Playing quantum tricks with measurements

Feb 15, 2013
In their recent experiment, the scientists demonstrated that it is possible to reverse a measurement with the aid of a quantum error correction protocol. Credit: C. Lackner

A team of physicists at the University of Innsbruck, Austria, performed an experiment that seems to contradict the foundations of quantum theory—at first glance. The team led by Rainer Blatt reversed a quantum measurement in a prototype quantum information processor. The experiment is enabled by a technique that has been developed for quantum error correction in a future quantum computer.

Measurements on have puzzled generations of physicists due to their counterintuitive properties. One of them is the fact that measurements on a quantum system are in general non-deterministic. This means that even if the state of the system is completely known, it is impossible to determine the outcome of a single measurement. Furthermore, the measurement alters the system's state so that a previous measurement will certainly return the same result as the first measurement. Thus the system is irreversibly altered by a measurement.

In their recent experiment, the scientists demonstrated that it is possible to reverse a measurement with the aid of a protocol. This seemingly contradicts the foundations of quantum theory which explicitly forbid the reversal of a quantum measurement. With a closer look it is easy to solve this riddle: The team around Philipp Schindler transfers the information of a single particle onto an entangled state consisting of three particles. If now an individual particle is measured, its original state can be reconstructed from the information residing in the remaining two particles which is not forbidden by the laws of .

Explore further: Longer distance quantum teleportation achieved

Related Stories

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) ...

Quantum measurements: Common sense is not enough

Jul 22, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- In comparison to classical physics, quantum physics predicts that the properties of a quantum mechanical system depend on the measurement context, i.e. whether or not other system measurements ...

Recommended for you

How cloud chambers revealed subatomic particles

15 hours ago

Atoms are made of electrons, protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons are in turn made up of quarks. These are just some of the elementary particles that make up the foundation of modern particle physics. ...

When a doughnut becomes an apple

16 hours ago

In experiments using the wonder material graphene, ETH researchers have been able to demonstrate a phenomenon predicted by a Russian physicist more than 50 years ago. They analyzed a layer structure that ...

User comments : 141

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tausch
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 15, 2013
Red card.
The matter/energy conversion is fine and dandy.
The matter/information conversion is neither.
Is this a closed system?

Is there a difference between the foundations of quantum information theory and the foundations of quantum mechanical theory?
You tell me.

Kron
2.4 / 5 (14) Feb 15, 2013
This means that even if the state of the system is completely known, it is impossible to determine the outcome of a single measurement.

There is no way of proving that a system (quantum or classical) is ever "completely known". A known is a state of certainty. Nothing is ever known for certain. This statement fails. How can you be certain that an outcome is indeterminate when the true state of the involved variables cannot be known? You can't. There is no certainty in science.

You can deduce what is possible. You can predict what is probable. But, you cannot say what will be because you cannot know with certainty what is.

That which is indeterminable is unpredictable, but that which you cannot predict is not necessarily indeterminable. You cannot separate the observer from the equation. A universe unpredictable by man does not mean that it is indeterminate.

Since you cannot be certain of all the involved variables, you cannot be certain of the determinate nature of reality.
Kron
2.5 / 5 (13) Feb 15, 2013
The observer only measures what he/she knows about or he/she chooses to measure. There is always a possibility that we are not measuring everything. We rely on our senses, the measurements we take are based on our level of awareness. The detectors we build are extensions to our senses. How do you prove that things outside the perceptible zone do not exist? You can't. There is always a possibility of hidden variables that cannot be accounted for, simply because we do not have the ability to detect them, yet these hidden variables could be influencing the "outcome". A whole other world we are not aware of could be all around us.

You cannot prove that "outcomes" would not be 100% predictable (known, certain), should all involved variables (known and unknown) be accounted for.

You don't know what you don't know.
dan42day
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2013
a previous measurement will certainly return the same result as the first measurement


Statements like this are what make understanding quantum physics so difficult.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2013
The high level memo of this story simply is, with increasing scope or number of particles (and/or number of their observations) the system becomes gradually classical and it finds more and more ways, how to avoid the limits and principles of quantum system (which are ultimately valid for single observation between pair of objects: observer and particle observed). Analogously with decreasing scope the relativistic systems will start to behave classically.

In AWT this principle is extended, because for very large or small system will return to its classical description due the intrinsic chaotic character of observable reality. This limits the applicability of many mainstream theories like the SUSY or string theory, which are considering, with increasing distance from human observer scale the quantum or relativistic character of reality will increase in monotonous way - which is unfortunately not true. Such a systems tend to converge back into classical describable state again instead.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2013
a previous measurement will certainly return the same result as the first measurement Statements like this are what make understanding quantum physics so difficult
It's actually quite easy to imagine - the single particle cannot restore all the information carried out with particle, which leaved the system observed - but the entangled state of two or more has sufficient inertia for doing it. If we would carry out the same experiment with larger number of particles, such an outcome would appear quite natural for you.

If we remove one atom from boson condensate, the quantum state of the whole rest will remain unchanged and if we would add another particle to it again, the new particle will become entangled with the rest with no mercy. Because the large group of objects can always propagate its state to smaller groups easier, than vice-versa. Which describes, why it's so difficult to propagate new ideas into larger groups.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2013
it is possible to reverse a measurement with the aid of a quantum error correction protocol
Unfortunately the very same redundancy, which will make the quantum protocol prone against environmental noise and errors would enable to compromise it (with undetectable listening, which wouldn't destroy information transmitted). It's tic-for-tac situation: if you make the quantum system classical in some way, you should consider the consequences of classical systems.
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2013
One of them is the fact that measurements on a quantum system are in general non-deterministic.


Not true: If your measuring apparatus can only give one result, the outcome will be deterministic. This is also the case on a macro-scale, and HAS NOTHING to do with "uncertainty" built into the laws of physics. I am getting so tired of this Voodoo interpretation of quantum mechanics.

This means that even if the state of the system is completely known, it is impossible to determine the outcome of a single measurement.
Bullshit! If your measuring apparatus can ONLY measure a single state you will know exactly beforehand what the result of the measurement will be!

Furthermore, the measurement alters the system's state
This also happens on a macro-scale: So what!? The amount of alteration is determined by the measuring apparatus: It can be negligibly small or massively large, and is not just privy on the quantum scale!
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2013
If your measuring apparatus can only give one result, the outcome will be deterministic.
LOL, such a system isn't "quantum" anymore...;-) The quantum system is indeterministic by its very definition. Or do you know about some example of deterministic quantum system, which doesn't follow Heisenberg uncertainty principle?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2013
also that a previous measurement will certainly return the same result as the first measurement. Thus the system is irreversibly altered by a measurement.


I suppose that they meant "subsequent" instead of "previous". If your measuring apparatus gives a certain measurement, then, if it does not disturb the object by a subsequent measurement of the same parameter, it must give the same value for this parameter: Again this is true at all scales and is determined by the apparatus, not the "free will" of the object being measured.

Why do our modern-day theoretical physicist want to believe Voodoo instead of straightforward cause and effect?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2013
If your measuring apparatus can only give one result, the outcome will be deterministic.
LOL, such a system isn't "quantum" anymore...;-) The quantum system is indeterministic by its very definition.

Humans are too stupid to "define" nature. Nature defines itself.
Or do you know about some example of deterministic quantum system, which doesn't follow Heisenberg uncertainty principle?


Yes I do. There is NOT single system in our universe that follows Heisenberg's interpretation of "uncertainty" in position and momentum. His so-called uncertainty in these parameters are nothing else than the average size of a wave within three-dimensional space and the average size of the same wave within reciprocal space.

When such a wave passes by it follows a definite path with NO uncertainty in position and no uncertainty in momentum of the wave's center of mass whatsoever.

BTW: There are questions waiting for you to answer on another thread about your paddling duck.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2013
Why do our modern-day theoretical physicist want to believe Voodoo instead of straightforward cause and effect?
Actually it's possible to imagine the quantum phenomena like the consequence of deterministically moving wave function inside of them - but such an approach neglects the fact, that the wave function is unobservable by its definition, so such an approach isn't experimentally testable. I'm usually explaining it with attempt for detection of motion of water molecules inside of droplet of water from the undulations of surface of water droplet, which is the only observable object here. Because the motion/momentum of pairs of molecules colliding from opposite direction gets compensated there, high amount of information about intrinsic motion of molecules is always wasted and the deterministic interior of water droplet will remain cryptic for us for ever.
Antoweif
1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2013
Because it's quantum and stuff. Must be magic involved!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2013
In dense aether model all particles are essentially droplets composed of another density fluctuations of vacuum recursively. But because we can observe only gradients (the homogeneous areas are transparent for us), the less or more chaotic and homogeneous interior of particles appears invisible for us. So we can see only surface (gradients) of particles, not their interior, which becomes hidden and indeterministic for us in this way. The quantum wave function is the least common approximation of this collective chaos, which remains unobservable for us otherwise.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2013
Our ability to observe only surface gradients isn't the only reason of quantum uncertainty. In AWT the Universe appears like the landscape under the fog for us - we cannot see further, than the scattering of light with density fluctuations of vacuum allows.
But the same blurring effect manifests itself, when we get toward small scale - not only the interior of tiny density fluctuations will appear blurred, but even the surfaces of smallest members of particle hierarchy will remain hidden for us. The principal problem in detection for example fourth generation of particles isn't fact, we still have no sufficiently powerful colliders. Even if we would use ten times more powerful collider than the LHC, their evidence would be blurred with the omnipresent noise existing there. In the same way, like even the most powerful reflector will not help us to make the distant objects visible at the moment, when they're hidden behind layer of fog. We need smarter, not more powerful approach here.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2013
@ ValeriaT

Please stop wasting everybody's time by pasting gobbledegook and rather explain your AWT duck model by answering the questions I have asked you: To repeat:

If the speed of your paddling duck is v relative to your aether,

(i) What is the speed of your aether wave relative to your aether?

(ii) What is the speed of your diffraction slits relative to your aether?

(ii) Relative to what is your aether stationary?

but such an approach neglects the fact, that the wave function is unobservable by its definition,
Whose definition? Nature's definition or the definition by a autistic person who, although being a savant, is out of contact with reality?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2013
(i) What is the speed of your aether wave relative to your aether? (ii) What is the speed of your diffraction slits relative to your aether? (ii) Relative to what is your aether stationary?
Your problem is, you're wasting most of time just with questions, which are least defined, experimentally testable the less. Even your hypothetical waves are of the same category. You should focus to the predictions instead of interpretations of reality. We have lotta interpretations already...
Nature's definition or the definition by a autistic person who, although being a savant, is out of contact with reality?
I'm using aether model for explanation of existing opinions, theories and paradigms, like the particle-wave duality. I'm not denying the reality and I've no needs to do it. I've absolutely no problem with existing quantum mechanics in its present state in the same way, like with relativity. I just recognize, what these theories can do for us and what they cannot do. That's all.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 16, 2013
Your problem is, you're wasting most of time just with questions,

The whole purpose of physics is too ask questions: How the hell can this be a "waste of time". You need a shrink you know.

which are least defined, experimentally testable the less.


So you admit that your model is NOT defined and NOT experimentally testable: At last we agree! This is why your model is Voodoo!

Even your hypothetical waves are of the same category.
Since when are EM-waves hypothetical? I can see, I can hear radio, so what is causing this if EM-waves are hypothetical? Please enlighten me oh "holy one".

You should focus to the predictions instead of interpretations of reality.


How can you predict what you cannot understand, oh "holy one"?

I'm using aether model for explanation of existing opinions, theories and paradigms, like the particle-wave duality.


How can you use this model if you cannot even explain how it models the speed of your electron's "wake-wave".
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2013
I'm not denying the reality and I've no needs to do it. I've absolutely no problem with existing quantum mechanics in its present state


Oh but you are a liar! If you were happy with "quantum mechanics" in its present state, why are you adding your silly Voodoo duck and "wake-wave" into the arena of quantum mechanics? Your duck and its wake-wave contradict the "present state" according to which a passing entity can, in terms of your Voodoo picture, either be the duck, or its "wake-wave" but NOT both simultaneously!

in the same way, like with relativity.


Why does your Voodoo duck then violate the Lorentz transformation by developing a flattened beak?

I just recognize, what these theories can do for us and what they cannot do. That's all


Your AWT model proves that you are far too stupid to "recognize" what these theories "can do for us".
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2013
If you were happy with "quantum mechanics" in its present state, why are you adding your silly Voodoo duck and "wake-wave" into the arena of quantum mechanics?

Well, because I can..;-) The fact, some theory is relevant doesn't mean, it couldn't be made a bit less counterintuitive. Do you understand the difference between denying and explanation of theory? Many so-called crackpots (protoscientists) are doing this mistake - they just want to replace one incomprehensible ad-hoced model with another one without bothering with explanation of the former or later one. They do believe, that the only way how to expand their theory is to falsify these previous ones (Einstein, Heissenberg, Newton, whatever... - was wrong!)
Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (22) Feb 16, 2013
There is NOT single system in our universe that follows Heisenberg's interpretation of "uncertainty" in position and momentum. His so-called uncertainty in these parameters are nothing else than the average size of a wave within three-dimensional space and the average size of the same wave within reciprocal space. When such a wave passes by it follows a definite path with NO uncertainty in position and no uncertainty in momentum of the wave's center of mass whatsoever.


The wave-function of a quantum system (more than one particle or entity if you prefer)),.... does not evolve in "three-dimensional space" as you say, so can not be thought of as a physical wave. The amplitudes combine destructively and constructively in a potentially infinit Hilbert space formulation. There is NO way to represent what occurs in three-dimensional space! Give it up already.
swordsman
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 16, 2013
ALL measurements have similar inaccuracies. Nevertheless, highly accurate results can be obtained by the process of "characterization". Nothing new. Over a hundred years old but often neglected. One report of this type of action was listed in today's phys.org news bulletin regardin quantum physics.
Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (20) Feb 16, 2013
If your measuring apparatus can ONLY measure a single state you will know exactly beforehand what the result of the measurement will be


What do you mean? Say If you measure for a specific spin axis, it can give a yes or no result, which is indeterminate before hand.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 16, 2013
The wave-function of a quantum system (more than one particle or entity if you prefer)),.... does not evolve in "three-dimensional space" as you say,

The expert bullshitter is back!
so cannot be thought of as a physical wave.

The same is true for ANY EM-wave although it is a real physical wave. One can derive Schroedinger's wave-equation from Maxwell's wave equations: So for what reason is a Schroedinger wave not a "REAL" EM wave? There is no physics reason whatsoever, and there has NEVER been a physics reason whatsoever,that a Schroedinger wave is NOT an EM-wave.

The amplitudes combine destructively and constructively in a potentially infinit Hilbert space formulation. There is NO way to represent what occurs in three-dimensional space! Give it up already.
Bullshit! We know very well how an electromagnetic-wave acts in 3D space: So why is there no way "to represent what occurs in three-dimensional space". Radio engineers do this every day for a living!
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2013
What do you mean? Say If you measure for a specific spin axis, it can give a yes or no result, which is indeterminate before hand.


The first intelligent statement you have posted on this forum ever: Unfortunately it is based on the assumption that there is separate "probability" wave function for spin. There is NOT.

If you solve Schroedinger's equation for a solitary electron-wave, using for example spherical boundary conditions, with and without a magnetic field, you will find that in the case of such a solitary electron, the wave-energy can remain the same if its magnetic axis (as determined by its magnetic quantum number) aligns along or opposite to the applied magnetic-field. So it is correct that the spin has a probability to align along two opposite directions, but this probability HAS nothing to do with the wave-function itself being a probability distribution whatsoever. There is a cause for it happening!

It does not prove uncertainty nor "wave-particle duality".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2013
If your measuring apparatus can ONLY measure a single state you will know exactly beforehand what the result of the measurement will be


What do you mean? Say If you measure for a specific spin axis, it can give a yes or no result, which is indeterminate before hand.


As outlined above, it is the measurement itself that creates the two possibilities NOT the wave-function as a Voodoo probability. If you can create the situation when the measurement can only measure the spin along one direction that is the only result that you will get.

n the case of spin, you can create this situation: First measure the spin on an ensemble of electrons. Then use the resulatnt electrons to measure the spin along the same direction. On such an ensemble you can only get one result for each of all the electrons when measuring their spins: Thus you know with certainty what the results will be beforehand Thus, these wave-functions cannot be probabilities at all!
Noumenon
3 / 5 (20) Feb 16, 2013
In the case of spin, you can create this situation: First measure the spin on an ensemble of electrons.


I will assume you mean to say here, 'First sort the electrons into known spin directions along a given axis',...

Then use the [resultant] electrons to measure the spin along the same direction. On such an ensemble you can only get one result for each of all the electrons when measuring their spins: Thus you know with certainty what the results will be beforehand. Thus, these wave-functions cannot be probabilities at all!


That is true only along one axis though. If you subsequently sort along another axis, you will lose predictability along your first axis, as indicated in the 3rd diagram here, using a Stern-Gerlach experiment.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (20) Feb 16, 2013
Humans are too stupid to "define" nature. Nature defines itself.


You have finally stumbled upon a deep truth*. But why then are you fighting against the probability interpretation of the 'wave-function', when even Schrödinger demonstrated his 'waves' were effectively equivalent to Heisenberg's matrices?

* Although I would rather say that since humans have evolved intellectual faculties (intuitions/concepts) to order experience at the macroscopic scale, we should not expect that Reality at all scales can be conformed within this a-priori conceptual framework consistently. Indeed, the non-intuitive nature of qm, the indeterminacy caused by 'observation', is an artifact of the conceptualization of reality at that scale.

Einstein; '[Nature] does not play dice'
Bohr; 'Einstein, stop telling [Nature] what to do'
Noumenon
3 / 5 (20) Feb 16, 2013
,... now Einstein may or may not have been right wrt Reality as existing independently of being observed, wrt unconceptualized Reality, (Kant's Noumenal Reality),... but such speculation is metaphysics, not science. It is scientifically invalid for Einstein to make statements not amenable to observation, ....which is where 'the problem lies'.

Why?, because 'to be known' implies 'to be conceptualized'. That is simply a truism. Likewise for observation though, because we design the apparatus assuming those concepts and interprete the results.

This in turn implies that we add the "conceptual form" to the underlying Reality by virtue of the act of acquiring knowledge of it. It may not even make sense to say that Noumenal Reality has a "form" independently, as that is just another concept. But we force Reality to conform to a-priori intuitions dependent upon mind as a necessity of acquiring knowledge, in any case.

...
Tausch
2 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2013
It does not prove uncertainty nor "wave-particle duality". - J


Von Neumann was on the brink of removing both.

QET is waiting for you. Where do you feel short changed by the theory?

If you set the probability to a qualifier labeled: to at least none (0), is that statement dynamically vacuous - the same as saying that is a logical consequence of the statement that does not refer to time?

I think so.

Ludwig, G. 1958 Zum Ergodensatz und zum Begriff der makroskopischen Observablen. I. Zeitschrift
für Physik 150, 346–374. (doi:10.1007/BF01322328)

Regarding the Ergodic postulate and regards to the Definitions of macroscopic Observables.

http://rspa.royal...full.pdf
Noumenon
3 / 5 (20) Feb 16, 2013
,.... continued,....

Heisenberg's analogy that we can't help but to disturb the system by virtue of looking at it, ....was just that, an analogy. The truth is far more profound; The very act of acquiring knowledge of reality in conceptualizing it, disturbs it from what it 'was' to what is observable in principal.

The form, i.e. particle or wave, is not what physics is after. Invarients, symmetries, and conservation laws, formless truths, is what modern physics is after. The 'collapse of the wave-function' is a collapse into concepts,.... by the necessity and 'disturbing conceptual effects' of observation and theoretical verification.

This is why you (johanfprins) need to drop your crusade against the "particle",... it's just a useful conceptual form.
Tausch
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2013
...when even Schrödinger demonstrated his 'waves' were effectively equivalent to Heisenberg's matrices? -N


...and Schrödinger gets subsequent foundational conformational support from von Neumann:

"Das Stone-von Neumann-Theorem drückt die Eindeutigkeit der kanonischen Kommutatoren von zum Beispiel Orts- und Impulsoperatoren in der Quantenmechanik aus und zeigt die Äquivalenz von deren beiden grundlegenden Formulierungen von Schrödinger (Wellenfunktion) und Heisenberg (Matrizen)."

http://de.wikiped..._Neumann
Tausch
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2013
@Johann
The quantifiers uses in QET are incomplete. Finish the foundation that von Neumann laid out. And you have the boundaries and unbounded conditions everyone is looking for.
LarryD
3 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2013
Hey you guys, you are confusing the whole macro deterministic world for me. Yeah, okay I a dumb @#$! johanfprins be careful, there are things that we don't understand fully but repeat at regular intervals and therefore predictable on that basis.
The quantum realm is affected by whatever energy we use to probe it...is that not so? So what is predictable is that our attempt will disturb the system in some way but the trick would be to know how the QM system would react. Simply put, the less energy of my probe provides less feedback and more energy will disturb the system more so I get a bigger false result of the QM original state. Is that not so?
Tausch
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2013
Sorry Larry. I am not going to attempt to sort out your confusion with the QM of today. That leads anyone astray or away from what von Neumann wanted you to realize when he laid out the foundations he wanted us to understand and then complete.
QET will just add to your confusion right now.
Bring on macro-observables. The more, the better. That will force the situation von Neumann foresaw.

Dirac is partly to blame - everyone turn to his Principles of Quantum Mechanics instead of von Neumann's Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics published about the same time.

When Heisenberg was asked if he was thankful for von Neumann's contributions, he chided with the snide remark "what's the difference between bounded and unbounded?"

Von Neumann saw the equivalence between Heisenberg's Matrix and Schrödinger Wave Equation better than anyone else and understood that that was his cue, platform, and opportunity to take that one step further.

'Duality' is becoming 'Newtonian'
Be patient
Job001
1 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2013
Hard intellectuals routinely fail to define their basic assumptions and then project forward and backward beyond their data. They actually don't know reality. The massive reality is only apparently deterministic, otherwise reality cannot evolve and remains "stuck" like a computer program always giving the same result until random variables are provided to allow "evolution". No one knows which atom will decay nor when, we just know the half life. When one atom has decayed, one must start over with a new deterministic charade starting point. Intellectual idiots!
LarryD
1 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2013
Thanks Tausch. I am not going to comment on Von Neumann as I can only better him in one thing (that I know of) I have been married 3 times (just a joke). I have read a little about how he used predicate logic to show that 'quantum logic(s)' were not the same. However, I don't quite understand why he didn't a branch of the 'modal', 'intuitionist' or 3 valued logic to 'prove' or disprove' his theory. Any ideas?
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2013
That is true only along one axis though.


Exactly, and this axis is predetermined by the apparatus: NOT by a probability wave-function; as is claimed by the fools in charge of theoretical physics. What about the "probabilities" along all the other axes which are NOT predetermined by the apparatus. If the wave-amplitude was a "probability amplitude" every measurement should give a non-predictable axis for the spin.
If you subsequently sort along another axis, you will lose predictability along your first axis, as indicated in the 3rd diagram


But you do not lose the predictability that the spin will appear along your newly selected axis. So where does your "probability amplitude" comes in when your measurement does NOT give the spin with equal probability along ANY axis? Stop being daft!
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2013
Humans are too stupid to "define" nature. Nature defines itself.
You have finally stumbled upon a deep truth*.


Then why can YOU not understand this truth? Why do you want to tell nature that it has uncertainty built into its wave-amplitudes when there is NO experimental evidence!?

But why then are you fighting against the probability interpretation of the 'wave-function', when even Schrödinger demonstrated his 'waves' were effectively equivalent to Heisenberg's matrices?

The fact that one can use matrices to model waves when their boundary conditions change, has NOTHING to do with "probability-amplitudes" whatsoever!
Einstein; '[Nature] does not play dice'
Which is the correct viewpoint since Bohr had and still has no incontrovertible experimental proof that nature does.
Bohr; 'Einstein, stop telling [Nature] what to do'
It is really Bohr who is telling nature what it is doing: How arrogant! Bohr was well-known for his brazen, pompous arrogance!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2013
It does not prove uncertainty nor "wave-particle duality". - J
Von Neumann was on the brink of removing both.
When where and how?

QET is waiting for you. Where do you feel short changed by the theory?
A theory that requires fudging called renormalization is bullshit. Even Dirac, THE mathematical fudger of mathematics rejected QED (is this what you meant by QET?) as untenable for this reason. Even this fudge, which he called "doctoring up a number" was too much for him to swallow!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2013
,.... continued,....

Heisenberg's analogy that we can't help but to disturb the system by virtue of looking at it, ....was just that, an analogy.
Which is generally true no matter how large the objects are.

The truth is far more profound; The very act of acquiring knowledge of reality in conceptualizing it, disturbs it from what it 'was' to what is observable in principal.
What is so "profound" about this! Only a fool will consider the fact that your measurement can change "what is out there" into something else after the measurement, is "profound". This can happen on all scales: Not just on the quantum scale.

The form, i.e. particle or wave, is not what physics is after. Invarients, symmetries, and conservation laws, formless truths, is what modern physics is after.
"Formless truths": The best definition for Voodoo I have ever heard! No wonder the physicists are hunting for a Higg's boson that cannot exist since it is a "formless truth".
Tausch
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2013
When you understand what QET does (not is) you can abandon epistemology and ontology. You will still or might have some language debris like tautologies lying around. That is a small price to pay for abandoning the burdens of epistemology and ontology.
Johan, you do not need to complete QET if you can already envision what QET's completion can have concerning consequences, impact, meaning and outcome. Simply assume a completed QET.

The premonition that a completion of QET is beyond the scope of present day mathematics is pure bull shit.

Leave epistemology and ontology behind.
You can still socialize with people who have not let go.
And you will understand.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2013
The 'collapse of the wave-function' is a collapse into concepts,.... by the necessity and 'disturbing conceptual effects' of observation and theoretical verification.
Gobbledegook bullshit that can only be formulated by a Voodoo-shamaan.

This is why you (johanfprins) need to drop your crusade against the "particle",... it's just a useful conceptual form.


Why am I on a "crusade" when I reject a concept which you refuse to define more closely than to state that "it is a useful conceptual form". What is useful about it if you cannot define what it is? You are clearly deranged: Are you on opium?

Tausch
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2013
When where and how? - J

What are you afraid of letting go?
Switching to QET from QFT is the difference between switching from low to high German. You lose nothing and stand to gain more.

It is the difference between the Principles of Quantum Mechanics and the Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
One gets you there, the another does not.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2013
The quantum realm is affected by whatever energy we use to probe it...is that not so?
Not just the quantum realm: I wish people will start to realize that there is a single realm, not a classical one AND a separate Voodoo quantum one: Quantum mechanics dovetails with classical mechanics without any need for Voodoo!

So what is predictable is that our attempt will disturb the system in some way but the trick would be to know how the QM system would react.
Not just QM!
Simply put, the less energy of my probe provides less feedback and more energy will disturb the system more so I get a bigger false result of the QM original state. Is that not so?
Very well stated! But again this is not just so in the "quantum realm". It is true for ALL measurements.
Tausch
1 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2013
But you do not lose the predictability that the spin will appear along your newly selected axis. - J


You assert this and who else?
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2013
No one knows which atom will decay nor when, we just know the half life. When one atom has decayed, one must start over with a new deterministic charade starting point.


Any entity that is subject to energy-fluctuations with time, only changes when the right resonance is reached. This is the case for a diffusing atom within a crystal lattice: It vibrates and the atoms around it vibrates blocking it from jumping until a resonant situation is reached for the atom to jump. Although the jump time is unpredictable it does not mean that the intensity of the jumping atom is a probability distribution.

The same mechanism is active when a photon-wave interacts with an atomic sized detector: Both of them vibrate: If their vibrations resonate the light-wave collapses and is detected. When there are many detectors available each has a probability to first resonate with the wave. Many consecutive waves will collapse into different detectors. The wave is not a probability on its own!
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2013
@ Tausch
Your posts are becoming incomprehensible because you are trying to state a lot within a limited space. This is not the forum to argue advanced mathematics, which most probably has nothing to do with reality! Like I said von Neumann was mathematically astute but had no insight into physics-reality.

But you do not lose the predictability that the spin will appear along your newly selected axis. - J


You assert this and who else?


Every text book asserts this. If your apparatus is set up to measure spin along an axis z, will the measurement give you a spin along another axis, like, for example, x? No it will not! Thus the axis along which spin will be measured is predetermined by your apparatus. Since spin can be along any direction, your spin wave can only be a probability-wave if the measurement gives you a spin result along any random direction.
Enric Berneda
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2013
johanfprins... what they try to tell you, is that you only establish your questions in human historic concepts like "determinism", "non-determinism", etc. This concepts was born from the genesis of our language based in intuitive perceptions of our macroscopic world.

But in sizes where no only "macroscopic things" are involved, but non-material energies (in the popular term of materia like "solid things"), then
you must accept the possibility that your words and language dicotomies (after that considered "logical dicotomies") for questioning and describing the world, are not the only way to "know" it and how nature could work.

(now you can say "philosophical bullshit!". Ok: you have your own philosophy; everyone has, even people who says "philosphical bullshit!" or simply "bullshit" several times per day)

Yes, you can spend all your life discussing between if quantum mecanics is deterministic or undeterministic... but perhaps nature is less simple than that. (continue)
Enric Berneda
1 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2013
We (humans) don't always describe nature with our "meravelous and intuitive dicotomies". Maybe that's a reduction of what happens there. Quantum Mechanics show us, that now we cannot asume that parts explain completelly the whole thing, but maybe the whole thing could explain the parts... and that's an impossible work for any human; cause-efect law is borrowed, and we can only predict probabilities about the behaviour of some events by statistics. Statistics that become, but maybe our considered "macroscopic science laws" become by statistics too (but we believe are stable o deterministic). Just what you are looking for when you say: "pleaseee, you cannot demonstrate that's not deterministic!"

Yes, maybe is for crying: now Science reveals as not "that perfect way of knowledge that Newton imagined". He thought that with a basic group of laws and theories, some day we could understand and predict everything. (continue)
Enric Berneda
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2013
But maybe time has come (Modern Physics) to discover that our attempts are not posible. You can cry, you can get angry, you can deny it, you can do what you want... but think twice and consider it. That wouldn't be a defeat for human knowledge and science task, but a new knowledge itself: we cannot know nothing exactly, and "deterministic" is not a world aplicable to nothing (only an intuitive macroscopic impression).

Like David Bohm said: "actually, the best that a philosopher can do is study Modern Physics, and the best that a scientist can do is study Philosophy". This are the challenges that presents what we "see" in Modern Physics. Human language, dicotomies, and it's derived "logic", perhaps is not always the absolute way of managing those questions. That's why physics prefer refering to numbers, statistics, maths and visual representation of its experiments, than trying to explain it in common words (dualist and dicotomist language).
Enric Berneda
1 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2013
And now you can quote everything you want and say "bullshit!" :)

(sorry for my english)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2013
johanfprins... what they try to tell you,


It is this patronizing attitude that makes me angry. I know exactly what "they" are trying to tell me: I know my physics better than anybody that I have encountered on this forum!

is that you only establish your questions in human historic concepts like "determinism", "non-determinism", etc. This concepts was born from the genesis of our language based in intuitive perceptions of our macroscopic world.
A very stupid simplification of the "genesis of language" and physics. If you cannot post anything more cogent and intelligent it would be better for all if you refrain from posting.
the possibility that your words and language dicotomies (after that considered "logical dicotomies") for questioning and describing the world, are not the only way to "know" it and how nature could work.
You see how patronizing you are? Posting the obvious as if I do not know this is an insult to my intelligence! Really!
Enric Berneda
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2013
"I know my physics better than anybody that..."

Yes, you know YOUR physics (maybe that "MY" reveals quite good your mentality). Yoy CAN open to other perspectives, not from charlatans, but from good physics too.

"A very stupid simplification of the `genesis of language´..."

Thank you. Your use of "stupid", "angry", etc. and the constant use of Ad-Hominem fallacies, shows me how you are. Here we aren't to accuse us personally, but to discuss physics and philosophy stuff... don't get angry, man, relax.

"You see how patronizing you are?"

No, I'm not patronizing: do you take care of details? I said:

"The POSSIBILITY that your words and language dicotomies (after that considered "logical dicotomies") for questioning and describing the world, are not the only way to "know" it and how nature COULD work.

"POSSIBILITY" and "COULD" are not for me expressions of patronalizing. I thing it's YOU that are patronalizing when you get angry and insult everyone that differs of you point of view
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2013
Yes, you can spend all your life discussing between if quantum mecanics is deterministic or undeterministic... but perhaps nature is less simple than that. (continue)
Perhaps, but all experimntal evidence so far shows that it is not. The only "un-determinism" is exactly the same as you find in classical mechanics when, for example. an atom diffuses through a solid. There is no extra un-determinism in quantum mechanics: So why assume that you cannot discuss quantum mechanics using the same language that you use for classical mechanics? This is insane!

Quantum Mechanics show us, that now we cannot asume that parts explain completelly the whole thing, but maybe the whole thing could explain the parts..
The first non-patronizing sentence you have posted: And yes, this is what QM does; but not just QM, Maxwell's wave equations describes the same. Therefore, QM does not require a new abortion of language combined with Voodoo to understand!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2013
Yes, maybe is for crying: now Science reveals as not "that perfect way of knowledge that Newton imagined". He thought that with a basic group of laws and theories, some day we could understand and predict everything.


Can you prove Newton wrong?

But maybe time has come (Modern Physics) to discover that our attempts are not possible.
A real physicist must always keep this possibility open: It goes without saying and is another illustration of your pompous patronizing attitude.

You can cry, you can get angry, you can deny it, you can do what you want... but think twice and consider it.
As a competent physicist this is demanded of one: You see again how patronizing and insulting you are! You make me sick!

That wouldn't be a defeat for human knowledge and science task, but a new knowledge itself:
I agree, but when it is not necessary, as it is not necessary yet, why embrace such a non-existent situation as if it is real? To do so is insanity!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2013
Like David Bohm said: "actually, the best that a philosopher can do is study Modern Physics, and the best that a scientist can do is study Philosophy".
I always thought they go hand in hand: It is insane to make a distinction.

This are the challenges that presents what we "see" in Modern Physics. Human language, dicotomies, and it's derived "logic", perhaps is not always the absolute way of managing those questions. That's why physics prefer refering to numbers, statistics, maths and visual representation of its experiments, than trying to explain it in common words (dualist and dicotomist language).
If you cannot explain your mathematics in simple words you do not know what the hell you are doing.

BTW: Bohm's model for the Aharanov-Bohm effect is Voodoo. In terms of electron-waves the center-of-charge and mass of each diffracting electron moves smack-bang through the magnetic-field behind the slits; as it must for the electron to be deflected.
johanfprins
1.1 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2013
Yes, you know YOUR physics (maybe that "MY" reveals quite good your mentality). Yoy CAN open to other perspectives,
I ALWAYS am: That is why after teaching my students the same Voodoo interpretation of QM being posted by others on this forum, for 40 years, I could change my perspective after a simple experiment proved that "wave-particle duality" is not tenable (See http://www.cathod...tion.pdf}.

So I again protest your pompous patronizing accusations that I am not open to other perspectives.

No, I'm not patronizing: do you take care of details? I said: "The POSSIBILITY that your words and language dicotomies (after that considered "logical dicotomies") for questioning and describing the world, are not the only way to "know" it and how nature COULD work
It is patronizing to assume that I have never contemplated these obvious possibilities which you think that you have been called upon to tell me about!
Kron
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2013
If B follows A:
-
In Deterministic world:
If A is present we know B is future. If B is present A passed.

In Indeterministic world:
If A is present B has a possibility of occurring in future. If B is present A passed.
-
The indeterministic world is a probabilistic one. Events are not certain to occur. The problem is this:

What if A causing B is incomplete? What if cAc causes B. if we cannot see the cAc, if the lower case letters are imperceptible, we'd be in the false thinking that A --> B. The full reaction is cAc --> B. If the cause for B were cAc, and all we sense is A --> B, we are missing variables.

Now let's suppose we're testing to see if A causes B. Imagine that conditions surrounding A (which we cannot control because we are not aware of their existence) change (that our system is now xAx). The reading now shows that A does not cause B. 99% of the time surrounding conditions are c (so cAc), 1% of the time it is xAx.

We'd falsely say the system is not deterministic.
Kron
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2013
cAc --> B
xAx --> Y

99% occurrence of c conditions.
1% occurrence of x conditions.

Observer sees:
A --> B, 99% of time
A --> Y, 1% of time.
Enric Berneda
2 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2013
"So why assume that you cannot discuss quantum mechanics using the same language that you use for classical mechanics? This is insane!"

Don't you go wrong, johanfprins: I said before that perhaps "deterministic" is a word aplicable to nothing (only an intuitive macroscopic impression).

I try not to state "determinism" as the point of reference of "indeterminism". Maybe we should surpass this two categories and asume it's another way (nor determinist nor undeterminst).

Do you know where I go? Dicotomies. You can believe in determinism everytime that physics Laws, science theories, and even your sense common, corresponds to your experience in the real world (including scientific experiments). But what happens when at subatomic sizes, energy performs without sense of cause and effect? Will you think it's our deficience in the knowledge of the hidden factors? Why do you always start from the point of determinism? (continue)
Kron
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2013
Let's say that condition x is a periodic pulse of Dark Energy through the Universe (just as a potential explanation to illustrate what a hidden variable (hidden condition) could be).
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2013
Do you know where I go? Dicotomies. You can believe in determinism everytime that physics Laws, science theories, and even your sense common, corresponds to your experience in the real world (including scientific experiments). But what happens when at subatomic sizes, energy performs without sense of cause and effect?


What if elephants were pink and could fly: Pure speculation on your part since energy does NOT perform without cause and effect at subatomic sizes or at ANY level whatsoever: That is the experimental fact!

Will you think it's our deficience in the knowledge of the hidden factors?


There are NO HIDDEN factors other than what we already know.

Why do you always start from the point of determinism?


Since so far there has been no experiment that proved otherwise except those experiments which have been incorrectly interpreted by demented minds!
Enric Berneda
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2013
"Demented minds" haha think you have a personal problem with undeterminism hypotesis, not an intelectual question. Control your emotions ;-)

Maybe, the determinism that you see in macro world, is only an impression of trillion of hiden factors that you only see as a global result. That's what Karl Popper wanted to show with the Falsation Principle: a Lay never can be afirmed, but only falsed (when an event shows that don't works according to that Law).

So if you put your hands in your head because someone says that "subatomic nature could be undeterminist", you should ask yourself: Is all the rest of the world determinist? Really? When and why you assumed this statement? Only because it seems intuitive and a lot of people and physics in the past talked in those terms?

Would you feel a terrible sensation when knowing that basically, everything that forms our material world starts form undeterminism (aparition and desaparition of fundamental particles, conversions, etc. without cause?
VendicarE
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2013
Any measuring device must at least be capable of measuring two states. If it can't then it isn't doing any measuring and thereby contradicting the initial presumption that you have a measuring device.

"Bullshit! If your measuring apparatus can ONLY measure a single state you will know exactly beforehand what the result of the measurement will be!" - Johanfprins

it has long been known and demonstrated that quantum measurement can be erased.
VendicarE
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2013
dx*dp >= hbar/2

"Since so far there has been no experiment that proved otherwise except those experiments which have been incorrectly interpreted by demented minds!" - Juhanfprins

So where is your deterministic God Now?
Tausch
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2013
Remormalization. Well, that what the macro-observables are there for - a scale to demonstrate QM weirdness (or bullshit if you feel the way Johan does about such words such as 'uncertainty' and/or particles.) The only catch is the macro-observables are not going to demonstrate anything 'weird'. Even if you entangle minds - that will not create a statistic or a probability.
That is ...if you believe in invariant of measure and/or number.

I will be the last to chide Johan when he asserts I am nothing. Except a waving wave, waving.
Enric Berneda
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2013
continuation)

Maybe because universe cannot work like a watch (so destiny would be absolutelly programmed from past to future: absurd), but there's some "freedom-undetermism" in nature that makes it not be like a died machine? Maybe because it's more like an organism where all the parts refers to others and you cannot predict what will happen with a part, because you cannot know exactly all the universe? ... and that's why events "collapses", and fundamental particles "appear", "disappear", and convert to forces and viceversa, without apparent cause and effect?

(note the meaning of "events that collapses": nobody says that there's a magician (your Vodoo shaman), but that subatomics events are impredictable because are affected by all the universe in the end. So Science has nothing to do with that. We cannot predict that "collapses", as we cannot predict a lighting or weather at long term, but not this time in a closed system, but in the whole universe.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
"Demented minds" haha think you have a personal problem with undeterminism hypotesis, not an intelectual question. Control your emotions ;-)


Do you see how condescending and patronizing you are? I have no "personal problem" with the "undeterminism hypothesis". I do not have any personal problem with ANY hypothesis, but it remains a hypothesis until it is supported by experiment. There is NO experiment EVER that in any manner supports this "undeterminism hypothesis". And there is no reason whatsoever to use this crazy hypothesis to explain any of the physics we know at present.

Maybe, the determinism that you see in macro world, is only an impression of trillion of hiden factors that you only see as a global result.
Maybe: It might be trillions of angels playing a game with us mere mortals. But there is no reason to assume such silly hypotheses since all QM experimental results can be simply explained in terms of the known behavior of Maxwell's equations.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
Would you feel a terrible sensation when knowing that basically, everything that forms our material world starts form undeterminism (aparition and desaparition of fundamental particles, conversions, etc. without cause?


No I will not! If it is experimentally proved that this is so, I must accept that it is so: But there is NO EXPERIMENTAL evidence whatsoever that this is so. Thus while it remains an interesting hypothesis to consider when you smoked too much pot, it is only a mentally disturbed and insane person who will accept such a possibility as real physics before the experimental evidence is absolutely compelling that this is the case.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
Any measuring device must at least be capable of measuring two states. If it can't then it isn't doing any measuring and thereby contradicting the initial presumption that you have a measuring device.
Nonsense! If you have only one detector for a photon-wave, it can only measure the detected photon-state which is a single state!

it has long been known and demonstrated that quantum measurement can be erased.


And it has long been known that this can be modeled fully in terms of waves and wave-interactions without having to invoke the undefined concepts of a "particle" and "wave-particle duality".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
dx*dp >= hbar/2

"Since so far there has been no experiment that proved otherwise except those experiments which have been incorrectly interpreted by demented minds!" - Juhanfprins

So where is your deterministic God Now?


Are you saying that this equation is an experimental result proving an uncertainty in the position and momentum of the center-of-mass of a "particle". There is no experiment which has EVER proved this. And what has God to do with this?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
Remormalization. Well, that what the macro-observables are there for - a scale to demonstrate QM weirdness
There is NO qunatum weirdness that requires an inbuilt indeterminism into the laws of nature.

I will be the last to chide Johan when he asserts I am nothing. Except a waving wave, waving.
A wave is not NOTHING! It is a continuous energy-field filling a region in space and time.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
Maybe because universe cannot work like a watch (so destiny would be absolutelly programmed from past to future: absurd),
You see you again post in a condescending patronizing manner by assuming that what I am saying is that the "universe can be programmed like a watch". I have NEVER cl;aimed that: But to salve your rigid dogmatic thinking you conclude that this is what I claim and start to argue about something that is irrelevant to the discussion.

but that subatomics events are impredictable because are affected by all the universe in the end. So Science has nothing to do with that.
It is not just subatomic events: You also have this with a roulette wheel which is not subatomic.

We cannot predict that "collapses", as we cannot predict a lighting or weather at long term,
Exactly! So you agree it is not just a property of the subatomic world! And is thus not determined by a "probability-wave" which is "guiding" a non-existent "particle".
Enric Berneda
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
I do not have any personal problem with ANY hypothesis, but it remains a hypothesis until it is supported by experiment. There is NO experiment EVER that in any manner supports this "undeterminism hypothesis"


It's not a question of experiments. The thing is that it seems that you don't understand profoundly the Falsation Principle or Karl Popper. Popper did not say that "You cannot afirm a Law, but only false it" for free...

This is the base of Science actually. No experiment can take in consideration ALL THE FACTORS present in a system, even the unknowed ones (unless you thing that science knowledge is perfect yet... really? :O) So "determinism" is a word from the past. Science experiments and it's conclusions are never determinist: only falsable. Now we are not discussing if Quantum Mechanics is undeterminist versus determinist: that's not the question, because determinism concept is a fake by nature. And that's what you are persecuting.. like a carrot for a rabbit, sorry.
Enric Berneda
1.8 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2013
If you cannot explain your mathematics in simple words you do not know what the hell you are doing.


So you think that spoken language has always an exact correlation with maths and numeric data... hummm, interesting :-/

I think you overestimate language. That's not my case. If you thing that is insane distinct between Science and Philosophy, read Wittgenstein (languaje philosopher), and later we continue discussing if our language derived from our primitive past is totally enough to explain what nature does at a profound and complex level.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2013
It's not a question of experiments. The thing is that it seems that you don't understand profoundly the Falsation Principle or Karl Popper. Popper did not say that "You cannot afirm a Law, but only false it" for free...


It is YOU who do not understand Popper and therefore want to claim that if no experiment can falsify a hypothesis, the hypothesis must be true!

So "determinism" is a word from the past. Science experiments and it's conclusions are never determinist: only falsable.
This statement is utter nonsense! The correct interpretation is as follows: If all experiments confirm the theory, only a fool will believe that it is not possible to eventually do an experiment that can falsify a theory. And when you find such an experiment, you must accept that the theory is not correct.

After having taught QM as being "uncertain" owing to "wave-particle duality" for 40 years, I did an experiment that falsified these hypotheses: Thus this view of QM must be wrong!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2013
What it really means is that if you have a theory or model, which cannot be tested by an experiment that could falsify it, the theory or model, like Pauli stated: "Is not even wrong!".

The model of the Higgs boson is such a case: There is no experiment possible which can falsify the claim that it "gives other "particles" their masses". It is thus a model that is not even wrong!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
I only now picked up this silly post:

So you think that spoken language has always an exact correlation with maths and numeric data... hummm, interesting :-/


I have not said that: Mathematics is also a language, so that we keep on creating new words within the spoken language that keep pace with the language of mathematics.

and later we continue discussing if our language derived from our primitive past is totally enough to explain what nature does at a profound and complex level


This is not what I have said: A person from the primitive past will be bewildered at present when he/she encounters all the new words and concepts that has been brought about by the development of mathematics and science. I am not talking about explaining mathematics to such a person but with one who kept abreast with the development of language: If you cannot explain to this person in simple terms what your mathematics is all about; then you REALLY do not know what the hell you are doing!
Enric Berneda
2 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2013
I have not said that: Mathematics is also a language, so that we keep on creating new words within the spoken language that keep pace with the language of mathematics.


Tell me when Humanity has created "new words" since the discoveries of the Modern Physics and Quantum Mechanics from the start of XX century. REALLY NEW WORDS, I don't say compound words... ;-)

One thing more: read the comment guidelines, because you surpass all of them: silly, insane, bullshit... You perhaps teach QM for 40 years, but you seem a teenager talking.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2013
Tell me when Humanity has created "new words" since the discoveries of the Modern Physics and Quantum Mechanics from the start of XX century. REALLY NEW WORDS, I don't say compound words... ;-)
If you are not a fool you will know them: diode, transistor, booting, algorithm, etc.

One thing more: read the comment guidelines, because you surpass all of them: silly, insane, bullshit... You perhaps teach QM for 40 years, but you seem a teenager talking.
At least I am not stuck in kindergarten like you are! Who are changing your nappies?
Enric Berneda
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2013
If you are not a fool you will know them: diode, transistor, booting, algorithm, etc.


Oh yes! Like chip, microprocessor, mobile phone, tablet, iPad, etc. All technology.

But what you say when you see that even in MQ, we still say: "particle wave duality", "uncertainty principle", "semiconductor", "quantum", etc? Nobody has created a new and special words to say it, are only compounds that we already use... so probably language can't express all the subtilities of new subatomic discoveries.

But well, you always can be safe in you `confort zone´, considerating clasical determinism the reference to be beaten, and that nothing has changed your macroscopic paradigm. It's up to you.
Enric Berneda
2 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2013
This doesn't mean, that these experiments support determinism in exact version of J.F.Prins.


Exactlly natello... I think the problem is the concept Prins has of "determism". He seems to have it clear, but it's a mechanic point of view from the past (galilean and newtonian mechanics), where supposedly, the operation of the parts can explain the whole, and then science is deductive.

Now we start to consider different, because an "organic waved universe" (metaphoric way of think about it) is unpredictable at 100%. Waves are dynamic, continuous. They amplifies, cancels, modulate, distort (always in a dynamic and continuous process). Only waves "collapses" are discrete/quantum (said "particles", "orbital jumps", etc.).

So you cannot consider microscopic universe as a "mechanic" and "determinist" system (like a watch). No more. That's a view from the past. (continue)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2013
But what you say when you see that even in MQ, we still say: "particle wave duality", "uncertainty principle", "semiconductor", "quantum", etc? Nobody has created a new and special words to say it


Why should they create new words when they are not required?

so probably language can't express all the subtilities of new subatomic discoveries.


Why not? Can you give any falsifiable reason why our present language cannot express this? I have found no falsifiable proof of this statement at all: So you are probably "not even wrong".

But well, you always can be safe in you `confort zone´


My comfort zone is experimental philosophy and according to the latter there is no falsifiable evidence whatsoever that "anything" on the subatomic scale is different from our macroscopic paradigm: Both are the same wave-mathematics.

If it gives you comfort to believe that, without any falsifiable evidence, that there is such a change: Enjoy your life in cloud-cuckoo land.
Enric Berneda
2 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2013
If you want, Prins, we can accept that universe is determinist (under your point of view of what means "determinist"), because waves ARE THERE, and don't play ramdomly. But the effects of that play, is uncertain. To predict something with 100% exactitude, should know ALL the universe at the same time (there's always a margin error: just the Falsation Principle). ¿Can someone, science or a measurement machine, do it? Only a "unique god" could do it. So yes, universe is determinist, but not the way you think it. You cannot deduce the whole from parts.

Important (it's strange to say this to a QM teacher for 40 yrs): distinct between SUBATOMIC world (continuous waves like a maleable and organic universe)... and MACROSCOPIC world (waves collapses) that produces discrete energies like particles, quantum jumps, etc). Planck constant: that's the base of QM. If not, you are trying to understand QM with Newton's paradigm. Some people cannot do the jump, like others neither understand Relativity
Enric Berneda
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2013
QM mechanics are not predictable, because you cannot explain or describe how and when a wave collapses. That wave is related continuosusly to the whole universe, so it's behaviour cannot be assured with 100% precission, but only statistically. That's why you obtain aparitions and desaparitions without apparent cause. But the cause... the cause is the whole Universe! Something that surpasses our posibilities to predict with science.

So that waves are determinist; the exist; they aren't a "dice play". But you cannot classify them in a few types and describe it's propierties like Newton Mechanic Laws.

That's why you must distinct between subatomic CONTINUOUSLY scale world (and it's laws), and macroscopic QUANTIZED scale world, where that collapses have been yet produced, "creating" discrete particles, nucleons, orbital electron jumps (photons), atoms, molecules, matter, etc.

Both worlds are determinist, but you can only predict the quantized world (macroscopic). And maybe not at 100%.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2013
If you want, Prins, we can accept that universe is determinist (under your point of view of what means "determinist"), because waves ARE THERE, and don't play ramdomly. But the effects of that play, is uncertain.[/
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2013
If you want, Prins, we can accept that universe is determinist (under your point of view of what means "determinist"), because waves ARE THERE, and don't play ramdomly. But the effects of that play, is uncertain.
Not in the manner assumed by Bohr etc. Waves interact when they resonate with one another, and we cannot predict when two waves getting near to one another will be in resonance or not. This has nothing to do with uncertainty in position and momentum of a "particle". If you claim that the spin of a penny or the roll of dice proves the universe is not deterministic: Be my guest! But it is foolish to do so.

Important SUBATOMIC world and MACROSCOPIC world (waves collapses).. energies like particles, quantum jumps, etc).


I could not follow you here. But firstly, a wave cannot collapse to become a "particle": It only collapses (or inflates) when its boundary conditions change: A photon is the lowest-energy coherent EM-wave that can be emitted or detected.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2013
QM mechanics are not predictable, because you cannot explain or describe how and when a wave collapses.
Oh yes you can: When a diffracted photon-wave or electron wave reaches a screen you can predict that it will collapse to be recorded by the first atomic detector in the screen that it resonates with. The only thing you do not know is with which detector it is going to resonate. It is the same as throwing a dice: You can predict that it will end up lying on one side but you cannot predict which side.

That wave is related continuously to the whole universe,


No it is NOT: Here you are starting to sound like ValkeriaT. Are you ValeriaT?

That's why you obtain aparitions and desaparitions without apparent cause.
There is no experimental evidence that this might be possible.

But you cannot .... describe it's propierties like Newton Mechanic Laws
Oh yes you can: They are closely related as soon as you reject the undefined Voodoo "particle" concept.
Tausch
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2013
The emphasis on pragmatics arises most notably in Lagrangian QFT, which uses perturbation theory, path integrals, and renormalization techniques. Although some elements of the theory were eventually placed on a firmer mathematical foundation, there are still serious quesitons about its being a fully rigorous approach on a par with algebraic [von Neuman algebra] and Wightman's axiomatic QFT.


http://plato.stan.../qt-nvd/

"Quantum Theory: von Neumann vs. Dirac"

Does that take care of your objection to renormalization, Johan?
Von Neumanm is your advocate. No one believes you are a devil.
Simply read the entry(link.)
Enric Berneda
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2013
The only thing you do not know is with which detector it is going to resonate.


So you are agree with Heisenberg Uncertaintity Principle: you know when, but not where (or viceversa). That gives you an inner impredictibility of QM (not only because the alteration with light).

That wave is related continuously to the whole universe


Perhaps not the whole universe, but yes a big area; enough to not be able to predict a subatomic particle locally. Do you remember EPR Paradox and Quantum Entaglement? I know they are not definitive, but could give us some clues of what I say.

That's why you obtain aparitions...
There is no experimental evidence that this might be possible


Nobody says they appear from nothing. I said: without apparent cause, which is different.

as you reject the undefined Voodoo "particle" concept"
.

That's not a Vodoo concept. When waveforms coincide after millions of non-coincidences, then they amplificate, and we get a "particle".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2013
Does that take care of your objection to renormalization, Johan?
Why should it "take care" of it. Renormalization is math. hocus-pocus. Even Feynman knew this but was astute enough to know that if he pointed it out he will never win the Nobel Prize.

Bardeen also pointed out correctly that Cooper pairs cannot tunnel, but decided not to confirm this statement after SC tunneling was demonstrated. Bardeen knew very well that this meant that Cooper pairs cannot exist: But if he pointed this out he would not have won the Nobel Prize for the nonsensical concocted BCS model.

on Neumanm is your advocate.
He is NOT. His assumption that you can linearly combine the allowed solutions for an operator so that the coefficients are probability amplitudes is physics-nonsense: In fact it violates the conservation of energy.

No one believes you are a devil
Physics is not "faith" in another person but objective analysis of the physics even if the person is the "devil".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2013
So you are agree with Heisenberg Uncertaintity Principle: you know when, but not where (or viceversa).
I do not agree that there is an "uncertainty" in the position and momentum of the center-of-mass of ANY entity, even when this entity is foolishly called a "particle". The rest of your post is just a regurgitation of ValeriaT claptrap; on which I am not willing to waste my time since I have proved time and again on this forum that it is garbage!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
OK, so that whole the classical quantum mechanics with its particle-wave duality, collapse of wave function etc. is just a piece of crap - what else? Can you predict something new or to calculate something which the classical quantum mechanics cannot? Without it no one will give a shit about you, as you probably realize (actually, because the mainstream physics is employment driven, nobody will give a shit anyway, until your approach will not help the others to pile up their publications easier. You should provide the framework, which would help in occupation of another physicists - this is the principle of social success in contemporary physics). Without it your screaming here is just a complete waste of time for all people involved.
Enric Berneda
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
The rest of your post a regurgitation of ValeriaT; on which I am not willing to waste my time..


... and here is where the man didn't want to enter, because he personally don't want to accept that hipotesis (the EPR paradox, for example) which is experimentally proven.

When you imagine or visualize those subatomic waveform functions... are you thinking an ordinary macroscopic wave (let's say, like a sea wave)? Which medium you think it "waves"? Subatomic eter, maybe? That's why you say that all what happens in QM can be described in terms of determinism?

Can you assure that a concrete sea wave, hasn't a concrete number of water particles, a concrete height, velocity, etc. because of the total earth system? Can you assure that is not affected by a far phenomenom, let's say an huracan in the other side of the earth? (butterfly effect) Can you assure it? Sure? The same for QM wave collapses. Your confidence in newton's deductive determinism (parts explain the whole) is fantastic.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2013
Are you sure that cooking your grandmother constitutes a valid experiment?

"I did an experiment that falsified these hypotheses:" - Johanfprins

Quack.. Quack... Quack....
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2013
A single particle is sent through a double slit and is in transit to the screen.

Where is it?

"I do not agree that there is an "uncertainty" in the position and momentum of the center-of-mass of ANY entity" - Johanfprins

VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2013
Percentages are math, hocus-pocus

"Why should it "take care" of it. Renormalization is math. hocus-pocus." - Juhanfprins

e is an abomination and just pi in disguize.

Complex numbers are an affront to God.

Lucifer resides in Hilbert Space.

Quack... Quack... Quack....
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2013
How sad for you that the predictions made by what you reject are confirmed to the limit of experimental accuracy.

"His assumption that you can linearly combine the allowed solutions for an operator so that the coefficients are probability amplitudes is physics-nonsense" - Johanfprins

The universe just doesn't work the way you want it to.

You should find yourself another universe more attuned to your personal preferences and live there.

Quack... Quack... Quack...
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2013
It will resonate to some extent with a huge number of particles in the target of course, each to varying degrees, and non perfectly.

"When a diffracted photon-wave or electron wave reaches a screen you can predict that it will collapse to be recorded by the first atomic detector in the screen that it resonates with." - Johanfprins

So which resonator is selected? And what prevents two resonators from being selected at the same time?

How do you prevent the charge associated with an electron from being distributed between multiple equivalent resonators?

And how does an approximate resonance at one point or small region manage to instantly negate the wave at all other locations in space?

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2013
I would be happy to do so if you can provide an adequate alternative explanation for the quantization of rest mass, charge, energy, momentum, etc.

"They are closely related as soon as you reject the undefined Voodoo "particle" concept." - Juhanfprins
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
OK, so that whole the classical quantum mechanics with its particle-wave duality, collapse of wave function etc. is just a piece of crap -
Correct!
Can you predict something new or to calculate something which the classical quantum mechanics cannot?
Not just predict but also prove experimentally that wave-particle duality is nonsense! See http://www.cathod...tion.pdf I have also written a book analyzing ALL these aspects in detail. Of course in your case the abilities to "read and comprehend" are non-existent.
You should provide the framework,
I have done it and it is posted on my website.
which would help in occupation of another physicists - this is the principle of social success in contemporary physics
If you do physics for this reason you are committing treason against everything physics stands for. You are following this treasonable path my punting "wave-particle" duality in a stupid manner.I
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
... and here is where the man didn't want to enter, because he personally don't want to accept that hipotesis (the EPR paradox, for example) which is experimentally proven.
Patronizing and condescending again: What "hipotesis" (sic) do I not want to accept? What about the EPR paradox proves what about which "hipotesis". You are talking through your nose of things your little brain can never understand!

When you imagine or visualize those subatomic waveform functions... are you thinking an ordinary macroscopic wave (let's say, like a sea wave)?
They are stationary EM-waves: You see what I mean? It is known since 1905 that EM-waves do not move in a medium! Thus only a moron will imagine an EM-wave as being "like a sea wave". Have you EVER heard of Maxwell's equations?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
Are you sure that cooking your grandmother constitutes a valid experiment?

"I did an experiment that falsified these hypotheses:" - Johanfprins


http://www.cathod...tion.pdf

It is probably a waste of time to direct you to this evidence since you have proved over and over again that you do not have the abilities to "read and comprehend".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
A single particle is sent through a double slit and is in transit to the screen. Where is it?
Where is what? First define what a single "particle" is before making such an unscientific statement. How about "A ghost is sent through a wall: Where is it". Only an insane mind will argue like this.

"I do not agree that there is an "uncertainty" in the position and momentum of the center-of-mass of ANY entity" - Johanfprins


A single wave is sent through a double slit so that it moves equally through both slits: Its center-of-mass follows a definite path at a point midway between the two lobes that are moving through the slits. There is thus NO uncertainty in the position of the center-of-mass whatsoever.

Also not in the position of the center-of-charge of an electron wave: That this is so, is proved by the so-called Aharanov-Bohm effect during which the electron-wave is deflected when its center-of-charge moves through a magnetic field situated between the slits.
Tausch
1 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2013
hmmm
The 'center of mass' of your photon-wave is not fictitious because it does not exist. The 'center of mass' of your photon-wave is fictitious because no (arbitrary) measure gives it location.
You o.k. with that?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
"Why should it "take care" of it. Renormalization is math. hocus-pocus." - Juhanfprins
After Feynman won the Nobel Prize he also called it hocus-pocus.
Percentages are math, hocus-pocus
e is an abomination and just pi in disguize.
Complex numbers are an affront to God.
Lucifer resides in Hilbert Space.


Nowhere have I made any one of these statements that are ascribing to me. Is it impossible for you to argue like a grown-up?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
How sad for you that the predictions made by what you reject are confirmed to the limit of experimental accuracy.
Where! Why do you have blatantly lie in order to make a point!

"His assumption that you can linearly combine the allowed solutions for an operator so that the coefficients are probability amplitudes is physics-nonsense" - Johanfprins
Correct. When you solve the SINGLE electron wave equation for a chosen Hamilton operator, you get all the POSSIBLE states that a SINGLE electron can be in: It cannot have any other energy than one of these energies: A linear combination of these allowed states does not have one of these allowed energies and can thus not be a state that a SINGLE electron can be in. Thus to give physical meaning to such a linear combination of allowed states, as if it can be a SINGLE electron, is insane madness!

Only when you have more than one electron, each having one of the allowed energy states, does superposition make physics-sense.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
It will resonate to some extent with a huge number of particles in the target of course, each to varying degrees, and non perfectly.


How do you know this? Experimental evidence please? I am getting sick and tired of people like you who make statements that cannot be backed up by experiment!

So which resonator is selected?
The one with which it resonates first.

And what prevents two resonators from being selected at the same time?


A photon-wave (and thus also an electron-wave) is the smallest amount of energy that can be detected by an atomic-scale detector (This is what Planck discovered in 1900). Thus, two detectors cannot detect parts of a photon or an electron-wave. Each wave can only be detected by one detector.

How do you prevent the charge associated with an electron from being distributed between multiple equivalent resonators?
It cannot be since each resonator cannot detect less energy than that of the electron-wave.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
And how does an approximate resonance at one point
Give me experimental proof that an "approximate resonance" can occur.

or small region manage to instantly negate the wave at all other locations in space?
If the wave resonates with a resonator that cannot detect less energy than the energy of the wave it obviously will only be detected by ONE of the resonators!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
I would be happy to do so if you can provide an adequate alternative explanation for the quantization of rest mass, charge, energy, momentum, etc.


"They are closely related as soon as you reject the undefined Voodoo "particle" concept." - Juhanfprins


How does the "particle" concept explain the quantization of rest mass, charge, energy, momentum, etc.? The quantization of light is NOT explained by the "particle" concept. A light quantum is simply just the smallest-energy, coherent light-wave that a source can emit and that a resonant detector can detect. In simple terms, it is physically impossible to have a laser source that can emit a coherent wave with energy less than h*(nu). This is what quantization is all about! No Voodoo involved!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
hmmm
The 'center of mass' of your photon-wave is not fictitious because it does not exist. The 'center of mass' of your photon-wave is fictitious because no (arbitrary) measure gives it location.
You o.k. with that?


No! If you have a SINGLE coherent wave with EM-energy E moving past at a speed c, the total energy of the wave is E=m*c^2, even though it does not have a rest mass. Thus the photon consists of distributed mass-energy, and we know that distributed mass-energy has a center-of-mass.

Thus a photon moving past has a center-of mass which is following a definite path that has NO UNCERTAINTY in its position or momentum (given accurately by E/c).

For God's sake: Is this so difficult to understand? It flows directly from Maxwell's equations as manifested in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity! But of course we are not allowed to show that QM follows directly from Maxwell's equations because Bohr and God do not allow knowledge on the subatomic scale!
Tausch
1 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2013
Constructivism always has at least four victims...simultaneously.
A construct. A bias. Data. You.

Intuitionalists call this non intuitive.
Tausch
1 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2013
Give me experimental proof that an "approximate resonance" can occur. -j


Two entities near resonance will combine.
The emphasis is on the word 'near'.
Tausch
1 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2013
Probability will put you in a state to place a question mark behind the above statement.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
Probability will put you in a state to place a question mark behind the above statement.


But not the probability on which the Copenhagen interpretation is based: Only the same probability one encounters when classically modelling the diffusion of atoms through a crystal lattice.

There is not a "probability" amplitude which constitutes a probability-wave which can "collapse" to make the "uncertain position" of a "particle" certain. The intensity of a photon or electron-wave does not, on its own, decide how a wave will morph in shape and size when it encounters new boundary conditions. It is primarily determined by the boundary conditions (the measurement equipment).
Tausch
1 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2013
So the statement '...to any degree of approximation, exactitude, preciseness, or accuracy' is a dynamically vacuous?
Tausch
1 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2013
... is a a dynamically vacuous statement?
(last word missing in the previous post or drop the word 'a' in the previous post - your choice.)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
So the statement '...to any degree of approximation, exactitude, preciseness, or accuracy' is a dynamically vacuous?
I do not have a clue what you are trying to convey!

Even the word statement does not convey what you are talking about
Enric Berneda
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
It's curious... I've seen more "Johans F. Prins" in my life. Good scientists (or not) that want to "reorient the silly thing in what has been converted Physics since XX century". And not only for Modern Physics. I know someone that sustains, with advanced math astronomy, that Earth is in the center of the Universe. They all use a similar language and style of debate: they are "angry" with "science system" and with argument parthers. Ok, he may be right with his theories, but it's a curious coincidence.

After this cheap psichoanalysis (sorry), I think that you still believe in things, in objects. You try to treat QM waves as separate parts. But they are continuous energy. The only discrete thing is the quantum energy (when a wave has yet collapsed, forming what we call "particles", "atoms", "molecules", etc.). But QM waves are continuous, and you cannot treat it individually, but related to all the system (universe). So you cannot predict EXACTLY how and when collapses simultaneouslly.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
After this cheap psichoanalysis
Not "cheap" but "moronic" and "demented"!

You try to treat QM waves as separate parts.


It is YOU who claim that QM-waves consist of "separate parts". You are obviously so stupid that you do not even know that "separate part" is the nearest to "particle".

But they are continuous energy.
Correct! This is what I have been saying all along.

The only discrete thing is the quantum energy


Which is the lowest energy that a CONTINUOUS coherent light-wave can have!.

(when a wave has yet collapsed, forming what we call "particles", "atoms", "molecules", etc.)


When any one of these entities moves past, STR demands that it manifests as a single coherent EM-wave, even when you call it a meter stick!

But QM waves are continuous, and you cannot treat it individually, but related to all the system (universe).


Only when the waves are entangled!! If not, they are separate waves which brainless idiots call "particles".
Enric Berneda
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
Beautiful: you accept that there aren't particles. But you say they are "individual waves".

How can you tell where a tridimensional and asymetric "wave" starts and finishes? And if it changes dynamically? An individual wave exists, or is your abstraction of it?

Schrödinger found that even the electron and all matter has "wave propierties". So here is it: because they aren't strictly "particles", "objects" or "individual things", but a continuouslly reality that you only can percieve or formulate in an abstract way. Always temporally.

So if you aspire to construct a determinist QM, first fail is that you don't treat with individual physic objects: you only have a continuum, that in some cases collapses and produces what we say "particles", or "the lowest energy" (as you said). But that energy is never zero, you got it? That 1st energy level is the continuous global waves across all the universe. Waves are determinist, but not it's collapses in a deductive "object" way. Chaos theory
Tausch
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2013
I do not have a clue what you are trying to conver. -J


If you set the probability to at least one (1), is that statement dynamically vacuous - the same as saying that is a logical consequence of the statement that does not refer to time?

http://www.resear..._Theorem

Beyond the scope of thread commentary.
The boundaries of derivatives.

Can one talk about entropy in an all EM universe?
If so, what is the entropy of an all EM universe?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2013
you accept that there aren't particles. But you say they are "individual waves".


If two coherent waves are not entangled, they are separate WAVE-entities!

How can you tell where a tridimensional and asymetric "wave"


What do you mean by asymmetric?

And if it changes dynamically?


If any object moves past you, STR proves that is changing dynamically with a coherent wavelength; as any coherent EM-wave does. This has been proved OVER and OVER experimentally: Obviously you do not allow experimental facts to let go of your hallucinations based on ducks and foam.

An individual wave exists, or is your abstraction of it?
No abstraction required: It is an experimental fact that a single photon diffracts: It can then be nothing else than a separate wave? Not a Voodoo duck paddling within a non-existent "aether"?

Schrödinger found that even the electron and all matter has "wave propierties"


Wrong again: He found that they ARE EM-waves and nothing else
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2013
How can you tell where a ... "wave" starts and finishes?


It is determined by the source of the wave: Take a laser source which emits a sinusoidal wave along a single direction for a time T. After emission at any time t, the size of the wave along its direction of motion is c*T, and its cross-sectional size is determined by the the size of the semitransparent window of the laser source. So what is your problem?

So if you aspire to construct a determinist QM, first fail is that you don't treat with individual physic objects: you only have a continuum,
Not just a SINGLE one! Each wave is a continuum, but two separate waves are NOT a single continuum: They only form a SINGLE continuum when they are entangled.

that in some cases collapses and produces what we say "particles", or "the lowest energy" (as you said).
A single wave can either "collapse" or "inflate" or "entangle with another wave": It still remains a wave which fills a volume in space continuously.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2013
Can one talk about entropy in an all EM universe?
If so, what is the entropy of an all EM universe?


When, within a region of space, you have entities moving relative to one another, you have kinetic-energy, temperature and entropy within that region of space.

If there are no entities moving relative to one another, that region of space has zero-entropy. Thus even if you have entities, all having potential energy, but no kinetic energy, you have zero entropy. All entities are EM-waves, so clearly there is no problem with an EM universe having entropy.

If the universe is a single continuous wave as ValeriaT hallucinates about, our whole universe will consist purely of potential energy and there will be no entropy whatsoever.
Enric Berneda
1 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2013
How can you tell where a ... "wave" starts and finishes?


It is determined by the source of the wave: Take a laser source which emits a sinusoidal wave along a single direction for a time T


Haha, of course... "take a laser source", but this is not natural (spontaneous) world. What you say is like I suggest that I play a pitch pipe, to demonstrate that all sound in the universe is like a sine wave.

(Note: no wave in the universe is a perfect sinusoidal. Sinusoidal is only a mathematic/geometry idealism. In every system theres some noise or perturbance, even in the subatomic world (fluctuation). Here we aren't proclaiming a platonic world. So put the example that a laser can emit a "pure sinusoid", and that demonstrate the existence of a single, separate, and perfectlly delimitated wave in THREE DIMENSIONS is wrong).

You still can't admit that a dune in the desert is not "a dune". The limits are your parameters. No dune is the same; and all the desert is related.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2013
It is determined by the source of the wave: Take a laser source which emits a sinusoidal wave along a single direction for a time T
Haha, of course... "take a laser source", but this is not natural (spontaneous) world.


Wrong again! The energy of a photon relates to a single well-defined frequency. Only a coherently-moving wave which we can model by a sinusoidal curve can have a single well-defined frequency: And we know that a photon-wave is not infinite in size. So as usual you are ignoring the experimental facts because they do not fit your Voodoo hallucinations!

So put the example that a laser can emit a "pure sinusoid", and that demonstrate the existence of a single, separate, and perfectlly delimitated wave in THREE DIMENSIONS is wrong).
The existence of photons proves that it is not wrong: So does the existence of a single deBrolie frequency for any object with mass m passing by with speed v (also a meter stick) also proves that you are hallucinating.
Enric Berneda
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2013
Wrong again! The energy of a photon relates to a single well-defined frequency
Was I talking ONLY about photons? Photons (light) is the purest case you can find in the universe: that's why light is the fastest (or natural) way of transmission (they say constant), cause it lays in the lowest energy possible.

I'm not talking about the effects of a quantum wave collapse (an orbital jump, a photon). I'm talking about WHAT PRODUCES A COLLAPSE AND A PHOTON. I think is very different.

I'm not talking about when a quantum is done (photon), but the sustrate of that production (some say "quantum fluctuation"), the last sustrate of physic world.

That sustrate (before particles like photons) is continuous, not discrete. It's continuity doesn't leave space for vibration margin (like air, water or other macroscopic physic mediums). It's DIRECTLY RELATED to the whole, so a change in a remote place can alter the rest.

Thought that we were talking about the same.. but now I see I was wrong.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2013
Was I talking ONLY about photons?


I did not say so! Other EM waves like electrons can be similarly analysed. There is not enough space on this forum; and since you cannot even understand the nature of a photon, we should first prove that a photon is NOT a "particle" that forms by the "collapse" of a Vodoo "probability wave".

I'm not talking about the effects of a quantum wave collapse (an orbital jump, a photon). I'm talking about WHAT PRODUCES A COLLAPSE AND A PHOTON.


A photon is NOT produced by a collapse of a Voodoo "probability"-wave but by the emission of energy by a stationary electron-wave when the electron-wave is not in its lowest-energy, stationary state: Yes, the electron wave then morphs in shape and size, and if you want to be crude you can call it a "collapse". If you want to be stupid you can call it a "quantum jump".

I'm not talking about when a quantum is done (photon), but the sustrate ......


What is "sustrate" suppose to mean?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2013
I did not give the whole sentence above: It should read:

Yes, the electron wave then morphs in shape and size, and if you want to be crude you can call it a "collapse" OF THE "PROBABILITY-WAVE". If you want to be stupid you can call it a "quantum jump" OF AN "ELECTRON-PARTICLE".

Tausch
1 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2013
@Johan
We know the holy grail are boundaries.
We know measure (no limit to the meaning 'measure' here) must contribute at least in part to conditions in which boundaries are to manifest.

You have replace the 'measurement problem' with boundaries.
We know your motivations for this: no more voodoo.

What are the laws of boundaries?
These laws are extraordinary.
These laws account for all waves.
These laws account for all morphs.
What is a universal quantifier to quantify all boundaries?
The properties. The postulates. The axioms. The theories.

Is there mathematics accessible to this?
Is 'boundary' analytic algebra? Geometry?
Where do we start to access your physics?
What branch of science or math is best equipped to describe the laws of boundaries according to the Johanian Wave equation a la Schrödinger?

johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2013
Where do we start to access your physics? What branch of science or math is best equipped to describe the laws of boundaries according to the Johanian Wave equation a la Schrödinger?


Nobody who has done, and understood, a course in Maxwell's electrodynamics will ask such an utterly STUPID question. If you have never solved Maxwell's equations, or NEVER heard of them, I suggest that you do a standard course that all radio-engineers do: How antennas work, how energy is transmitted from a source to a radio-detector etc.

If you have any brains it will then become obvious to you how quantum mechanics actually functions. Note: Maxwell's equations are ALREADY commensurate with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. In fact, they define the STR. You thus do not require Dirac's wave-equation to model an electron-wave! Neither Feynman's silly diagrams!

You can start by reading what I have posted on my website!
Tausch
1 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2013
http://phys.org/news/2013-01-einstein-entanglement-quantum-erasure-deconstructs.html

My objection is posted there.
Maxwell's equations are not commensurate with QM.
Your derivative is not commensurate with QM.
Electrons are photons? Only slower?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2013
My objection is posted there.
What objection to what?

Maxwell's equations are not commensurate with QM.
Why not?

Your derivative is not commensurate with QM.
Which derivative are you talking about?

Electrons are photons?
I have not said they are photons: A photon does not have rest mass; an electron has. An electron's rest-mass energy is stationary electromagnetic energy, similar to light energy trapped within a perfectly reflecting cavity: Furthermore when an electron moves it has a coherent EM wavelength given by de Broglie's "postulate". The latter can be derived directly from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which, in turn, results directly from Maxwell's equations. Thus the de Broglie wavelength of an entity with rest mass (thus also an electron) is determined by Maxwell's equations. In turn, Schroedinger's equation is determined by the de Broglie wavelength and is therefore determined by Maxwell's equations.
Tausch
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2013
...a perfectly reflecting cavity - JP

Gives rise to your universe. A perfect universe.
I distance myself from the first post on this thread and assert
now that quantum information theory and quantum mechanical theory have a common origin.

A problematic statement arose when evolutionists tried to convince a reader that evolution is both by stating:
A process is the result.
The reader insisted:
A process is not the result.
I stated I can not extend his statement to the physical.
Physics is physical. And will remain so for us.

If you want a successful description, your process and your result must exist simultaneously stemming from a timeless process including probability.

Your universe needs time. Literally. Once your universe evolves you will find structures that leave time behind and still give rise to all the physics and dynamics you foresee. In the limit your universe will be everything you expect it to be. The origin of your universe will remain an enigma to you.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2013
@Tausch
If you insist in living in cloud-cuckoo Voodooland, be my guest!
Tausch
1 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2013
The plate trick is the mathematical physics reason why particles in a four-dimensional spacetime are either fermions or bosons.
Welcome aboard, JP.
Put added spin to the topic, don'tcha think?
Tausch
1 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2013
Tausch
1 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2013
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2013
The plate trick is the mathematical physics reason why particles in a four-dimensional spacetime are either fermions or bosons.
Welcome aboard, JP.


Whether they are fermions or bosons ONLY becomes relevant when you have an ensemble of them entangling to form a macro-wave. THEN fermions follow Fermi-Dirac statistics when they lose their separate existences, and bosons follow Bose-Einstein statistics when the lose their separate existences.

When they are separate, individual waves it is irrelevant whether each one is a fermion or a boson; since they then do NOT follow either Fermi-Dirac statistics OR Bose-Einstein statistics. Ordinary Boltzmann statistics then applies. They are then "classical" entities.

Why the hell do you people want to make matters so complicated? Separate, identical entities are NEVER modeled by either Fermi-Dirac or Bose-Einstein statistics ever. If you are a moronic fool you will call such separate "classical" entities: "anyons"