was describing. Someone who was dead and gone long before the exact nature of that corner of reality was ascertained by SCIENCE.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
"But while they all agreed that what Kant regarded as the a priori element in scientific cognition was better understood as a conventional moment in science, they were growing to disagree dramatically over the nature and place of conventions in science."
-What, you mean dissention within the ranks? Does this happen often in philoland?
"With the help of new logical tools and a more sophisticated verificationist semantics, Schlick and Reichenbach were refining Poincaré's idea of conventional definitional elements in science into the classic logical empiricist view that the moment of convention was restricted to conventional coordinating definitions that endow individual primitive terms and, by extension, the individual synthetic propositions constructed out of them with empirical content."
-Sure they were. And meanwhile scientists were fabricating real tools and semantic-less theories, and these philos were becoming even more irrelevant.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
"Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them; but it can not be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now"
He is NOT saying here that the physicists needs to ignore or reject philosophy, rather quit the opposite!!
What he is saying here (in context), is that the Physicist himself, needs to take up philosophical matters, since "the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic", and the physicists is more qualified in the technical theories themselves (where the shoe pinches).
He's saying the opposite to what you c
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
This is true. From a positivist stand point, physics can not stop progress if the intuitive concepts fail to provide a rational foundation. This is what occurred. QM continued progress without the expected intuitive expectations.
He is saying here, that science had to continue and leave behind that "god does not play dice".
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
"It was this argument over the nature and place of conventions in science that underlay Einstein's gradual philosophical estrangement from Schlick and Reichenbach in the 1920s."
"I do not feel comfortable and at home in any of the isms. It always seems to me as though such an ism were strong only so long as it nourishes itself on the weakness of it counter-ism; but if the latter is struck dead, and it is alone on an open field, then it also turns out to be unsteady on its feet. So, away with the squabbling."
The author asks
"What could Einstein mean by saying that he concedes that the natural sciences concern the "real," but that he is still not a realist and that the "real" in the statement, the physical world is real," is an "intrinsically empty, meaningless category"?"
-It is clear that at this stage in his life he has come to regard such philo questions as meaningless.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
"Is Einstein here also criticizing his own youthful philosophical indiscretions?"
-Undoubtedly.
But as einstein was sensitive to the realities of the social and political environments within which he operated, and because in later years he had become a media whore, he was of course being tactful and polite.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
In any case, it is clear that Einstein rejected Bohr's interpretation and would have rejected mine above had I presented it to him long ago.
He believed that it was possible to encapsulate all of reality in a way that is rationally intuitive. History has not born this out with qm, so far.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
But even when examining the quotes he uses to press his case it is clear that einstein was extricating himself from the whole 'lets talk ourselves into a solution here.'
"what troubled Einstein was that a verificationist semantics made the link between theory and experience too strong, leaving too small a role for theory, itself, and the creative theorizing that produces it."
Einstein may have strayed somewhat from this conviction that epistemology must necessarily derive from experience and NOT the other way around, in part because at the time there were no ways to test much of his work.
But so much has happened since then! Ask hawking about M theory. This has changed the nature of knowledge in ways no word epistemologist could ever have anticipated.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
What hasn't happened since then is that QM became an intuitive theory. So, wrt my original point, nothing has happened since then.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
Was not the first two quotes of yours from Einstein? I'm saying you interpreted them incorrectly. I'll repost again,...
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
He is NOT saying here that the physicists need to ignore or reject philosophy, ....rather quit the opposite!!
What he is saying here (in context), is that the Physicist himself, needs to take up philosophical matters, since "the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic", and the physicists is more qualified in the technical theories themselves (where the shoe pinches).
He's saying the opposite to what you claimed.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
"The place of philosophy in physics was a theme to which Einstein returned time and again, it being clearly an issue of deep importance to him."
I own the Pais bio, which says the same thing. Einstein read Kant when he was young, who at the time became one of Einstein's favorite works,.. however later Einstein would not accept Kant philosophy entirely.
Unfortunately, as imo, the non-intuitive nature of qm, is in effect a rediscovery of Kant's transcendental deduction and affirmation of synthetic a-priori propositions.
[I though that in there just to irritate you :)]
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
False. Interpretations of what theory tells one about reality is purely philosophical. Also, the notion that all of reality can be encapsulated within a intuitive conceptual paradigm is a philosophical idea.
As a positivist (like Hawking), one should not concern themselves with Reality as such, ..reality as it is in itself, apart from observation. This was simply my point above, as I stated multiple times. I just used Kant in light of qm, to derive that.
So, Einstein, who believed, that reality at the fundamental level can be subsumed within an intuitive framework, was wrong imo. That's it.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
C'mon Otto, you don't see philo as being somewhat important in heuristics ?
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
"In more precise terms, heuristics are strategies using readily accessible, though loosely applicable, information to control problem solving in human beings and machines."
"In psychology, heuristics are simple, efficient rules, hard-coded by evolutionary processes or learned..."
-In other words, evolutionary and culturally-derived cognitive mechanisms, accessible by scientific (and ONLY scientific) methods of experiment and analysis. How is some philo going to explore the function of brain modules by reinterpreting Kant? How absurd.
Evolutionary psychology based upon the structure of the brain has replaced even behavioral analysis and all the rest of traditional psychology BECAUSE the field was rife with obsolete philo notionry.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (7)
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
And they dont do so using words like epistemology and ontology and positivism. And they dont do so by referencing mach and/or schopenhauer and/or descartes; nor even Kuhn, but instead their colleagues and their peers. And they certainly dont do so looking for 'underlying reality' or transcendence.
They are doing so to refine their theories and to seek new directions for inquiry, the precise natures of which only THEY are qualified to discover, as einstein clearly said.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
have you read The Logic of Scientific Discovery ?
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Philosophy is not something you do, it is what you think.
Philosophy is a soft science, it is of pure conjecture.
The steps taken after philosophy, whether calculation or experimentation, prove or disprove the "thought (philosophical view)" in terms of qualifying rationally the collected values observed experimentally.
Philosophy always precedes proof it is an assumption. If you can't see it you don't know it. If you can see it experimentally or mathematically prove your philosophical view.
Humans are cerebral. The neurons fire and draw out an image. If you start thinking of the complexity of the system viewed, the image received, you are at that point philosophically assessing the event.
I agree with you in one point Otto. You have to experimentally or at least mathematically prove your philos
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Talk is cheap. But it gives a better mental picture than math. The nouns are variables. The verbs are the interactions between variables. Math is a languange best suited for quantiqualification. Physics.
You can draw a physical picture with words. But that's an image. Images don't have to follow any physical laws.
By applying physical laws to images you get a verification of relativity.
Philosophy proves nothing.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
You can't have one without the other. Love and marriage.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Marriage = experiment of "feeling" of love
The love is the beautiful part. The marriage proves whether the "feeling" of love was true or not.
You can't have science without philosophy.
Dec 22, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (30)
For some reason you seem to think of physicists and philosophers as two mutually exclusive camps. This is a false and senseless premise, of which you are simple factually wrong.
Eugene Wigner, a physicists, believed that consciousness is necessary to the quantum-mechanical measurement processes.
Instead of attempting the ridiculous task of tearing down a subject of which you know little about, why not make counter arguments to the point I have interjected above.
Dec 22, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 22, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 22, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Dec 22, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
Hawking says philosophy is dead. We may have strongly suspected this, but with his statement we can reconsider just why he said this. And when we look at the Stanford Einstein ref we see no real evidence that Einstein relied on classic philosophy in the least; rather that, having dabbled and found nothing useful, he abandoned it. As hawking and so many others have done.
Dec 22, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
http://www.youtub...a_player
-And dissed dan dennett the philo.
Meanwhile dan dennett disses other philos:
"[Others] note that my 'avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters' often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors.
Daniel Dennett, The Message is: There is no Medium
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Dec 22, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
'I am not a philosopher - I am dy-no-MITE!' -Nietzsche
You see I am charting transcendence. Immanence?
Dec 22, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
-So just what ARE we to make of this? Well, for one thing we can reject musings of the following sort:
andand-Because, according to a bonafide EXPERT they are constructed using 'worse than useless terms'. Stimmt?
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (30)
I added the "concerning decoherence" part. The "density matrix" is a mathematical object.
Or when I say "unitary hamiltonian evolution"? These are terms used in the theory itself. Shall I explain them?
Again, it doesn't matter that there are "some" physicists that think philosophy is useless,.. because as I have already shown via direct quotes, there are enough prominent ones that think it IS relevant, to prevent you from generalizing what scientists think of it.
I never said that philosophers are responsible for physical theories, so I'm not sure what the point of your posts are.
Philosopher/physicists who concern themselves with interpretations of physical theories, are relevant. This is simple a fact of history.
Please look up what a "positivist" is.
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
Philosophy of physics, logic, epistemology, and ontology,.. are all valid studies that relate directly to science,... because scientific method is inductive (not deductive), so involves notions that relate to subjective concepts, existence, and logic.
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
But it is not me who is doing the tearing is it?You should abandon all your philo-based points as the source of them has been thoroughly discredited. 'Worthless' - Krause et al.
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
Dennet has addressed them all when he said that the words you use to form your concepts are worse than useless. But just let me speak to your notion that it takes a 'mind' to observe by, I suppose, operating some instruments you can get at edmund scientific or whatever.
If this mind is flawed, or unqualified to observe, or misinterprets the evidence of its senses, then does this mean that the observation is not made or that the reality has somehow been changed?
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
"There are other possible solutions to the Wigner's friend thought experiment, however, which do not require consciousness to be different from other physical processes."
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
-'Exalting' the problem. Of COURSE he does.
"...by ignoring this possibility that minds are indeed special and immaterial components of the universe."
-Which, obviously, they are not. They are obviously only a different form of WIDGET.
-But then wigner gets some truly awesome support:
"Deepak Chopra, a supporter of some of the ideas of consciousness causes collapse, appeals to the work of an accomplished mathematical physicist Roger Penrose..."
-And so we see what has led nou to read penroses book... 3 times and counting.
"Deepak Chopra is an Indian medical doctor, public speaker, and writer on subjects such as spirituality, Ayurveda and mind-body medicine. Chopra began his career as an endocrinologist and later shifted his focus to alternative medicine. Chopra now runs his own medical center, with a focus on mind-body connections."
-I wonder if we should consult pat robertson as well?
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
-This of course has no bearing on attempts to explain the nature of the physical world.
"He argues against the viewpoint that the rational processes of the mind are completely algorithmic and can thus be duplicated by a sufficiently complex computer."
He's wrong - they can and they will and they will certainly not stop at that point.
"This contrasts with supporters of strong artificial intelligence, who contend that thought can be simulated algorithmically. He bases this on claims that consciousness transcends formal logic"
-No, he bases that on the powerful subconscious Wunschtraum that there is some essence of Roger Penrose which can escape death. Unfortunately there is not. The brain is a widget which wears out. Consciousness is an illusion of corporeality.
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
-Transcends? The 'mind' (the brain) is prone to delusion, error, fatigue, emotion, decrepitude, genetic defect, etc. Its 'consciousness' is rarely logical. Its 'consciousness' is only a combination of survival instinct with the imperative to reproduce. The 'mind' is only an elaboration of basic animal functionality. It is the desire to escape the confines of death.
It is selfish, paltry, and FLAWED. Why do philos think that the univers should need to rely on IT for form and substance??
Humans have learned through science that the laws which govern the universe are dependable, immutable, and understandable. This is a source of comfort and peace. Why would anybody think that these qualities would be dependent on human frailty?
Because they most certainly are NOT. Only (older) self-centered philo bipolar egomaniacs would ever want to believe this.
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (28)
LOL, you've seemed to come to erroneous conclusions quickly, I've never read anything even remotely penned by Deepak Chopra,.. as I think his is an idiot. The only books i've read by Penrose on consciousness was 1989 and 1994.
The book I was referring to was Penrose (2004),.. purely physics.
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (28)
Please tell me sir, what "established physics" contradicts my world view?
Did you read my posts above, where I said that I am a positivist, and that Kant IMO supports this world view. This means (positivist) that I think all that matters in physics is making predictions,.. not understanding between observations.
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
When did this occur? I don't see where you quoted the physicist/philosopher Mach, and then I attacked you? Where, when did this happen?
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
Is there or is there not compatibility between the unitary evolution and the state reduction of the "wavefuction?
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
What does the present discussion have to do with conservatism?
Where did I attack you? What was you point wrt Mach? Don't want to answer those questions?
Dec 24, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (30)
From wiki, "[Positivists believe]; Introspective and intuitional attempts to gain knowledge are rejected."
This is my entire point above; IMO, we cannot obtain a consistently intuitive comprehension of reality at all levels of reality, because at some point, conceptually we are in our own way.
My mention of Kant was simply to point out that this lesson of qm, is in essence a rediscovery of Kant analysis of knowledge from 1790.
@ kochevnik, I don't see above where you referenced Mach, was that a different thread?
Dec 25, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
You also think that qm only happens because consciousness is here to observe it? Does this mean that it didnt happen before we started looking? Huh? Or that only scientists who believe in it can actually see it working?
Dec 25, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
EXACTLY, that's my point!!!!!!!! We shouldn't expect physics at his level to supply an intutively rational understanding. Please see my 2nd post in this thread in response to Vendicar saying "That is what QM tells us. I don't believe a word of it.".
Dec 25, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
LOL, Kant spent ten years developing his philosophy, ...a rational analysis of knowledge. Cleary it is You who are guessing as you have never read his "A critique of Pure reason".
As I said above, his purpose was to show that metaphysics CAN NOT be a source of knowledge. You should agree with this to be consistent with yourself.
In light of QM, this means, 1) it is meaningless to speculate on the nature of reality, as it is in itself, in between observations. 2) we should not expect reality to be consistently formulated using intuitive models.
Dec 25, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
NO. Reality as it is in itself, has always existed, irrespective of a consciousness mind being around to observe it.
It is the conceptualization of Reality which requires a consciousness mind,...
....and this effects what can be known intuitively, since the mind supplies the conceptual structure, the apparatus used in experiments, and the interpretation and conceptualization of the results. i.e. , the wave-function evolution and state-reduction (observation) are not compatible.
Physics on the qm level developed successively, precisely because it left behind the expectation of an intuitive understanding.
Dec 25, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
No, I should just like to defer to schopenhauer when he asserts that kant was somewhat, more or less, here and there, full of shit:
http://en.wikiped...ilosophy
-Of course schopenhauer was himself full of shit but it takes one to know one eh? We know this because schopenhauer claimed to understand what kant was talking about which we ALSO know is dialectically and aesthetically impossible.
'This stuff is pure crap' -dawkins
Dec 25, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
Heisenberg speaks of Kant as wrong in relation to the a-priori knowledge of geometry, because it is a discoverable entity given GR as non-Euclidean. I disagree because only the elements of geometry are relevant here.
From your own link;
"[Schopenhauer] wanted to show Kant's errors so that Kant's merits would be appreciated and his achievements furthered.
According to Schopenhauer's essay, Kant's three main merits are as follows:
1) The distinction of the phenomenon from the thing-in-itself. ,...etc...
Schopenhauer also said that Kant's discussion, [...], of the contrast between empirical and intelligible characters is one of Kant's most profound ideas. Schopenhauer asserted that it is among the most admirable things ever said by a human."
Dec 25, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
But I will say that the artifice of its existance can be a source of valuable sociopolitical knowledge. Just like heaven. You see we can assert their existance with sufficient authority and then observe how the idea can modify human behavior.
This often leads to useful paradigms and can serve as a basis for effective social Institutions. Like boko haram.
http://www.reuter...20111226
-This is (was) the real Power inherent in your philosmurfsprache. Kant gave gens of germanics who could not understand a word of what he was talking about (who could?), the idea that they had the right to rule the world. Because Leaders could hold up his books just like they held the bible, and declare that that is what they said.
This is flimflam.
Dec 25, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
"Positivism is a view of scientific methods and a philosophical approach, theory, or system based on the view that, in the social as well as natural sciences, sensory experiences and their logical and mathematical treatment are together the exclusive source of all worthwhile information. Introspective and intuitional attempts to gain knowledge are rejected. - Wiki"
Never mind the philosophy for a minute,... do you aknowledge "The Measurement Problem" in qm?
http://en.wikiped..._problem
As I stated above in correction to the article, quantum decoherence does not solve this problem, it does not resolve the incompatibility between Schrodinger evolution and the state reduction. Therefore quantum decoherence is fundamentally not equivelent to an observation.
http://en.wikiped...oherence
Dec 25, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
But like i SAID, all I have to do is reference very learned people who dismiss kant and the rest of your little hobby. Which is EASY - every time I do more research (with your gracious prompting) right away I uncover experts who dismiss it and contradictions which discredit it. EVERY TIME.
Hey keep up the good work. What would depaak shakur have to say about this? Gods will?Yes but which is which? Different philos eager to elevate their status by criticizing the guru would cite entirely different things, depending upon whichever -ism stew they were cooking up.
No I dont wish to look any more up thank you.
Dec 25, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
It doesn't make any sense to say "metaphysics doesn't exist", because it's not a proposed entity, ....it's a subject matter.
Please examine the definition,....
http://en.wikiped...aphysics
Dec 25, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
Based on what? A bad experience you had in philosophy class in college,.. surely not based on an effort?
Again, you're not making rational sense; how i'm I to "show you" that I understand him, when you have never read anything written by him, and admit you don't.
I assure you I understand him, and he is understandable. His "Critique of Pure Reason" is notoriously difficult though. I would recommend Coppleston VI, or Kant's own "Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics", which he wrote to be more accessible.
Dec 25, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
"It is not easy to say what metaphysics is."
-No wait - try these:
1.The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, cause,...
2.Abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality.
-#2 is my favorite. But really, as there are in REALITY no 'first principles' of things, as any credible and lucid and honest scientist will tell you, then discussing things like 'being', 'knowing', 'cause/Uhrsache', etc is a waste of time.This is your subjective Wunschtraumen opinion. To many many very learned and accomplished experts kant makes little to no sense, which they will readily tell you. The list grows daily. I am on their side.
Try to define any one of kants nonsense terms without using additional kantian nonsense terms. This is the appropriate test.Ahaaahaaahaahahaha start with this one.
Dec 25, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
"I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith." Critique of Pure Reason, Bxxx.
-Is this your favorite quote?
Dec 25, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
He had to deny knowledge to metaphysics in order to protect faith from disproof. Yes, this was his program, in 1790, or perhaps he worded it that way so as to not appear heretical. If you understood what I have said over and over again,... you would have realized that you agree with him ultimately,.. I.e. metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge.
I have my own interpretation and use of Kant.
Are you going to answer my purely physics question?
Dec 25, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
Metaphysics: "2.Abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality."
Dec 26, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 26, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Dec 27, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Dec 27, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Dec 28, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (29)
TheGhostofOtto1923
Grizled
FrankHerbert
kochevnik
Dec 28, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (30)
Which would include "Copenhagen interpretation" , "Environmental Decoherence", and "Many-Worlds Interpretation", among others, in one way or another.
Dec 28, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (30)
"This dependence upon a classical apparatus is only a stopgap, however, since any actual piece of apparatus is still made of quantum constituents, and would not actually behave classically [...] if it adhered to the standard quantum [Schrödinger] evolution." - Penrose (2004)
I would go further, as I have above, and say that scientific instruments are designed and results interpreted by conscious observers, with a-priori conceptual paradigms implicit.
Dec 28, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (30)
That is to say, environmental decoherence only gives the appearance of 'wave function collapse', ...this "appearance" by definition, is with respect to a subjective conscious observer.
Dec 28, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (29)
The salient point of my posts above is that, it is too much of a restriction with respect to scientific progress, to burden it with the requirement of intuitive comprehensibility.
Dec 28, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Did waveforms collapse before the nature of waveform collapse was understood, or before instrumentation was devised which could properly disseminate it to a consciousness able to appreciate it? (Of course they did)
If a waveform collapses in the woods when theres no sufficiently enlightened consciousness around to entmerk it, does it make a sound? Presuming it was hooked up to instrumentation configured to MAKE a sound if said waveform collapsed? Could a bird make collapse? Would this sound be similar to that of one hand clapping? Like this perhaps?
http://www.youtub...XpLOYfog
-No it is YOU sir who are being ridiculous.
Dec 28, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Dec 28, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (30)
You don't seem to understand the incompatibility between wavefunction evolution and state-reduction, i.e. the measurement problem.
There is no "wave-function collapse", in reality operating apart from humans. That is to say, apart from the qm mathematical formulation, ..because it is just a theoretical model, and so is NOT the reality itself.
Reality itself, apart from any mathematical model of it,.. does whatever it does quite independently of any conscious observer.
Only when a model is constructed do we run into the measurement problem,.. that is, only when a conceptualization of reality is attempted. I already explained this above.
Dec 28, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (29)
No, YOU "determined" that by listing books I never referred to, nor have read. You latched onto the fact that Penrose contributed to a book written by several authors about consciousness, including Deepak Chopra, in order to characterize what I said as within the same vain as Deepak Chopra type mysticism non-sense. A complete and utter dishonest association.
I included the date (Penrose 2004) in reference to the book I quoted above. This book is pure physics, and never references anything "mystical/spiritual" as you continue to falsely claim.
Further in the above quotes, Penrose, who is one of the most preeminent physicist alive today, is speaking of the state of qm as it is today. He is just stating facts.
Dec 28, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (29)
Dec 28, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
"quantum decoherence is the loss of coherence or ordering of the phase angles between the components of a system in a quantum superposition. A consequence of this dephasing leads to classical or probabilistically additive behavior. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse (the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer) and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation: decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges out of a blah"
-In other words, a particle with various unknown states is hit by something. This something can transmit the info on only one of its states while unavoidably altering them and making their original state unknowable. This is the loss of info.
Dec 28, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Franks an ass behind any nick. You hear that frank? Stop being an ass! Glad I could help.
But piro threatens to turn physorg into a smarmy chatroom. This cannot stand.
Dec 28, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (31)
No, as Penrose stated , it is not objectively a loss of info,.. and as Wiki stated, it only gives the appearance of wave function collapse. If you read further in the wiki page, as I've already quoted above, it specifically says that environmental decoherence does not cause wave function collapse, therefore such interactions are fundamentally different than observations or measurements wrt the "measurement problem".
The above PhysOrg article is just factually incorrect, and has lead a few posters above to think, interactions generally = observation. Wrong.
Dec 28, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (30)
Dec 30, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
If you can't see that you really don't understand much. Then again you don't understand much.
If you EVER call me Otto again I will give ones forever or till you leave. You get ones for every single post on this thread for that. And that is one more bit evidence that YOU might be the vile sockpuppet user. Otto and I are getting the brunt of that POS.
Your posts on this thread are generally crap anyway but I would have just ignored them without those two crappy lies.
Oh yes I am posting while angry for the first time ever on this site. You deserve it.
Ethelred
Dec 30, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (29)
Dec 30, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (3)
You were arguing by definition instead of evidence. Observation does not require intelligence when we are talking about QM. Few physicists still subscribe to that idiotic, yes they were technically geniuses, Copenhagen Model.
For the Universe to be effected only by an intelligent observer would require the Universe itself to be intelligent enough to know there was an intelligence involved. Anyone that makes that sort of assumption has CHOSEN to be an idiot. On this Bohr and Heisenberg went out of their way to choose to stop using their brains. Perhaps they did not notice this problem but it is quite clear.
Ethelred
Dec 30, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (28)
In fact I address that very point made by Otto above. I never have said that the universe requires a conscious observer to function. That is patently absurd notion, never put forward by anyone I've ever heard, except people who misapprehend.
Dec 30, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (28)
Other prominent physicists have written on philosophy. There is an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to physics, one dedicated to mathematics.
I'm not going to debate this particular point here, because it is too ridiculous.
You have a choice of over 60 posts from me above to choose from if you can find anything of which you have a actual substantive counter argument.
Jan 20, 2012
Rank: 3.6 / 5 (38)
Feb 05, 2012
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
You are adamant in defense of concept arising from such a harmless sounding word as:'independent'
An 'absolute' by any means of measure.
What are we... not a part of?