Paper stirs up controversy over the nature of the quantum wave function

May 09, 2012 by Bob Yirka weblog
The researchers' definition of a physical property is illustrated here. Image (c) Nature Physics (2012) doi:10.1038/nphys2309

(Phys.org) -- Back in November, a paper posted to a preprint server arXiv by three British physicists prompted some heated debate regarding the nature of the quantum wave function, a probability function that physicists use to help them better understand the quantum world. At the time, the three refrained from joining in on subsequent discussions on the paper due to pending acceptance of the paper in the journal Nature Physics. Now that the paper has been accepted and printed, the three, Matthew Pusey, Jonathan Barrett and Terry Rudolph are openly defending their assertion that the wave function is real, not some function that is dependent on available information for the user when using it.

At the heart of the issue are the contrasting ideas on the very nature of quantum mechanics itself.

In their paper, the British physicists contend that the wave function is not just a tool that can be used for statistical purposes, but can measure actual real things. Others have suggested that it cannot be a real tool because of inconsistencies in observable quantum mechanics, such as .

Because of such inconsistencies, physicists such as Einstein contended that our knowledge or model of quantum mechanics is incomplete, not wrong. It’s possible the thinking goes, as an example, that because two distant entangled particles react in identically the same way at the same time, seemingly sharing information faster than the speed of light, that there is some new element of quantum mechanics at work that would allow for such a real world phenomenon to exist, rather than an example of the failure of theory itself.

Another example is the differing views regarding Schrödinger’s cat. Some might say the wave function could be used to prove whether the unseen and thus un-measurable cat is truly dead or alive, whereas others, such as Einstein would say that because the inquisitor has only partial knowledge, no true answer can be given.

The problem with proving which view is true is the theory that most agree on and that is that quantum states can be changed simply by measuring them, which means, that as things stand now, have no way of proving what state existed prior to measurement. But that doesn’t mean the wave function can’t be used to measure a quantum state, Pusey et al say, because the true state did exist before measurement occurred. At that moment it was real, they say, as is the wave function and they believe they have proved it.

Explore further: Tiny magnetic sensor deemed attractive

More information: On the reality of the quantum state, Nature Physics (2012) doi:10.1038/nphys2309

Quantum states are the key mathematical objects in quantum theory. It is therefore surprising that physicists have been unable to agree on what a quantum state truly represents. One possibility is that a pure quantum state corresponds directly to reality. However, there is a long history of suggestions that a quantum state (even a pure state) represents only knowledge or information about some aspect of reality. Here we show that any model in which a quantum state represents mere information about an underlying physical state of the system, and in which systems that are prepared independently have independent physical states, must make predictions that contradict those of quantum theory.

via Nature News

Related Stories

Does the quantum wave function represent reality?

Apr 25, 2012

(Phys.org) -- At the heart of quantum mechanics lies the wave function, a probability function used by physicists to understand the nanoscale world. Using the wave function, physicists can calculate a system's ...

Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past

Apr 23, 2012

Physicists of the group of Prof. Anton Zeilinger at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI), the University of Vienna, and the Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology (VCQ) ...

A new 'lens' for looking at quantum behavior

Dec 14, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- In a paper published in Physical Review Letters, researchers Daniel Terno (Macquarie University, Australia) and Radu Ionicioiu (Institute of Quantum Computing, Canada) provide a new perspe ...

Recommended for you

Particles, waves and ants

3 hours ago

Animals looking for food or light waves moving through turbid media – astonishing similarities have now been found between completely different phenomena.

User comments : 131

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tausch
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2012
Here we show that any model in which a quantum state represents mere information about an underlying physical state of the system, and in which systems that are prepared independently have independent physical states, must make predictions that contradict those of quantum theory. - research authors


My imagination falls short to see the consequences of considering the "One possibility is that a pure quantum state corresponds directly to reality."
Perhaps others see consequences arising from considering this one possibility.
(Besides labeling other approaches to 'reality' superceded or obsolete)
Awaiting other readers comments.
Origin
2.3 / 5 (3) May 09, 2012
We have measured the quantum function already - so I presume, what is measurable, it does exist physically. Or we should doubt the existence of photons, electrons, even the atoms and many other artefacts, which were never observed directly with naked eye, only "measured".
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (8) May 09, 2012
We can misinterpret measurements, we do it all the time. Ghost hunters measure properties of ghosts, psychics measure the success rate of their predictions, etc etc...

We measured SOMETHING, and we THINK it is ... and we THINK it is caused by ...

Scientists should never be dogmatic.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2012
From article:
Its possible the thinking goes, as an example, that because two distant entangled particles react in identically the same way at the same time, seemingly sharing information faster than the speed of light, that there is some new element of quantum mechanics at work that would allow for such a real world phenomenon to exist, rather than an example of the failure of quantum mechanics theory itself.
This statement should keep string theorists busy for a while trying to figure out how to change their theory to match prediction.
Pressure2
1.1 / 5 (9) May 09, 2012
From article:
Its possible the thinking goes, as an example, that because two distant entangled particles react in identically the same way at the same time, seemingly sharing information faster than the speed of light, that there is some new element of quantum mechanics at work that would allow for such a real world phenomenon to exist, rather than an example of the failure of quantum mechanics theory itself.
This statement should keep string theorists busy for a while trying to figure out how to change their theory to match prediction.

It has never been proven that two distant "entangled particles" are in fact entangled or have any effect on each other, other than gravitationally or electromagnetically.
Pyle
3.6 / 5 (7) May 09, 2012
I have always likened entanglement to using the same random number seed in a program. If I run the same piece of code on different machines using the random function I will get different numbers until I set the seeds equal. Entanglement, to me, is exactly that. This is in essence a hidden variable and breaks Bell's Inequality. Lots of really smart people say my idea doesn't work and I tend to side with the really smart people, not the armchair physicist.

Is it possible that this idea of the wave function being real provides a means to get around this problem? On one side, measuring a quantum particle "collapses" the wave function and the quantum state "becomes real". But if the wave function is always real then the to be measured state was always there, waiting to be discovered. Seems like semantics and not a way around the hidden variables problem.
Origin
2.5 / 5 (4) May 09, 2012
We measured SOMETHING, and we THINK it is ... and we THINK it is caused by ...Scientists should never be dogmatic.
Nobody is dogmatic here. Until we have no better argument, we should consider, the measured artefact corresponds the observed reality. Or should be doubt the existence for example the electron just because the related measurements COULD be interpreted differently in the future? Until we have no good reason, the experiment always goes first in physics.
Turritopsis
1.6 / 5 (8) May 09, 2012
Consciousness can be represented by neural frequency (vibrational energy of neurons interacting with other neurons causing like vibration). The vibration of a neuron cascades to other neurons affecting their vibration. So, 1 neuron influences another by wave energy generated by vibration.

Here is the kick. The cerebral neural vibrational energy influences the objects in the measurers surroundings. So the thought of the observer (measurer) affects and changes the object being measured. When you expect to see an electron representing itself in a certain way you are translating that vibrational energy to the electron and it acts in accordance. The conscious thought of the observer has an influence on matter. Matter is shaped by consciousness.
citizen2000
2.3 / 5 (3) May 09, 2012
testing
citizen2000
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2012
what if question is not observing Schrödingers cat directly, as if in a completely removed state, uncorrelated with anything else. what if observation occurs indirectly, via entanglement with the maker of the box or person who set up the experiment, or a connection with ones housecat, patterning which may provide (sensory) 'tells', and is a more real-world experience. then, perhaps, observation of the cat might occur through correlation with the construction or constructor of the experiment, outside the boxed-in boundary of 'the experiment'. in other words, what if the path to the cat's condition is through the box or the person who set up the lab experiment, querying their correlation/entanglement, as this could feasibly provide more information existing beyond the boundary proper. and if not that, why not use a thermal camera?
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (13) May 09, 2012
Of course the wavefunction is not a "thing", it is a model or mathematical conceptualization of the underlying reality. The very act of conceptualizing reality, changes Reality , to a form which is dependent upon mind.

Everything is fine until a measurement is performed because this is the seam between Reality as it is in it self, and the interface to mind. The act of acquiring knowledge of reality demands that Reality conform to its presupposed conceptual framework.

There IS an objective Reality apart from mind, yes, ... it's just that it is unknowable in its original form (if it is even meaningful to ascribe a form to it, as it exists apart from being conceptualized).

citizen2000
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2012
i would like to further add: if conceptualizing the wavefunction as a "circuit", even if of information (somehow tied to matter/energy) that it too would need to be grounded if connecting two or more realms together [point-line-plane]. consciousness as circuit, subconscious, etc. then, via physical if mental interaction with variables involved in the Schrödingers cat experiment, if a wavefunction were somehow connected to the cat, at some previous time, and correlated in this way, it may be possible to query that circuit and indirectly evaluate its status, than to determine its fate by opening the box. the claim then would be that the quantum correlation or circuit potentially exists beyond the box by default, in real-world conditions of things interacting with things in the environment, and thus the observation itself is entangled in the world by default of its construction. as is the cat, its previous life, all those interactions, potentially circuits involved in how it is grounded.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (7) May 09, 2012
,... that entanglement is irrational to us, is equivalent to saying that the artificial form (of space and time) that we wish to conform reality to, fails to provide consistentcy and intuitional sense wrt observations. Reality does not "fit" within this conceptual framework, ,.. It is free of such intuitive relations, unlike the mind.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (5) May 09, 2012
Interesting. This position would support Many Worlds or de Broglie-Bohm interpretation at the expense of Copenhagen interpretation. And I tend to agree with them.
citizen2000
2.3 / 5 (3) May 09, 2012
in other words: could the presumed conditions of the original experiment involve that 'the truth' of the existence of the cat is independent of all other reality? or is that impossible- and that the cat is heavily entangled with the world as a condition of being part of it, in whatever ways and dimensionality, and that some of these likely exist outside of the limits of the box - the truth of the cat connected with other structuring (truth of the box, experiment maker, the weather) as these are grounded in interconnected circuitry. in other words: the box does not and cannot contain the entangled/wavefunction of truth of its being, in its entirety, and perhaps like a map, this connectivity back to it from various angles/facets, could provide more information prior to triggering its fate by touching the box. thus, perhaps 'weighing' its status via probability of these other connected factors, their truth as it may ground in shared circuitry with the cat. this could even be assumed, no?
Turritopsis
2.8 / 5 (4) May 09, 2012
The many worlds interpretation is reconciliation of possible states (results of wave-function). It is just a way of balancing the fractalization of reality by stating that the untrue states of our universe still exist (are true) in the grander scheme. So the unfulfilled possibilities are fulfilled in another time and place, like a branching of reality.

The many worlds interpretation is the inability to accept that reality chooses a certain path over another by stating that both paths actually exist, we just diverge in a singular direction. IMO the many worlds interpretation is a construct of the mind to balance mathematical equations and not the actual state of reality. When 1/2 states becomes true the other state (2/2) becomes false. The many worlds interpretation says there is no collapse into a true state, that both 1 and 2 of 2 are true in different dimensions. In matrix form:

1 2
T F - world 1
F T - world 2
Raygunner
3.7 / 5 (3) May 09, 2012
Not knowing anything in depth about this (just a fascinated tech lurker) it seems that the quantum states may already be in the detected state to begin with. Have we ever actually detected a state change when a particle is measured, analyzed, or looked at? Also, could entanglement simply be the fact that a clone (or cut and paste) of the original particle is just that - an exact copy and therefore an extension (characteristics and all) of the original cloned particle with these common elements wired through the quantum foam underlayment? Again, just a layman trying to connect the dots as I can understand them.
yyz
5 / 5 (7) May 09, 2012
A (free) preprint of the paper submitted to Nature can be found here: http://arxiv.org/...28v2.pdf
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (10) May 09, 2012
The question whether the wave function is real or not is a bit more tricky: We never measure the wave function directly (which is a complex function) but only ever the square of the function (the square of a complex function being a real function. In this case denoting probabilities/probability densities)

That it doesn't satisfy our ego, or isn't plausible or whatever shouldn't be an argument for or against it. What we find plausible are only things that we have macroscopic analogies/experiences for. But analogies only work if they are more fundamental than the thing they are an analogy for.

Quantum ohysisc is more fundamental than any of our everyday experiences, so OF COURSE it will not conform to our analogies and OF COURSE we will not find it 'plausible'.

But observation/experiments trumps what seems plausible. So whether you feel good or bad about it doesn't make any difference. Quantum physics works. Use it.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) May 09, 2012
The cerebral neural vibrational energy influences the objects in the measurers surroundings.

Huh? Pick up a book on neurology. Preferrably a children's book. It will make it clear to you that you are wrong about the brain in every respect. Every one.

Matter is shaped by consciousness.
Sooooo. No matter was around before consciousness came into being (oh, about a few billion years after the universe started)...and that consciousness wasn't formed out of matter because matter wasn't formed for lack of consciousness.

Can I have the number of your drug dealer? Must be some good stuff he's selling. Do you ever check your thoughts for consistency (much less reality) before writing them down?
Terriva
1.8 / 5 (10) May 09, 2012
We never measure the wave function directly

Never ever say never: Nature.com: Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction. BTW If you would read my posts here, you would already know about it.

Your trolling brings the words of Lord Kelvin on my mind: "Heavier-than-air flying machines are fantasy. Simple laws of physics make them impossible."
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) May 09, 2012
The energy the observer senses from the object being observed stimulates brain matter. The energy of your computer screen is causing your neurons to change the way they act, this is your awareness of the screen. You can turn the monitor off and see the image internally independent of the screen. Your neurons mimic the energy they receive, this is memory. So the screen causes mechanical motion of your neurons, perception. But the neurons have the ability to reproduce this motion in the absence of the screen, this is memory.

So the screen affects your neural frequency. Quantum mechanical experiments show the inverse to also be true. The energy that your neurons emit influence the object you are measuring.
Pyle
2.3 / 5 (3) May 09, 2012
The question whether the wave function is real or not is a bit more tricky
Not tricky at all if you look at it from a math perspective. Complex means it has an imaginary component. That would be not real. What exactly do the authors of the paper mean again?

But analogies only work if they are more fundamental than the thing they are an analogy for.
Nonsense AP. All that is required of an analogy is that it be analogous, not "more fundamental". That said, trying to understand QM from our macro perspective is difficult. You got it right.
Quantum physics works. Use it.
Silentsam
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2012
From article:
Its possible the thinking goes, as an example, that because two distant entangled particles react in identically the same way at the same time, seemingly sharing information faster than the speed of light, that there is some new element of quantum mechanics at work that would allow for such a real world phenomenon to exist, rather than an example of the failure of quantum mechanics theory itself.
This statement should keep string theorists busy for a while trying to figure out how to change their theory to match prediction.

It has never been proven that two distant "entangled particles" are in fact entangled or have any effect on each other, other than gravitationally or electromagnetically.


Actually they have been able to cause a vibration in one entangled object and have the other respond when at a distance.
Terriva
2.8 / 5 (9) May 09, 2012
Complex means it has an imaginary component. That would be not real.
Imaginary in mathematical sense has not nothing to do with imaginary in physical sense. For example, the particles of water at the surface waves are doing circular motion, so that this motion has an imaginary component from strictly geometrical perspective. But is such imaginary component imaginary from physical point of view? Of course not: if you put a floater at the water surface, you can follow this "imaginary" motion clearly along whole its path.

Albert Einstein: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to the reality". The contemporary physicists often tend to consider their abstract theories as a facts and vice-versa.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) May 09, 2012
Complex means it has an imaginary component. That would be not real.

Complex and imaginary as in mathematical sense. This does not mean that the part of a formula containing imaginary numbers is never observable. E.g. many formulas in electronics are given using complex numbers where both the imaginary and the real component map onto physically real quantities.
Trigonometric functions can be written using imaginary exponents (which can describe wave motions that are very real)

Using the imaginary component( or components - there are also 'hyper'complex functions with imaginary componets i,j, and k for example...or even more) is just a neat way writing multidimensional functions without resorting to matrix mechanics. You can rewrite any (hyper)complex formula using NxN matrices (N being the number of distinct complex components plus one) and vice versa.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 09, 2012
But analogies only work if they are more fundamental than the thing they are an analogy for.
You're completely right about it (with compare to the above slip with "direct wave function measurement"). The other parables, which "don't work" are called homologies. What you just said is actually the definition of the difference between homologies and analogies. I know about it very well, because I'm using the analogies in my explanations of dense aether model often - so I must be sure, I'm not using homologies, the similarity of whose with subject is only accidental. The usage of homologies is typical for various crackpots.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (4) May 09, 2012
All that is required of an analogy is that it be analogous, not "more fundamental".

We use analogies to make predictions about how the thing we are making analogies for works.

If we use less fundamental analogies (waves, particles, or field lines in electrodynamics) then we always end up confusing ourselves with unworkable extrapolations. Waves don't work in QM. Particles don't work QM. Field lines don't work as an analogy in electrodynamics (beyond the most trivial of examples).

The things that work are square roots of probability densities in QM (and field equations/potential fields in ED). That we have NO everyday analogy to these concepts should not surprise us because our everday conceptions are built on QM (and ED, and Relativity, and...).
Going back from macroscopic to microscopic by using macrsocopic anaolgies is self defeating.

If the math works use it. Who cares whether we can conceptualize it?
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 09, 2012
The question isn't, whether the quantum wave function (QWF) is real, because it's abstract object, invented with humans and as such it cannot be real by its very definition. Instead of it, the question is, whether the motion, corresponding the QWF may exist physically behind various quantum phenomena. In dense aether model the motion corresponding the QWF is very relevant for low-dimensional particles, like the photons and/or deBroglie wave formed around particles in motion. We must accept the principle of relativity, though: for observer in parallel motion with flying electron the deBroglie wave around electron will effectively disappear, because such an electron is at rest with respect to the observer. This paradox is not so strange, if we realize, that the water surface, which is nearly undetectable for slowly moving observer becomes a concrete wall, if you'll hit it in high speed. Another example, where the principle of relativity applies is so-called the collapse of wave function.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 09, 2012
If the math works use it. Who cares whether we can conceptualize it?
That's the right question. The answer is, such an conceptualization may lead into new testable predictions directly (like the superluminal speed of gravitational waves in dense aether model). And it can even helps us in development of another mathematical models, i.e. indirectly. I even believe, every formal model has some conceptualization behind in - no matter how trivial it can be. We cannot solve even the most trivial homework from physics, if we don't understand the subject at all at its conceptual level. Without such a conceptual understanding we're condemned for blind combination of equations. Surprisingly, mainstream physicists often believe, they can advance in understanding of the Universe without conceptual understanding. This is very naive stance: if we cannot solve even the most trivial homework without it, how can we expect, we could ever succeed with it at the case of complex theories?
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 09, 2012
The good question in this connection is, whether the underwater vortex ring is real? Inside of incompressible fluids there isn't even any density gradient behind it. We can still visualize it with dye or air bubbles, but without such tools it's just rolling mass of water, which still propagates through underwater like rigid body. If we cannot observe the vortex ring inside of water easily, how difficult it may be to observe the hidden motion of vacuum around particle? You cannot observe it at distance, until you get direct contact with it, which will destroy it at the same moment.
A tomographic or stroboscopic technique may usually help with this task: instead of observation of single ring we can analyze the momentum transferred during collision with many rings at different phase of their motion - from these consecutive observations we could reconstruct the complete motion of the ring. This is the principle, in which the observation of wave function is made in quantum physics.
Pyle
5 / 5 (2) May 09, 2012
We use analogies to make predictions about how the thing we are making analogies for works.
I'd argue instead that we use analogies to communicate and to understand. Making predictions by extrapolating from our analogies is a very dangerous business. We mustn't take our analogies too far. When using an analogy it is very important to understand the strength of the analogy and to set the limits of what is relevant.

But we argue semantics when we agree on the relevant point.

I see neither you nor Zephir appreciated my weak pun on real/imaginary. Humorless, the lot of you!
Pyle
5 / 5 (5) May 09, 2012
The question isn't, whether the quantum wave function (QWF) is real, because it's abstract object, invented with humans and as such it cannot be real by its very definition.
Wrong. That is exactly what this article is about. And your "very definition" is nonsense.
This paradox is not so strange
You "paradox" isn't. It is an absurdity. Try again perchance?
...flying electron...
More nonsense.
Surprisingly, mainstream physicists often believe, they can advance in understanding of the Universe without conceptual understanding.
No Heisenberg explicitly showed that our attempts at a conceptual understanding is what was holding us back from advancing in Quantum Theory. We must abandon our conceptualizations in favor of what we observe to be true. The analogies to our everyday world can't be extrapolated into the quantum world. (Look at me. I pulled it full circle between comments.)
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 09, 2012
Wrong. That is exactly what this article is about.
Mathematical objects aren't real. You even cannot find a single triangle in the nature. Which function is real by you, after all? If you'll try to answer this question and give me some example, you can recognize, that the quantum wave function cannot be any exception.
Heisenberg explicitly showed that our attempts at a conceptual understanding is what was holding us back from advancing in Quantum Theory
I don't understand. How Mr. Heisenberg "explicitly" showed it?
We must abandon our conceptualizations..
LOL, the only thing which we really have to do is to die... :-) Everything else is a viable option. Stop with religious preaching and try to argument logically and objectively.
Terriva
1.6 / 5 (7) May 09, 2012
We must abandon our conceptualizations..
The mainstream physicists are aware of conceptual problems of their theories and their adherence to dogmatic stances is the only "argument" which they really have.

In similar way, the ancient theologians claimed, we should abandon any attempt for explanation of "God's will". Of course, both "recommendations" are motivated with the same fear of lost of information monopoly, which just did hit its limits. Do you really think, I'm so stupid, I cannot recognize this motivation? Nothing changed in thinking of people from medieval times..
citizen2000
1 / 5 (1) May 09, 2012
regarding 'many worlds', where the false is sustained as potential truth (if via states of superposition). still, 'the false' would not be a grounded circuit insofar as it is not actually true, overall, when collating the many worlds into a single empirical model of truth, the truth of each world in a shared/unified model of reality. the falsity does not continue as 'truth', it falls away from this cosmic tree of fractal connection. thus if 'truth' (or more likely pseudo-truth) could be correlated in this way, that would be the structure connecting events in the model (hypotheses) as this falsity is removed via experiment, observation, testing. yet what if falsity is structuralized. then modeling of truth is bounded, ungrounded or short-circuiting by default, if due to error or design. testing ideas in such models forcing perspectives, understandings, to retain these limits, vs. integration of truth beyond multiplicitous finite (rel) boundaries. integrated truth/circuitry impossible.
Pyle
5 / 5 (2) May 09, 2012
The good question in this connection is, whether the underwater vortex ring is real?
ROFL. Yeah Zephir. That is exactly what I was thinking. Errr....
how difficult it may be to observe the hidden motion of vacuum around particle?
See, this is what we are talking about. Your analogies don't work. Your intuitivity don't work with quantumtivity.

Momentum transfer between quantum wave functions? Ummm, methinks you use lots of words together that don't belong together. But maybe I just didn't fully understand the abstract you linked to earlier.
Pyle
5 / 5 (7) May 09, 2012
Of course, both "recommendations" are motivated with the same fear of lost of information monopoly,
HAHA. You are funny. No, quantum theorists were motivated by discovering a theory that described reality. Not protecting an information monopoly that didn't exist.

In the early 20th century the physicists kept coming up against observations that didn't make sense within their analogies/conceptualizations. Heisenberg promoted tossing the conceptualizations out the window and instead just doing what worked. Perhaps my "explicitly showed" was a poor word choice, but that Quantum Mechanics works while attempts at conceptualization fail is undisputed by all but you.
Terriva
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2012
whether the underwater vortex ring is real
How you would prove, the underwater vortex ring is real, if you couldn't leave the underwater and you cannot visualize the vortex ring with dyes or bubbles? The only thing which you know is, this vortex ring collapses in direct contact with observer.

IMO it's quite realistic analogy and rather close to detection of motion inside of real particles in the vacuum. Actually, the observation of quantum wave packets in vacuum is generally easier, because the vacuum is formed with foam, which gets more dense under any shaking - so that every standing vortex in it manifests itself with density gradient (a probability function).

But the problem of motion detection inside of these particles is similar to vortex rings inside of underwater: every direct observation leads into collapse of their wave function.

So, if you find the solution of this task for underwater vortices, you can apply it to the observation of real particles as well.
Terriva
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2012
Perhaps my "explicitly showed" was a poor word choice
In another words, your Heisenberg did prove anything and whole the previous post of yours was based on dummy religion, which you even don't understand. That's a nice outcome, indeed...
quantum theorists were motivated by discovering a theory that described reality
Erwin Schrodinger: "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."

I'm not sure, you know, what these theorists really wanted, but it definitely wasn't the quantum theory in its present state...
Pyle
5 / 5 (3) May 09, 2012
underwater vortex ring ... more babble ...
IMO it's quite realistic analogy...
Um, not really. You already gave the answer. You add dye or bubbles or some other impurity that you can some how observe. We might even stumble across a way to directly observe the water molecules without disturbing the system.

With the QWF we don't have a clue how to accomplish this because there is doubt that the QWF is actually some thing. Sure, we use it to predict observations, but does it represent something real? That is the question. Your nonsense about math not being real is silly semantics. The question is does the quantum wave function math represent something real as is the case with other complex functions as noted above by yourself and AP.
No triangles in Nature... Nonsense. I must be in a strange mood to be conversing so with you today.
Pyle
5 / 5 (4) May 09, 2012
In another words, your Heisenberg did prove anything and whole the previous post of yours was based on dummy religion, which you even don't understand.

Right. My Heisenberg. Because science is a dummy religion and only your intuitivity based on bad analogies that provides no predictions can truly be relied upon. I think not.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 09, 2012
You add dye or bubbles or some other impurity that you can some how observe.
You cannot, as at the vacuum you have no such an "impurities" available anyway.
Your nonsense about math not being real is silly semantics
I explained it already in post starting with words "The question isn't"
science is a dummy religion
Not the science, but the belief, just the math itself can explain everything and we shouldn't ask the questions, which math cannot answer ("magnets, how do they work") is a religion. It's a religion of people, who are doing their money with maths.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) May 09, 2012
But observation/experiments trumps what seems plausible. So whether you feel good or bad about it doesn't make any difference. Quantum physics works. Use it.


Correct, and this is more or less the Copenhagen interpretation,... that is, from OUR perspective the wavefunction collapses,... and to speak of "it" continuing on in other worlds, or speculating as to the nature of the "underlying reality", is pointless metaphysics. Science is based on and limited to observations. If the 'measurement problem' could be considered an epistemological issue, one can move past the interpretations as meaningless. This is what I took from Bohr's point against Einstein.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 09, 2012
Science is based on and limited to observations.
The problem with measurement of quantum function within particles is not so different from measurement of motion of electrons inside of atoms or the studying of the interior of Earth or Sun with its seismic waves at the surface. At both cases we are deducing the bulk motion (in extradimensions) just from observation of the surface of objects. At both cases we shouldn't consider, that the (motion of the) interior of particles doesn't exist just because only surface (motion) is directly observable.
Pyle
5 / 5 (3) May 09, 2012
The problem with measurement of quantum function within particles is not so different from measurement of motion of electrons inside of atoms or the studying of the interior of Earth or Sun with its seismic waves at the surface.
Actually it is so different. That is the whole point. All your watery analogic garbage is nonsense precisely because it is different. The double slit experiment alone shows us that they are different. Your "bulk motion (in extradimensions)" is not what is happening on the interior of the Earth or Sun. Your conceptualization doesn't work.

Back to your water vortex ring. That you can't put dye in the QWF is why the analogy is bad. You CAN put it in the water and see the motion of the water. You CAN observe the water's motion. In the QWF there is no "motion". The reality of the QWF, as generally accepted, is probability. Your intuitive analogies are flawed. We don't even need to get into what your "bulk motion in extradimensions" would be.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 09, 2012
You CAN observe the water's motion. In the QWF there is no "motion"
Actually we can observe the vacuum motion with dark matter, the particles of which (the neutrinos) do serve as a tiny bubbles visualizing the vacuum flow. But this is not the point, which could lead us to tomographic principle of weak measurements in quantum mechanics. In my experience the proponents of formal models cannot think about stuff from practical intuitive perspective, their thinking is always locked in abstract equations, which they can handle mechanically.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 09, 2012
Another way, how to visualize the vacuum motion inside of photons provide the boson condensates. The light waves are slowed with them in such a way, that the vortex rings which are observable there correspond the photons within vacuum directly.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 09, 2012
All your watery analogic garbage is nonsense precisely because it is different. The double slit experiment alone shows us that they are different.
The water surface analogy of double slit experiment was realized experimentally already before years - therefore we can be perfectly sure, just at the case of double slit experiment this "watery" analogy works perfectly.
elektron
3 / 5 (2) May 09, 2012
... Lord Kelvin ...: "Heavier-than-air flying machines are fantasy. Simple laws of physics make them impossible."


One would think that the existence of birds or even helicopter seeds would be enough to refute Kelvin.
NeutronicallyRepulsive
5 / 5 (4) May 09, 2012
The reality - no pun intended - is that the quantum principles work, and quantum physics explains it quite well. Maybe the real explanation is much simpler or prosaic, but that doesn't change a thing (so far). Even though I would prefer for wave function to be a real phenomenon.
Brogrammer
1 / 5 (1) May 09, 2012
Pyle, your random number generator idea is exactly along the lines of my own thinking. It's like the entangled pair has a seed and an anti-seed both of which pre-determine the opposing outcomes, even if the measurement at any point in time is not predictable.

And it doesn't necessarily violate Bell's theorem, "that no local deterministic hidden-variable theory can reproduce all the experimental predictions of quantum mechanics". If you are still dealing with random variables, you've given up determinism.
StarGazer2011
1 / 5 (4) May 09, 2012
From article:
Its possible the thinking goes, as an example, that because two distant entangled particles react in identically the same way at the same time, seemingly sharing information faster than the speed of light, that there is some new element of quantum mechanics at work that would allow for such a real world phenomenon to exist, rather than an example of the failure of quantum mechanics theory itself.
This statement should keep string theorists busy for a while trying to figure out how to change their theory to match prediction.

It has never been proven that two distant "entangled particles" are in fact entangled or have any effect on each other, other than gravitationally or electromagnetically.


Actually they have been able to cause a vibration in one entangled object and have the other respond when at a distance.


Got a link? I was under the impression that entanglement couldnt be used to transmit information FTL.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) May 09, 2012
I have always likened entanglement to using the same random number seed in a program. If I run the same piece of code on different machines using the random function I will get different numbers until I set the seeds equal. Entanglement, to me, is exactly that


And it doesn't necessarily violate Bell's theorem [...] If you are still dealing with random variables, you've given up determinism.


But that qualifies as a "hidden variable" since it depends on a particular seed which supposedly is intrinsic to each entangled particle at the start.

The seed is not random, whereas the two observers choice of measurement is. Each observer can independently choose a different measurement, say a different angle for checking spin up/down, so each observer would be supplying their own seed separately.
packrat
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2012
Ha Ha, I was just reading these and a really old explanation for entangled photons came to mind. The old principle of similarity. Since if you make two identical things and change one the other has to change to match..... Since photons are about as small as you can get and still be something if you change on the other has to change too! Ok, it was just a joke.... but think, if the old magic theories did work it would make sense of a lot of quantum oddities!
simplicio
5 / 5 (4) May 09, 2012
I cannot parse what citizen2000 is talking about - can some one explain?

From article:
Its possible the thinking goes, as an example, that because two distant entangled particles react in identically the same way at the same time, seemingly sharing information faster than the speed of light, that there is some new element of quantum mechanics at work that would allow for such a real world phenomenon to exist, rather than an example of the failure of quantum mechanics theory itself.

This statement should keep string theorists busy for a while trying to figure out how to change their theory to match prediction.

I don't think so because the comment in the text is michievous because information can not be shared faster than light. Entanglement doesn't do it. This is known in physics.
JIMBO
2.3 / 5 (3) May 10, 2012
Ain't it great how physorg Continues to not list the direct link to the paper so Everybody can read it ? Here it is, doing my civic duty:http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (4) May 10, 2012
According to conventional quantum mechanics, it seems that the reality of wave function is mathematical tool; is this just what the nature tells us? May be not so; any natural phenomena should have some mechanism behind. Here is an unconventional concept which talks about the mechanism of quantum mechanics!

http://www.vacuum...id=19=en
rah
1 / 5 (1) May 10, 2012
I didn't understand this article. Because it was not well written.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) May 10, 2012
[q9Making predictions by extrapolating from our analogies is a very dangerous business.
Exactly. as you can see in this very discussion: People are trying to use other analogies (e.g. determinism) and fit them onto QM. That is just another example of taking analogies too far.

There's other things that really work but which confounds us in our ability to conceptualize. Take the humble E equals m c squared.
WEhat does "c squared" even mean? A speed squared? There's just no analog to this.

All those out there trying to fit physics to what 'feels right' are doomed to failure (and have been so since newtonian gravity got overturned)
Origin
1 / 5 (4) May 10, 2012
The reality - no pun intended - is that the quantum principles work, and quantum physics explains it quite well.
It doesn't explain it at all, only describes. After all, as Feynman explained, the purpose of formal physics is not to explain things (i.e. to answer "WHY" questions), but to describe them (i.e. to answer "HOW" questions).

In particular, the quantum principles are ad-hoced postulates of quantum theory, i.e. the assumptions considered true without proof by their definition. Your comment just illustrates, even the proponents of mainstream physics have no idea, how contemporary science work.
Origin
1 / 5 (3) May 10, 2012
People are trying to use other analogies (e.g. determinism) and fit them onto QM.
So in your opinion this analogy is only accidental and no deeper logics is behind it?
All those out there trying to fit physics to what 'feels right' are doomed to failure
Yes, to the same failure, as the attempt for "direct measurement of quantum wave function"...;-)

Please, don't speculate what is possible and what's not, if you're not familiar with subject at all. I can understand, all proponents of formal math will defend their formal approach in the sake of keeping informational monopoly and social credit in the same way, like medieval theologians - but the evolution of human understanding simply doesn't work so. Today we have many intuitive explanations for phenomena, which were considered as a mathematical objects only before some time and most people feel quite comfortable with it, because they do want to imagine these things.
Origin
1 / 5 (3) May 10, 2012
The legitimization of physical perspective of quantum wave function is particularly sensitive question for proponents of formal approach in physics, as it opens the space for deeper questions: if the quantum wave and quantum states are real, what is forming them? What is undulating and rotating here? How such environment should behave? etc. This kind of questions are just the questions, which may point for dense aether model and which are making the proponents of mainstream physics nervous.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) May 10, 2012
So in your opinion this analogy is only accidental and no deeper logics is behind it?

There's no analogy here. It conforms to the description of QM. There is really no reason that QM should not work at macroscopic scales (only that it becomes increasingly harder to measure/observe at those scales).

What they did here is find a clever way to observe it. (Possibly...Though some of the conclusions in the abstract seem to be jumping it a bit. E.g. they say the interference is due only to the droplet's action on itself - but they are working in an environment with forced vibration - i.e. an external power source).
But if we take their results at face value then yes: they demolished determinism for macroscopic objects
(again, no surprise: if it doesn't hold for microscopic ones that make up macroscopic objects then macroscopic objects cannot go back to being deterministic, anyhow)

Relativity (e.g.) is not intuitive. But it works. That's what counts.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) May 10, 2012
Claptrap Nonsense.

"Of course the wavefunction is not a "thing", it is a model or mathematical conceptualization of the underlying reality. The very act of conceptualizing reality, changes Reality , to a form which is dependent upon mind. " - NumenTard

Observing changes the state of a system because it mus interact with the system in order for the measurement to be made.

Consciousness, blueberry tarts,or bigfoot have no place in the equations.
skand1nsky
1 / 5 (1) May 10, 2012
The ardent fanatics who are antagonistic towards the idea of 'real' wavefunctions seem to miss the very basis for the understanding of QM. When entanglement was first verified, the team leader of the Geneva experiment himself said that this implies some sort of influence acting outside of space-time. I do not believe for one moment that we ought to restrict ourselves to local systems obeying Special Relativity; non-locality is real, and indicates that the very nature of the quantum field is to exist independent of observation. Perhaps quantum fields interfere with fields of consciousness to create localised condensations of the field, ie, particles and matter. In the absence of observation, the quantum field remains in an indeterminate state, just like fluctuating waves of probability. In simplistic terms, this sets a new paradigm for understanding just how our universe materialises out of 'nothing', virtual particles and all. For reference, visit http://www.evolve...and1nsky
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) May 10, 2012
No, No Vendicar

I'm not saying consciousness has an effect UPON reality, ... I'm saying it has an effect upon our UNDERSTANDING of reality. I'm saying 'conceptualized reality' is of a different form than Reality as it is in it self, (unconceptualized). This "form" is the conceptual framework we supply from ourselves,... we force reality into this mold in order to rationalize it. This only works at the macroscopic realm where the mind has evolved to operate on experience, and not at the qm realm. QM is non-intuitive, and one should not expect it to be.

My argument (in somewhat Kantian terms) is in support of scientific positivism to the extent that intuitive expectations of how reality "should be", should not be a basis for physical theories. In essense this is the Bohr argument. From our observational perspective the "wavefunction" ends at measurement as described by Von Neumann.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2012
with the quantum wave function is the same as with time: they both are existent in the universe but only as a mathematical quantities
about time see more on: http://phys.org/n...ace.html
Origin
1 / 5 (4) May 10, 2012
Relativity (e.g.) is not intuitive. But it works. That's what counts.
Relativity is intuitive in dense aether model. And it still works there (until you keep the relativistic perspective, which is not universal, indeed)... The "just working" will not be sufficient criterion for future theories - we will need to know, how these theories are working and why as well. We have full rights to know about it - and if the contemporary generation of physicists will not be willing to cooperate with the rest of people in this question, it will be fired and replaced with more insightful people.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) May 10, 2012
dense aether model

Yeah, and dense aether model is intuitive and works in (and only in) the unicorn fart model. So that's not really an argument.
That's like saying: Angels are intuitive in a god model. So what?

we will need to know, how these theories are working and why as well.

I think you lack a very basic understanding of what science is and what it isn't.
You think science can supply some sort of 'truth' that is absolute. That's not part of science. Science is only concerned with what works.

it will be fired and replaced with more insightful people.

If these more insightful people come up with stuff that works better (i.e. which work in all cases the old theories worked AND in some where they don't), sure. That's how science progresses. You can even philosophically demonstrate that there never can be an ultimately, absoultely, indisputably true theory of everything (TOE).

'Truth' from limited data is an unattainable goal.
JIMBO
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2012
`Suddenly Last Summer', the QM wavefunction was measured directly:
http://www.nature...120.html
Sounds like an `element of reality' to my elementary mind. If its quantifiable by measuring apparatus, how can it not be `physically real' ? Lundeen et.al, measured BOTH real & imaginary components of the wave function. Sounds like Psi is more `real' than my toaster, which has no imaginary components !
Origin
1 / 5 (3) May 10, 2012
If its quantifiable by measuring apparatus, how can it not be
Just compare the 2nd post in this thread. Apparently the variables of wave function could play a role of "hidden variables", predicted with some interpretations of quantum mechanics and violating the violation of Bell's inequalities.

Albert Einstein: "As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world."
Origin
1.8 / 5 (5) May 10, 2012
Another paper eliminates the possibility of the subjective interpretation of quantum mechanics wave functions..
Turritopsis
3 / 5 (4) May 10, 2012
Science is only concerned with what works

Science is a construct of man. Science has no concerns Antialias_PhysOrg, you are anthropomorphizing. Science is the pursuit of knowledge.

You think science can supply some sort of 'truth' that is absolute

Science can do no such thing. The absolute truth is reality itself. Man can attain full complete knowledge of reality at this point the absolute "truth" is found.

'Truth' from limited data is an unattainable goal.

False. Even with very limited data it is possible to 'luck' out. Knowing reality is the goal of the scientific pursuit. I've once scored a goal playing soccer with my eyes closed, I was in the right place and right time, the ball found my foot and went through the posts. Goal attained with very limited data.
Turritopsis
3.4 / 5 (5) May 10, 2012
Using intuition to know where to stand and when can give awesome results. Sometimes it takes nothing more than being in the right place at the right time.
Pyle
5 / 5 (1) May 10, 2012
Brogrammer:
And it doesn't necessarily violate Bell's theorem
I'm afraid it does. The "random" number generators in my example aren't random. The seeds determine the output. Use the same seed and you get the same random-looking results. Noummie got at least that right.

Actually they have been able to cause a vibration in one entangled object and have the other respond when at a distance.

Got a link? I was under the impression that entanglement couldnt be used to transmit information FTL.

Wow, rating by past performance. StarGazer, your point was correct.

After all, as Feynman explained, the purpose of formal physics is not to explain things ... , but to describe them.
Zephir: Do you even know what the meaning of your quote was? You, who is trying to explain quantum phenomenon with your failed analogies? Don't you get it? QM describes reality. Science has moved on and is exploring it deeper. You are sitting on the sidelines failing to explain it.
Shootist
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2012
We never measure the wave function directly

Never ever say never: Nature.com: http://www.nature...120.html of Lord Kelvin on my mind: "Heavier-than-air flying machines are fantasy. Simple laws of physics make them impossible."


No doubt, Antialias Physorg is a troll beyond measure and should be banned and forced to watch every episode of Mickey Mouse.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) May 10, 2012
Man can attain full complete knowledge of reality at this point the absolute "truth" is found.

Not without having all data available, ever (and not even then).
Example: You make the following observation
1,2,3,4,5
You try to find the natural law that gives you this. Which one is the true one? There are an infinite number of those that render this sequence - and an infinte ones that will predict "6,7,8,..." (which may or may not fit further measurements)

The most USEFUL law is f(x) equals x.
But no matter how many observations you make there will always be an infinite number of laws that fit and we just need to choose one (e.g. by Occams razor - though that only renders the easiest one, not necessarily the 'true' one)

Even with very limited data it is possible to 'luck' out.

Sure. But you can never PROVE it's the true one. That's why science goes for 'useful' and not 'true'.
I'm not dissing science, here. Just saying what it is and what it isnt)
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 10, 2012
Do you even know what the meaning of your quote was?
Of course, I explained it already here many times. What the Feynman essentially wanted to say was: "We, scientists, have formal math methods, which are enabling us to pile up publications and take the money for it from laymans. We know, we cannot explain "WHY" question with such approach - so you shouldn't ask us for it. Such a questions are just undermining our authority."
..just saying what it is and what it isn't..
You've no authority for it. You just said, that "we never measure the wave function directly", although such a measurement has been made before year. How we can trust you in another, even more fundamental questions? The true is, the science, the mainstream physics has become a sanctuary of various nerds, who are separated from reality. How such people can decide, what the science is and what isn't? You should remain outside of it for to get the objective stance.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) May 10, 2012
although such a measurement has been made before year.

They talk about 'weak measurement'. It is a retrospective measurement by pinning the other component down after the fact. From an information theory point of view that might be problematic. Not necessarily false, mind you, but I'm not sure that what they did is the correct interpretation.

If they did measure it directly in a valid way then I'll happily agree. I have no problem with the wavefunction describing something 'real' (i.e. it being useful apart from its square being useful).
That doesn't invalidate the point I'm trying to make here: Theories and laws can never be said to be final
(What science CAN say, though, is which theories and laws are definitely false - e.g. determinism).
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 10, 2012
The problem of detection of quantum wave function in vacuum is exactly analogous to the water surface analogy of famous double slit experiment. In this analogy the vacuum is forming the water surface and the motion of objects (jumping droplets) between slits is driven with the interference of ripples, which are formed at the water surface during this. These ripples exactly correspond the quantum wave function of object, as computed with time dependent Schrodinger equation.

Now the question is: are these waves real? From extrinsic perspective of observer, who is following the whole experiment with much faster waves (like the light or sound waves) the answer is completely clear if not trivial : these ripples are indeed real! We even have a picture of it! But this perspective doesn't correspond the real life perspective of observer at the vacuum. The observer at the vacuum has no faster ripples available, than the ripples of the vacuum itself.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 10, 2012
Our perspective of double slit experiment actually corresponds the perspective of hypothetical flat 2D waterstrider, which can observe the (situation at the) water surface via its surface ripples only. In this moment we have a problem with direct observation of surface ripples, which are analogous to the quantum wave function, because these ripples are constrained to object and we cannot observe them directly with external energy source, because all ripples do penetrate mutually like the ghosts at the water surface. We cannot see the light wave in the vacuum, until it hits something. The light waves are completely transparent and invisible for us and because the quantum wave function is realized with such a light wave too, we actually cannot see it, until we come really close to the object in motion (Unruh radiation or dynamical Casimir effect).
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 10, 2012
The similar situation could exist with photon sphere of massive black holes, which are supposed being surrounded with dense ring of photons (light waves). These photons are supposed to encircle the black hole like Saturn rings along metastable path in some theories. But even if such photon sphere would exist, we couldn't see it from outside - simply because the light is transparent and invisible for us from outside. We should cross the photon sphere directly for being able to see it and this observation would removed the photons observed from their circular path at the same moment. We would collapse or destroy the photon sphere with our observation in similar way, like the quantum wave function with direct observation of de Broglie wave.

This analogy explains, why otherwise real deBroglie wave surrounding the objects in motion is so difficult to observe directly.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) May 10, 2012
Photon spheres only work for non rotating black holes (and there's no reason to believe there are any of those). Rotating ones could have a 2D photon disc. But even that is unliley because
a) the vast majoprity of paths on the photon disc are unstable (spiraling in or out...and at the speed of light the time it takes for a photon to either totally escape of fall in from such a small orbit is very short)
b) every atom falling into the black hole changes the radius of the one stable path. So even those lucky few photons don't hang around for any length of time.

As for the rest of your analogies: You're again trying to fit everyday observations onto fundamentals. That just doesn't make any sense.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 10, 2012
You're again trying to fit everyday observations onto fundamentals. That just doesn't make any sense.
This is just the basic principle of AWT..;-) This theory explains the abstract and distant Universe with the most common artifacts and phenomena, which we can be perfectly sure, how they do actually work. Whereas the mainstream physics is trying to describe the everyday phenomena with abstract theories and concepts, which we can be never sure with. It's reversed, up to bottom approach similar to the building of house from roof and it's not surprising, that the mainstream physics cannot actually explain anything with it after then: it simply lacks the causual hiearchy for such an explanation, because all concepts of mainstream physics are ad-hoced in it. We have photons - but why? We have strings - but why? We have light invariance - but why?

It's not surprising after then, that the people like the Feynman are getting so nervous from asking of "WHY" questions.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) May 10, 2012
[qThis theory explains the abstract and distant Universe with the most common artifacts and phenomena, which we can be perfectly sure, how they do actually work. Whereas the mainstream physics is trying to describe the everyday phenomena with abstract theories and concepts, which we can be never sure with.
'mainstream physics' (what is that, anyways? Anything that isn't 'quack science'?) has got it right, though. They go with what agrees with observation. Taking everyday analogies and saying that they fit observation when they don't is just delusional.

The current approach has the advantage that it's useful. It makes predictions we can test (and QM has passed a LOT of tests with flying colors)

We have photons - but why? We have strings - but why? We have light invariance - but why?

Wrong questions. You still don't get what science is, do you?
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 10, 2012
Photon spheres only work for non rotating black holes
IMO photon spheres simply don't exist, they're metastable even in general relativity itself - but I didn't invented neither promoted this concept. I just used it for explanation, why the quantum wave function cannot be observed directly, if its realized with electromagnetic wave constrained to the massive object. In this situation the massive object is everything, what we can see from it - even if it would be surrounded with pile of light, we would see its neighborhood empty from distance.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 10, 2012
Wrong questions. You still don't get what science is, do you?
You cannot have wrong questions, only wrong answers. IMO the question "why the magnets work?" is quite relevant. After all, if we can ask, "why people evolved pale skin" in biology, why we cannot ask the the same "why" question in physics? Because this branch of science already reduced all constructive insights into mechanical operations with equations? Oh, come on - such an approach is not a science, but an ideology. The ideology of mathematicians and various 2nd grade high school teachers, being more specific. In real evolution of human understanding the answering of "why" and "how" questions has perfectly symmetrical roles.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) May 10, 2012
You cannot have wrong questions

Yes you can. "what was before time?" is a wrong question - because it violates its own premise ('before' requires a concept of time which isn't available in a state without time)

Many questions require causality when it isn't available (e.g. "what caused the big bang?") or determinism (e.g. "which slit did the electron pass through?")

We can ask HOW magnets work. We can ask: Is there an easier, more fundamental way to express electromagnetism? Preferrably one in which the four knowm forces are combined an dthat will make some testable predictions the current set of formulae don't.

But when you get to the most fundamental the WHY doesn't make any sense anymore - because you're effectively asking "what's more fundamental than that which is fundamental"...that is just another of these wrong questions.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 10, 2012
Many questions require causality when it isn't available (e.g. "what caused the big bang?") or determinism (e.g. "which slit did the electron pass through?")
These question have perfect meaning and many scientists (like the Roger Penrose) are analysing them (with ekpyrotic or cyclic cosmology etc). So your objection was disproven by example.
Regarding the question "which slit did the electron pass through?", this question has perfect meaning in deterministic theory, because the electron is way too smaller than every double slit thinkable. The water surface analogy demonstrates, the electron really travels trough one of slit and its repetetive observation by tomographics weak measurement could reveal, which path such electron is actually using. Such a question therefore was not only asked, but answered already. It just means, you're trolling again and demonstrating, you've no idea about experiments of QM.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 10, 2012
The recent experiments demonstrated, that the question "which slit did the electron pass through?" not only has a good meaning with respect to the determinism, but it can be even answered experimentally. It just means, everything what you believe about quantum mechanics is simply plain wrong and already disproved with (officially peer-reviewed!) experiments. The people like you will remain the opponents of dense aether model for ever, simply because they're ignorant enough for to become familiar with its actual motivations. The ignorance is the mother of religion.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) May 10, 2012
These question have perfect meaning and many scientists (like the Roger Penrose) are analysing them (with ekpyrotic or cyclic cosmology etc).

They are moving the problematic point. Which is perfectly OK. To say (for example) that this universe's big bang is the big crunch of the previous one might be an answer (one I don't subscribe to, but it's at least an interesting approach). It just moves the 'wrong question' point of first cause to the point at which the first of that chain of universes came about. Doesn't solve the problem.

Interference with single electrons shows that it travels through both slits. Interference has been observed with single buckyballs http://physicswor...olecules

electron is way too smaller than every double slit thinkable

Double slit experiments do not require the slit to be as small or smaller than the objects passing through. I think you're confusing experiments here.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) May 10, 2012
Oh, this is brilliant.

10 minute lecture by Feynmun I just found through StumbleUpon... If I were superstitious I'd think it was godsent.

He says EXACTLY what science is about, how it works and what it can and cannot do.

http://www.geek.c...2012059/
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2012
I didn't understand this article. Because it was not well written.


Would you please explain why it is be so?
Origin
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
He says EXACTLY what science is about, how it works and what it can and cannot do.
"No matter how smart a person is, no matter how elegant their hypothesis, if it does not agree with experimentation, it is wrong. Feynman calls this the key to science. Guessing is not unscientific, though it may seem that way to non-scientists. Rather, it would be unscientific to just accept a guess because it is comforting or easy."

It exactly applies to theories like the Big Bang or gravitational waves or refusal of dense aether model.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
If you watched the video you may see that dense aether model is captured by the 'vague models' part he talks about (i.e.: useless models). It also doesn't agree with observation. So it fails on both fronts to be science.

The most important part is that he notes what science can and cannot do (cscience can disprove a theory but it can never prove one to a final degree of certainty)

Big Bang is a model which is a best guess. It makes predictions. Those predictinos have been borne out (e.g. the comsic microwave backgronud was one of the predictions. Also the composition of far away (older) stars as opposed to closer (younger) ones). So it's still the best guess we have.

Gravity waves are still in the stage of being tested for (LIGO has not reached its final stage of sensitivity). If we don't find any then that theory will go out the window. Gravity waves are predicted by relativity. Relativity has a good track record, so gravity waves currently count as best guess.

Origin
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
It also doesn't agree with observation
LOL, says who? Your claims were proven false twice-times just in this thread.
Those predictinos have been borne out (e.g. the comsic microwave backgronud was one of the predictions.
The interpretation of the cosmic microwave background is a controversial issue from the 1940s, when proponents of the steady state theory argued that the microwave background is the result of scattered starlight from distant galaxies. Using this model and based on the study of narrow absorption line features in the spectra of stars the astronomer Andrew McKellar in 1941 calculated, that the temperature of interstellar space is 2 K. It was five years BEFORE the Alpher and Herman predicted the similar result - but still essentially wrong i.e. 28 K - from Big Bang theory. The correct value (2,7 K) has been found experimentally just after fifteen years.

The conclusion therefore is, we don't need the Big Bang theory for CORRECT prediction of CMBR at all.
Origin
1 / 5 (3) May 11, 2012
Gravity waves are still in the stage of being tested for (LIGO has not reached its final stage of sensitivity).
The existing stage of LIGO sensitivity should be well sufficient for detection of gravitational waves from many types of objects in more than two orders of magnitude. Therefore in my opinion the existence of gravitational waves in general relativity sense was disproved already with five sigma reliability.

http://www.kosmol...lity.gif

If you cannot see the object searched even at the hundred-times better resolution, it simply means the existence of this object was disproved. But the LIGO and another gravitational waves detectors are serving as an excellent jobs generators both for researchers, both for private companies involved - so I don't expect, the parasites who are maintaining this research will be willing to end it so easily
Origin
1 / 5 (3) May 11, 2012
IMO the only solution of this controversy is simply to shut down all money flowing into gravitational waves research. The theorists involved will find a better jobs gradually and nobody will prohibit the introduction of more insightful models anymore. But until we would pay some research, then the motivation of the people involved will never cease. The best physics is the physics developed for private money, as Tesla and Faraday demonstrated before years.

http://www.bbc.co...17926651

http://www.astroe...er-knock
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) May 11, 2012
IMO the only solution of this controversy is simply to shut down all money flowing into gravitational waves research.

Good thing, then, that no one cares for your opinion - or we'd still be sitting in caves wondering why our cold fusion oven wasn't working.

Science progresses by trying out best guesses. Sometimes best guesses are wrong. So? Does that mean that if we sink money into something to test it - and it doesn't pan out - that there was therefore something wrong with the method?

LIGO wasn't built for shits and giggles. Gravity waves are predicted and we really should look at this with the utmost care. It's an active test of relativity.
If they don't find any graviyt waves then it's back to the drawing board. Science wins either way.

The 'job generator' thing is completly off base. Scientists could earn far more by going to work for a company (I make 4 times as much after switching 2 years ago - for a MUCH less demanding job)
Origin
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
..be sitting in caves wondering why our cold fusion oven wasn't working.
Cold fusion is working very well (1400% energy yield speaks for itself) - but it's not a credit of mainstream physics, which ignored if not suppressed this research for twenty years.
Science progresses by trying out best guesses. Sometimes best guesses are wrong.
It's rather rule than exception of mainstream physics of last decades. The gravitational waves was debunked before fifty years already with Eddington and Herman Weyl. Nobody understood the relativity better than these two guys. But they were ridiculed and ignored and their theories were claimed as a numerology (Eddington in particular).
Tachyon8491
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
It will make it clear to you that you are wrong about the brain in every respect. Every one.
You're obviously a fundamentalist neuricentric (Crick, Hameroff, Penrose) believing that consciousness is an "emergent dynamic" or even epiphenomenal. The drug of YOUR choice is causing hallucinatory obfuscation and dismissal of foundational attributes of consciousness. Check Kaivaranen, Pribram, Bohm, van Lommel. Exobiotic consciousness exists. Glad I'm not using YOUR drug dealer.
Origin
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
Dramatic scientific evidence that all of physical matter is formed by an aether of invisible, conscious energy has existed since at least the 1950s. Compare the article "Causal mechanics - a Russian scientific controversy" from the first issue (page No. 1073)
Tachyon8491
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
@Origin - unfortunately the first link you supply is faulty, the second only in Russian and not translatable - can you offer more accessible alternative?
Terriva
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2012
OK, thank you for notice. Try to check this. The person of Nikolay Kozyrev is very interesting. It's a pity, so many insights are forgotten just because they cannot help the other physicists in making money.
Tachyon8491
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
@Terriva - thank you so much for the Kozyrev link - this supports my own thesis on which I have written a 530-page book - that consciousness is primary to the physicalisation of potential in cosmogenic ontogeny, as also modulating all causal evolutions. This also is in agreement with Bohm's quantum potential term added to the Schrodinger wave function and his explicit indication that fundamental particles, in their "deriving meaning from their environment" display primary consciousness. I wonder, are you familiar with the Gariaev Group's research, the DNA-Phantom effect, and DNA's syntactic structure which obeys Zip's Law in linguistics?
Terriva
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2012
530-page book - that consciousness is primary to the physicalisation of potential in cosmogenic ontogeny
?!?
simplicio
5 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
my own thesis on which I have written a 530-page book - that consciousness is primary to the physicalisation of potential in cosmogenic ontogeny, as also modulating all causal evolutions.

I don't know your meaning here - can you explain it better? Consciousness comes after physical universe already exists, so how it can play any part in its evolution?
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2012
others, such as Einstein would say that because the inquisitor has only partial knowledge, no true answer can be given.


This is the position I've always taken, and it's very self consistent.

The problem with hypothetical QM paradoxes is that they are not in the "real world". They are a thought experiment where you are asked to neglect some function of reality under ridiculous circumstances, including Schrodinger's Cat. Of course, in the real world, we still have unknowns (DM and DE possibly) and unknown unknowns which could influence so-called "random" behavior.

And so, the problem is a matter of partial knowledge.

Case and point, they are still arguing over the nature of the problem.

We have partial knowledge of the theory of all laws of physics, so how could you NOT have partial knowledge of the reality?

There is no "reality" in the Schrodinger cat system, because the thought experiment is unrealistic. In the real world there are other variables.
Tachyon8491
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
Ah, the "scientific" and pragmatic, empirical paradigm defines consciousness as either 1) an emergent property of complex organicity, or 2) epiphenomenal. A deeper inspection, e.g. Kaivaranen, Puharich, Gariaev, Sheldrake, Houk, Tiller, van Lommel, Stevenson, prove beyond doubt that consciousness is a real entity that can be either endobiotic or exobiotic. Consciousness is quantized into individuality from what we may accept as Jungian Collective Consciousness - this in the first place does not conform to a "one life and that's it" view - see M.D. psychiatrist Prof. Ian Stevenson's extensive forensic evidence, e.g. http://www.scient...dorf.pdf and van Lommel/s studies of NDEs. Consciousness is not result, it is cause. molecular embryologists as also cosmogonists have got it exactly in reverse...
Terriva
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2012
prove beyond doubt that consciousness is a real entity that can be either endobiotic or exobiotic
Could you provide one single but robust evidence of this bold claim (as pregnant and straightforward, as possible, plz..)?
simplicio
4.2 / 5 (5) May 11, 2012
Tachyon8491, still it sounds like non-sense to me. Conciousness is just emergent property in living (so far) organsims, not magic.
NMvoiceofreason
5 / 5 (1) May 12, 2012

My imagination falls short to see the consequences of considering the "One possibility is that a pure quantum state corresponds directly to reality."
Perhaps others see consequences arising from considering this one possibility.
(Besides labeling other approaches to 'reality' superceded or obsolete)
Awaiting other readers comments.


Traditional quantum theory rests on the two issues of locality and realism. Current experiments (Bell inequality tests) show that at least entanglement is non-local. The second issue, whether reality is direct or holographic has been thought to be only conjecture or in the realm of philosophers. Pussey, Barrett, and Rudolph have shown that holographic theories do not describe quantum mechanical systems. The implication is that only local, real theories will correctly describe quantum systems.
Terriva
1 / 5 (2) May 12, 2012
IMO Consciousness is just human abstract construct. In classical mechanics is quite common situation, when material objects follows the gradient of energy density and it avoids the obstacles and elevated points, the overcoming of whose would decrease its energy content. The common bacteria are behaving in the same way, like the masssive particles. They're just formed with many foamy membranes, so they can interact with more energy density gradients at the same moment. Such a bacterium can follow the gradient of sugar (chemical energy) concentration, while avoiding hot spots in the environment - it's sorta more intelligent, than the common massive particle.

The humans have whole membrane structure equipped for interaction with many weak density gradients at the same moment. When we are walking along the street, we are making many decisions at the same moment. Our resulting path is affected with the same principle of least action, like the path of bacterium or speckle of dust, though.
Terriva
1 / 5 (2) May 12, 2012
In certain contexts I'm thinking about possibility, the human brain is structure equipped for navigation between overlapping density gradients, generated with all observable stars on the sky at the same moment. The number of permutations of observable states in our observable Universe corresponds the number of possible states in our brain. For example, the human brain contains 10^23 atoms, so that the observable Universe contains just 10^(23*23) = 10^500 atoms. In this sense we are really a children of stars.

I just cannot find any practical application for this concept and no way for its practical testing accordingly - so I'm not using it for any explanation. But its evident, for simple organism the observable Universe is simple as well, when being observed with transverse waves (the "Simillia simillibus observentur" principle). We can see the Universe complex and large, because our brains are complex and large - and we are even connecting them into larger network, like the Internet
IronhorseA
not rated yet May 12, 2012
The question whether the wave function is real or not is a bit more tricky
Not tricky at all if you look at it from a math perspective. Complex means it has an imaginary component. That would be not real. What exactly do the authors of the paper mean again?

But analogies only work if they are more fundamental than the thing they are an analogy for.
Nonsense AP. All that is required of an analogy is that it be analogous, not "more fundamental". That said, trying to understand QM from our macro perspective is difficult. You got it right.
Quantum physics works. Use it.


Imaginary simply means the square root of negative one. Having an imaginary component may simply imply a phase shift of some sort, although of what, well that is the question.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) May 12, 2012
(the "Simillia simillibus observentur" principle).

What you mean is doctrine of signatures. And that approach to thinking hasn't been used...well..since before the Renaissance.
originalentropy
5 / 5 (1) May 13, 2012
It is my opinion (and that's all it is because I am not educated in physics, though I am having a good time with it and have my opinions) that it could have something to do with a 'backward going in time influence' (to say something vague) of the act of observation. That is: The observation determines the reality, wheter it is 'prior' or 'after' the event. (I am probably being arrogant and stupid now)
eric96
1 / 5 (2) May 13, 2012
Every particle has mass; @ or tinier than string theory. To detect true quantum state, just send smaller detector particles (exponential scale). If I throw 1 particle of dust at planet, the planet won't move; same concept for aforementioned. We live an an infinite ocean of smaller fish (particles). Our detectors are still on the surface of this ocean. Now with quantum being so small, it is in constant bombardment by other particles which is why when we try to detect it; it is not a 1 to 1 relationship. Statistics is are way of coping with something out of our reach. But we need info on this ocean of fish i.e., solar system, approx. how many of each particle. Then you have to account for different particle behaviour. It is a monstrous task. It's almost better to develop string theory and then somehow magically come up with all the particles we know; this might be the most efficient way.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) May 13, 2012
But analogies only work if they are more fundamental than the thing they are an analogy for.

Nonsense AP. All that is required of an analogy is that it be analogous, not "more fundamental". That said, trying to understand QM from our macro perspective is difficult. You got it right.


I recall a statement by Feynman in Vol II-Ch 35 of his lectures, wrt quantized angular momentum,....

"There isn't any descriptive way of making it intelligible that isn't so subtle and advanced in it's own form that it is more complicated than the thing you were trying to explain"
Tachyon8491
1.8 / 5 (5) May 13, 2012
still it sounds like non-sense to me. Conciousness is just emergent property
Of course you would think that - entire tribes of scientists do - its a scientistic paradigm that is radically falsified be existing, pragmatic, empirical and forensic evidence. Have you studied the sources I supplied, I wonder? Study Speman, Gurwitsch, molecular embryology versus morphogenetic embryology - although I doubt whether you can cope with the paradigm shift. Study also Bohm's quantum potential term and his statement about the electron's primary, fundamental conscious dynamics. Study exobiotic quantized consciousness in NDEs via the van Lommel study. Then again: there are none so blind as those who refuse to see...
simplicio
3.7 / 5 (6) May 13, 2012
Of course you would think that - entire tribes of scientists do

For good reason.

its a scientistic paradigm that is radically falsified be existing, pragmatic, empirical and forensic evidence

These are empty words.

Have you studied the sources I supplied, I wonder?

You want I should spend weeks/months reading your sources? Good communicators (you are not) can put in capsule what they mean and what is the evidence. They do not hide behind waffle.

Study exobiotic quantized consciousness in NDEs via the van Lommel study.

More bogus references? Near death experiences - really? Now I know yuu are flake!

It is simply experience of brain losing oxygen (CO2 build up in blood) and random neurons firing. It can lead to euphoria feeling and after recovery, the brain makes narrative of experience.

Then again: there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

This is you perfectly. You have mystical delusion.
spacealf
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2012
All taken with a grain of salt!

Does Time Exists Independent From Space?
By Earth Changes Media
Apr 15, 2012 - 8:26:59 PM

In a new study, scientists, which include Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti, have shown that two phenomena of special relativity - time dilation and length contraction - can be better described within the framework of a 3D space with time as the quantity used to measure change in this space. The prevailing view in physics has been that time serves as the fourth dimension of space, an arena represented mathematically as 4D Minkowski spacetime. However, some scientists argue that time exists completely independent from space.
The scientists have published their article in a recent issue of Physics Essays. The work builds on their previous articles, in which they have investigated the definition of time as a "numerical order of material change."

The wave function is real from this Article. But when the measurement taken later be faulty without added considerations?
Tachyon8491
1 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
random neurons firing. It can lead to euphoria feeling and after recovery, the brain makes narrative of experience.

And that is exactly where you are proven wrong - the research proves conclusively, incontrovertibly, forensically, that conscious identity can be exobiotic during NDE. But please, stay within your self-delusional scientistic paradigm - it's far safer for individuals like you, the jump in insight and comprehension far too dangerous for your simplistic world-model.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
that conscious identity can be exobiotic during NDE.

Nope. They actually did an experiment for that. They put a garish LED sign in operating rooms above the operating light. Many people reported 'floating outside their bodies and seeing the entire operation from above'.
None reported seeing the sign (and they should have fom where they reported their point of view was.There ws no way they could have missed it.).

It's just a delusion - a lucid dream.
CardacianNeverid
4.2 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
And that is exactly where you are proven wrong - the research proves conclusively, incontrovertibly, forensically, that conscious identity can be exobiotic during NDE -TachyTard

What a load of crap! You're full of shit. Go and play with your crystals.
simplicio
3 / 5 (2) May 15, 2012
But please, stay within your self-delusional scientistic paradigm - it's far safer for individuals like you, the jump in insight and comprehension far too dangerous for your simplistic world-model.

You think your superior so you insult me, but you say nothing scientific, just psuedoscience and big words for a front.
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (3) May 15, 2012
But simplicio, it's SCIENTISTIC!
CHollman82
3 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
FYI, NDE's/OBE's (out of body experiences) have been put to the test many times and fail every time. There is no evidence that the person experiencing the OBE actually gains any information about the real world during the experience, it is fabricated by the brain.
Tachyon8491
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2012
There is no evidence that the person experiencing the OBE actually gains any information about the real world


You're simply uninformed - no doubt you have not bothered to study the RIGHT research - there is always ambiguity in such an area as it's horribly paradigmatic and people entrench their worldviews with nail-biting tenacity: epiphenomenalism / neuricentrism / emergentism of consciousness.

Study this:

http://digg.com/n...xplained

@Simpleton - sorry, can't help but be superior to you - some of us just are, but don't worry about it ;)
CardacianNeverid
4 / 5 (4) May 16, 2012
You're simply uninformed - no doubt you have not bothered to study the RIGHT research -TachyTard

You mean crank 'research'? Perhaps you should put on your tin-foil hat and PM Zephir or QC - I'm sure you'll have a gay old time!

epiphenomenalism / neuricentrism / emergentism... -TachyTard

egotism / idiotism / delisionism / mysticism - you really are a moron and a half.

@Simpleton - sorry, can't help but be superior to you - some of us just are, but don't worry about it -TachyTard

He's got more sense then you can ever hope for, because for you, it is too late, Tard Boy! Acting superior must be a defense mechanism.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.