Physicists succeed in closing last local realistic loophole for systems of entangled photons

Apr 15, 2013
Lab IQOQI, Vienna 2012. Credit: : Jacqueline Godany

A team led by the Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger has carried out an experiment with photons, in which they have closed an important loophole. The researchers have thus provided the most complete experimental proof that the quantum world is in conflict with our everyday experience. The results of this study appear this week in the renowned journal Nature.

When we observe an object, we make a number of intuitive assumptions, among them that the unique properties of the object have been determined prior to the observation and that these properties are independent of the state of other, distant objects. In everyday life, these assumptions are fully justified, but things are different at the . In the past 30 years, a number of experiments have shown that the behaviour of – such as atoms, electrons or photons – can be in conflict with our basic intuition. However, these experiments have never delivered definite answers. Each previous experiment has left open the possibility, at least in principle, that the observed particles 'exploited' a weakness of the .

physics is an exquisitely precise tool for understanding the world around us at a very fundamental level. At the same time, it is a basis for modern technology: semiconductors (and therefore computers), lasers, , and numerous other devices are based on quantum-physical effects. However, even after more than a century of intensive research, fundamental aspects of are not yet fully understood. On a regular basis, laboratories worldwide report results that seem at odds with our everyday intuition but that can be explained within the framework of quantum theory.

On the trail of the quantum entanglement mystery

The physicists in Vienna report not a new effect, but a deep investigation into one of the most fundamental phenomena of quantum physics, known as 'entanglement.' The effect of is amazing: when measuring a quantum object that has an entangled partner, the state of the one particle depends on measurements performed on the partner. Quantum theory describes entanglement as independent of any physical separation between the particles. That is, entanglement should also be observed when the two particles are sufficiently far apart from each other that, even in principle, no information can be exchanged between them (the speed of communication is fundamentally limited by the speed of light). Testing such predictions regarding the correlations between entangled quantum particles is, however, a major experimental challenge.

Towards a definitive answer

The young academics in Anton Zeilinger's group including Marissa Giustina, Alexandra Mech, Rupert Ursin, Sven Ramelow and Bernhard Wittmann, in an international collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and Technology/NIST (USA), the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (Germany), and the Max-Planck-Institute of Quantum Optics (Germany), have now achieved an important step towards delivering definitive experimental evidence that quantum particles can indeed do things that classical physics does not allow them to do. For their experiment, the team built one of the best sources for entangled photon pairs worldwide and employed highly efficient photon detectors designed by experts at NIST. These technological advances together with a suitable measurement protocol enabled the researchers to detect entangled photons with unprecedented efficiency. In a nutshell: "Our photons can no longer duck out of being measured," says Zeilinger.

This kind of tight monitoring is important as it closes an important loophole. In previous experiments on photons, there has always been the possibility that although the measured photons do violate the laws of classical physics, such non-classical behaviour would not have been observed if all photons involved in the experiment could have been measured. In the new experiment, this loophole is now closed. "Perhaps the greatest weakness of photons as a platform for quantum experiments is their vulnerability to loss – but we have just demonstrated that this weakness need not be prohibitive," explains Marissa Giustina, lead author of the paper.

Now one last step

Although the new experiment makes photons the first quantum particles for which, in several separate experiments, every possible loophole has been closed, the grand finale is yet to come, namely, a single experiment in which the photons are deprived of all possibilities of displaying their counterintuitive behaviour through means of classical physics. Such an experiment would also be of fundamental significance for an important practical application: 'quantum cryptography,' which relies on quantum mechanical principles and is considered to be absolutely secure against eavesdropping. Eavesdropping is still theoretically possible, however, as long as there are loopholes. Only when all of these are closed is a completely secure exchange of messages possible.

An experiment without any loopholes, says Zeilinger, "is a big challenge, which attracts groups worldwide." These experiments are not limited to photons, but also involve atoms, electrons, and other systems that display quantum mechanical behaviour. The experiment of the Austrian physicists highlights the ' potential. Thanks to these latest advances, the photon is running out of places to hide, and quantum physicists are closer than ever to conclusive experimental proof that defies our intuition and everyday experience to the degree suggested by research of the past decades.

Explore further: Quantum test strengthens support for EPR steering

More information: Giustina, M. et al. Bell violation with entangled photons, free of the fair-sampling assumption, Nature (Advance Online Publication/AOP). April 14, 2013. DOI: 10.1038/nature12012

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) ...

Researchers explore quantum entanglement

Feb 08, 2013

Albert Einstein called quantum entanglement—two particles in different locations, even on other sides of the universe, influencing each other—"spooky action at a distance."

Recommended for you

Cold Atom Laboratory creates atomic dance

3 hours ago

Like dancers in a chorus line, atoms' movements become synchronized when lowered to extremely cold temperatures. To study this bizarre phenomenon, called a Bose-Einstein condensate, researchers need to cool ...

Wild molecular interactions in a new hydrogen mixture

9 hours ago

Hydrogen—the most abundant element in the cosmos—responds to extremes of pressure and temperature differently. Under ambient conditions hydrogen is a gaseous two-atom molecule. As confinement pressure ...

Scientists create possible precursor to life

11 hours ago

How did life originate? And can scientists create life? These questions not only occupy the minds of scientists interested in the origin of life, but also researchers working with technology of the future. ...

User comments : 131

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

VendicarE
2.7 / 5 (14) Apr 15, 2013
Although there are many words in the article, the only content is held in the title.
clay_ferguson
1.9 / 5 (17) Apr 15, 2013
Right VendicarE, that article is totally devoid of any information whatsoever and is nothing but pure fluff.
barakn
2.6 / 5 (9) Apr 15, 2013
" In previous experiments on photons, there has always been the possibility that although the measured photons do violate the laws of classical physics, such non-classical behaviour would not have been observed if all photons involved in the experiment could have been measured. In the new experiment, this loophole is now closed. "Perhaps the greatest weakness of photons as a platform for quantum experiments is their vulnerability to loss – but we have just demonstrated that this weakness need not be prohibitive," explains Marissa Giustina, lead author of the paper."
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (63) Apr 15, 2013
Another nail in coffin of objective realism,...i.e. the notion that physics explains how Reality IS independent of mind. Rather, physics is about describing Empirical reality,... which is to say, observed human experience. This is a quit different notion, because empirical reality contains as a necessary component our applied a-priori conceptual structure, which Reality must conform to, to be known at all. Space and time are intuitions of the mind,... a means or ordering and synthesizing experience, ,.... not physical entities discoverable independently of their application in relating things. There are several other such concepts besides space and time that fail as a one-to-one correspondence,... divisibility by thought (Noumenal reality appears to be One thing, holistic),... causality, substance,... etc.

[see I. Kant, B. E'spagnat]
vacuum-mechanics
1.2 / 5 (21) Apr 15, 2013
Quantum physics is an exquisitely precise tool for understanding the world around us at a very fundamental level. At the same time, it is a basis for modern technology: semiconductors (and therefore computers), lasers, MRI scanners, and numerous other devices are based on quantum-physical effects. However, even after more than a century of intensive research, fundamental aspects of quantum theory are not yet fully understood…

Maybe this physical view could give us some hint how the mechanism of quantum physics works.
http://www.vacuum...19〈=en
Lurker2358
2.9 / 5 (14) Apr 15, 2013
Independent tests and repeatability provide a mechanism for proving most observed phenomena are in fact objective.

Human perception is not the same thing as observation. Perception is a calculation, or interpretation of one or more observations.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (17) Apr 15, 2013
Another nail in coffin of objective realism,...i.e. the notion that physics explains how Reality IS independent of mind.

How is that a nail in the coffin of objective realism? All it shows is that our knee-jerk anaylsis of how we think the universe should be - based on everyday/macroscopic analogies - doesn't mesh with how the universe actually is.

It is just a nail in the coffin of those theories that that still cling to a determinsitic, singular-value universe (which have gone out the window early last century - and are only being pursued by a couple of cranks anymore)
Lurker2358
1.7 / 5 (17) Apr 15, 2013
It is just a nail in the coffin of those theories that that still cling to a determinsitic, singular-value universe (which have gone out the window early last century - and are only being pursued by a couple of cranks anymore)


Not really.

Time and determinism are instrumental in the laboratory experiment.

You create a laser, you split the laser. If deterministic intuitions were not true, the experiment would not even happen, since you plan the experiment sequentially, based on deterministic intuitions.
Claudius
2.7 / 5 (19) Apr 15, 2013
I think macroscopic quantum phenomena exist, having personally seen one example. The problem is such phenomena occur too rarely and unexpectedly, they will never be verifiable.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (15) Apr 15, 2013
I think macroscopic quantum phenomena exist, having personally seen one example.


Care to share what that "personally seen one example" was? I would be interested in hearing about.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (55) Apr 15, 2013
Another nail in coffin of objective realism,...i.e. the notion that physics explains how Reality IS independent of mind.
How is that a nail in the coffin of objective realism? All it shows is that our knee-jerk anaylsis of how we think the universe should be - based on everyday/macroscopic analogies - doesn't mesh with how the universe actually is.


I can better answer you if you explain what you take 'objective realism' to mean. I explained what I meant above.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 15, 2013
Objective realism: stuff exists inpendent of an observer, and the act of observing doesn't change the nature of reality.

We only have access to reality via our senses (and our interpretational capability by our brains), which means that what we experience is always subjective. But that does not preclude us from us being able to generate a valid description of reality.

Reason being: If one can sense X via senses Y and Z (where Y and Z are independent of each other) then one can, from the information rendered by those senses, infer what X is like without Y or Z.
In laymans terms: One can get objective information using subjective senses, only.

Claudius
3 / 5 (21) Apr 15, 2013
Care to share what that "personally seen one example" was? I would be interested in hearing about.


I once watched an egg, sitting on a dish towel next to a sink, from a full rest position begin to move as if an invisible hand were pushing it, across the towel, up over the rim of the sink, and fall to the bottom where it revealed itself to be an ordinary egg, not a Mexican jumping bean. I was not the only witness, it was not a magic exhibition, just someone washing eggs at the sink.

I was in physics in my undergraduate days, and prided myself that I could always explain any mysterious phenomenon. This one blew that misconception out of the window.

You won't believe it. I wouldn't believe it either, if someone were telling me about it. But you wanted to know.
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (15) Apr 15, 2013
I once watched an egg, sitting on a dish towel next to a sink, from a full rest position begin to move as if an invisible hand were pushing it, across the towel, up over the rim of the sink, and fall to the bottom where it revealed itself to be an ordinary egg, not a Mexican jumping bean. I was not the only witness, it was not a magic exhibition, just someone washing eggs at the sink.

I was in physics in my undergraduate days, and prided myself that I could always explain any mysterious phenomenon. This one blew that misconception out of the window.

You won't believe it. I wouldn't believe it either, if someone were telling me about it. But you wanted to know.


Hey, thanks for taking the time to answer. Not something I can explain either, but I think the term, "macroscopic quantum phenomena" is probably inappropriate,,, it sounds more like an "unexplained classical physics phenomenon". Quantum has a very strict meaning in physics.
jsdarkdestruction
2 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2013
"I was in physics in my undergraduate days, and prided myself that I could always explain any mysterious phenomenon. This one blew that misconception out of the window. "

if only you'd stayed in physics so many of your other misconceptions wouldn't occur either. You learned just enough for that pride to blind you zephyr.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (60) Apr 15, 2013
Objective realism: stuff exists inpendent of an observer, and the act of observing doesn't change the nature of reality.


Yes, there is an underlying Reality, but it is unknowable 'as it IS in itself' (see my screen name), even in principal. The unknowable Noumenal Reality remains whatever it is, but since it is unknowable "in its original 'form'", Objective Realism is invalid.

The act of observing, ...to be more general the act of conceptualizing, ..Defines Empirical reality, which is different from Noumenal Reality in that We supply the conceptual form. Reality apart from us is obviously unconceptualized, and so it has no knowable form. Is it a wave or a particle? it is neither,... these are merely the forms in which a "something" is conceptualized and observed by us.

Physics is NOT about describing Reality in an objective realist sense, its about describing empirical reality,... constructing models that link observables.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (57) Apr 15, 2013
We only have access to reality via our senses (and our interpretational capability by our brains), which means that what we experience is always subjective. But that does not preclude us from us being able to generate a valid description of reality.


It's more than simply a limit of our physical senses, or even the inapplicability of our macroscopic analogies. It is an intrinsic means of ordering and synthesizing experience in a way in which the mind has evolved to do so, which precludes us from ever knowing Reality as it is independent of us. We obtain only a valid description of Empirical reality,... which as mentioned is mind dependent, inescapably.

QM observation demonstrates this by effecting the outcome. i.e. The M. Born rule is NOT a probability that a particle is at location X,... it is a probability that a particle will be found at x, which had NO value before hand.
Claudius
3 / 5 (20) Apr 15, 2013
"it sounds more like an "unexplained classical physics phenomenon". Quantum has a very strict meaning in physics."

I agree. However, the problem remains that there are "phenomena" which are apparently spontaneous, unpredictable and unrepeatable. Quantum or not, this is something science can never explain.

I'll let you know as soon as I see eggs forming an interference pattern.
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (15) Apr 15, 2013
"it sounds more like an "unexplained classical physics phenomenon". Quantum has a very strict meaning in physics."

I agree. However, the problem remains that there are "phenomena" which are apparently spontaneous, unpredictable and unrepeatable. Quantum or not, this is something science can never explain.

I'll let you know as soon as I see eggs forming an interference pattern.


Anecdotal phenomena are not considered of any value to hard science. For phenomena to be of any use, they must at least be observable and reoccurring, regardless of whether ya can explain them.

Art Bell might find it a good subject to talk around, but it's only a "fun" topic, not one that can be seriously studied.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 15, 2013
Yes, there is an underlying Reality, but it is unknowable

I don't think it is unknowable. It may be unexperiencable (since any experience of it is filtered through senses - be they electronic or biological). But that doesn't mean it cannot be characterized - possibly in full.

Note: To be able to characterize something in full does not mean one has full deteminism. E.g. a random process can be fully characterized without being able to determine any individual outcome.

Wonderful complexity can stem from very simple premises. and I do think the universe is, at it's core, very simple/unified.

Certainly the more we know the more we have come to understand that the fundamental forces can be unified. I would not be surprised if that would hold true for gravity (and any other forces we may yet find in the very large or very small).

Objectivity is reached when the description of reality isn't dependent on us. I see no problem with that (other than it being bloody difficult).

ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (16) Apr 15, 2013
I'm sure, nobody of twaddlers here actual understands, what this experiment was actually about. So many posts about nonsenses....
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (13) Apr 15, 2013
I'm sure, nobody of twaddlers here actual understands, what this experiment was actually about. So many posts about nonsenses....


So explain to us twaddlers what this experiment was actually about Zeph.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (22) Apr 15, 2013
I'm sure, nobody of twaddlers here actual understands, what this experiment was actually about. So many posts about nonsenses....
Speaking of nonsense, I wonder if somebodys finally found a muon catalyst?
http://www.starsc....com.au/

-There was one other but I cant find it.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (24) Apr 15, 2013
Hello nou
It's more than simply a limit of our physical senses, or even the inapplicability of our macroscopic analogies. It is an intrinsic means of ordering and synthesizing experience in a way in which the mind has evolved to do so, which precludes us from ever knowing Reality as it is independent of us. We obtain only a valid description of Empirical reality,... which as mentioned is mind dependent, inescapably
Horseshit. There is no underlying anything. Much of modern science is counterintuitive and can only be described mathematically.

You are just reciting philocrap by rote. You enjoy fiddling with words. For instance the word reality as you use it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

I suppose your favorite food is jello? Because its all squishy and comes in many pretty colors but has no nutritional value whatsoever? Its also amorphous. It jiggles. WHAT GOOD IS JELLO?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) Apr 15, 2013
Muon catalyst was found in 50's - the low utilization of muons is the problem (the 99% muons don't catalyze anything, they just participate to radioactivity)
what this experiment was actually about
In quantum observation the quantum state of objects gets destroyed. The classical objects can be observed without change. How is it possible? Well, these objects consist of huge amount of mutually entangled particles. The simplest system for which such "classicalisation" can be demonstrated is the pair of entangled photons - such a pair can be observed without changing the spin orientation of photons. Actually during measurement the spin of one photon gets violated - but the second photon serves as backup state and with its re-entanglement (loop-hole process) the original state of the former photon can be restored. It's similar to the working of RAID pair of disks: even if the information of one disk gets broken, the information stored at the backup disk enables its safe restoration.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (20) Apr 15, 2013
You can also cast jello into different shapes but if you try to reform it after it sets, it like fractures. It cant adapt. It looks adaptable but its not.

Jello is a pretty good representation of your favorite hobby dont you think? It APPEARS as if theres something there, but there isnt.

They still spend millions on tv commercials for it, and people still spend money on it thinking they are actually getting something of value. But theyre not.
http://www.youtub...kKc-0FSY

-Just like lindsey lohan. Ha.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (21) Apr 15, 2013
Muon catalyst was found in 50's - the low utilization of muons is the problem (the 99% muons don't catalyze anything, they just participate to radioactivity)
Yeah I know. YOU didnt look at the website. The company claims it has found a way to create pions cheaply which decay into muons. Which would make muon-catalyzed fusion possible.

You only get excited about things you find by yourself I see.
What has the muon fusion, jello and Lindsey Lohan has to do with article subject?
Well you always bring up your aether crap which is never relevant. And Dr nou brought up philosophy which could not stand unopposed.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 15, 2013
What the muon fusion, jello and Lindsey Lohan has to do with article subject? With such divergent thinking you can never become useful for coherent discussion - you're making it off-topic instead of on-topic systematically. Are you hired for to generate pointless verbiage here - or what? I'm indeed familiar with all these subjects - but why to twaddle about it right here? The pions will not improve the yield of muon fusion - you can just produce more catalyst, but the overall yield remains the very same: you just generate more radioactivity inside of reactor. Why the fuzor fusion isn't viable? Because it doesn't work? Not at all - just the energy introduced into it remains systematically higher, than the yield of fusion reaction.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (18) Apr 15, 2013
What the muon fusion, jello and Lindsey Lohan has to do with article subject? With such divergent thinking you can never become useful for coherent discussion - you're making it off-topic instead of on-topic systematically. Are you hired for to generate pointless verbiage here - or what? I'm indeed familiar with all these subjects - but why to twaddle about it right here? The pions will not improve the yield of muon fusion - you can just produce more catalyst, but the overall yield remains the very same: you just generate more radioactivity inside of reactor. Why the fuzor fusion isn't viable? Because it doesn't work? Not at all - just the energy introduced into it remains systematically higher, than the yield of fusion reaction.
But actually I thought this was the water-splitting thread, wherein alternative energy sources would have been within the scope of the topic. My apologies.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Apr 15, 2013
You only get excited about things you find by yourself I see
I didn't find cold fusion or magnetic motors for example: these findings are worth to research - not the muon fusion. The production of muons is as energetically expensive, as the hot fusion without catalyst. BTW In some theories the cold fusion inside of nickel cavities works in similar way, like the muon fusion: due the increased concentration of virtual photons there the atom nuclei can get closer each other and fuse with higher probability.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (58) Apr 15, 2013
I don't think it is unknowable. It may be unexperiencable [..]. But that doesn't mean it cannot be characterized - possibly in full.


I didn't say it can't be characterized,.. in fact our characterization or conceptualization of Reality is what I called Empirical-reality above and even stated it is a valid description of experience (observation), ...just not of Reality independent of mind.

I'm not anti-science in any way,... I am anti metaphysics in science if anything,.. in that if one thinks we can form a knowledge of how Reality IS in between observations, they are making metaphysical statements. Physics constructs models that link observables together for making predictions, NOT in explaining how Reality itself is, but how our experience of it is.

Schrodinger expected his wave equation to describe a Real physical wave, and was disappointed once Born showed it can not. What is entanglement that defies locality? Proof that our spacial concept fails, yet we must use it.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (57) Apr 15, 2013
Well you always bring up your aether crap which is never relevant. And Dr nou brought up philosophy which could not stand unopposed.


I brought up a subject relevant to the present article (and even referenced a physicist who concurs (B. D'Espagnat), i.e. local realism, and anti-'objective realism'. You on the other hand have yet to say anything of substance, which is typical of you.
clay_ferguson
2.1 / 5 (15) Apr 15, 2013
Noumenon, good comments from you!

and you are noticing what I discovered long ago. People like ValeriaT and that vaccummechanics troll get on here just to post as much complete nonsense as they can, most likely not even believing a word of it themselves, or else being 100% completely insane.
Estevan57
3.5 / 5 (27) Apr 15, 2013
By the way Noum, open is Otto's new puppet. It amuses me to have you befuddle Otto SO thoroughly!

I also know something squishy, and its between Otto's um... err... ears.
Have a good one.
rah
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2013
What are you guys talking about?
antialias_physorg
2 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2013
...just not of Reality independent of mind.

If you say that reality can't be experienced independent of the mind - I agree. But I do think that reality exists objectively independent of the mind (and that the presence of the mind does not change reality). So I'd argue: reality is objective (and cannot be otherwise - because for all we know reality was around a long time before the mind came along. No matter that the concept of 'time' has not much meaning without the mind...but there are states of the universe that are 'mind-free' but nevertheless objectively real)

I am anti metaphysics in science if anything,..

Me too. What we can say with certainty is what reality is NOT (by means of experiment).
We can only state what reality is - but that is never a certain statement.
However, that does not equate to the notion that what we say reality is MUST be wrong. You can guess at what side a coin landed on (without seeing it) and still be right.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (53) Apr 16, 2013
If you say that reality can't be experienced independent of the mind - I agree.

That is a truism and is obvious. I'm saying that Reality "as it is in itself" cannot be known, because to know is to observe, which is to apply concepts, which we require in order to communicate and setup appararus at the macroscopic scale.

The best that physics can do is to wrap a conceptual model around a "something", to conform this "something" to our concepts and models, so that it links observations in such a way as to make predictions. This allows a valid knowledge of "empirical reality" or "phenomenal reality",.... NOT reality apart from mind.

It's not even a matter that we just need better theories. The Bell inequalities prove that local realism fails not only for QM, but for any future conceivable theory whatsoever,... as it is grounded purely on a correlation of observations, which is independent of a particular theory.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (54) Apr 16, 2013
But I do think that reality exists objectively independent of the mind (and that the presence of the mind does not change reality). So I'd argue: reality is objective (and cannot be otherwise - because for all we know reality was around a long time before the mind came along. No matter that the concept of 'time' has not much meaning without the mind...


Wait,... you 'Believe' that Reality exist independent of mind, as do I, which is why I make the distinction between Noumenal Reality and Empirical Reality in my posts above. I reject idealism as I reject metaphysics. The mind changes the conceptual form of the latter, in fact its better to say the mind supplies the conceptual form, ....but not for the former, so therefore we can have knowledge of the latter, but not the former.

Do you think the Schrodinger equation represents the space and time evolution of a physical wave?
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2013
Quotes from article:
Quantum theory describes entanglement....On a regular basis, laboratories worldwide report results that seem at odds with our everyday intuition..


When entities are entangled they are not separate entities. To call them separate entities, as they will be when they are not entangled, is stupidity.

Two separate photon-waves are not "normally" entangled: One has to to have a special source that emits a SINGLE coherent wave. Although this wave can have an intensity that is distributed over different volumes in 3D space, these volumes are NOT separate photons!

You can also have a macro-wave which is in immediate contact with itself, no matter how many smaller waves have entangled to form the macro-wave. There is NOTHING counter-intuitive to wave-behavior on the quantum scale. It is only counter-intuitive to a person who does not understand wave-formation, wave-behavior and wave-interaction.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (54) Apr 16, 2013
We can only state what reality is - but that is never a certain statement. However, that does not equate to the notion that what we say reality is MUST be wrong.


But that is disproved by QM; We say the conceptual form of an electron is a particle, which can be proven wrong given the experimental setup,... like wise for the wave concept.

You can guess at what side a coin landed on (without seeing it) and still be right


But that is disproved by QM, (the notion that the coin has a conceptual-value)... which has shown that it is invalid to say that an quantum entity has a specific value prior to measurement. Prior to measurement it has a linear combination of all possible values. This Fourier like wavefunction collapses into our concepts upon measurement, collapses into a singular value which our experiment creates. It's the value of the concept which we suplied. .......
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (55) Apr 16, 2013
,.... This 'state reduction' (collapse of the wave function upon measurement) is not compatible with the time evolution of the qm state,... it is discontinuous,... so the act of measurement has an effect upon the "something" which was modeled by the wavefunction. In fact it changes the Form of the "something", i.e. we "conceptualize it",... by necessity of using concepts in designing experiments, communicating them, and interpretating at the macroscopic scale.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2013
When entities are entangled they are not separate entities
This is a nonsense - for example the entangled atoms still their have individual atom nuclei well separated. They can radiate photons individually, so that their orbitals remain separated as well.


If they can do this the ARE NOT entangled at all.

The cooling during preparation of boson condensate isn't equivalent to hot fusion inside of tokamak.


Who has claimed this? Another one of your straw-men based on your demented hallucinations of ducks paddling in the aether?

You're getting separated from physical reality because of your high age.


You will never be able to blame your "high age" since you were borne brainless!

johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2013
But that is disproved by QM, ... which has shown that it is invalid to say that an quantum entity has a specific value prior to measurement.


This has NEVER EVER been proved ANYWHERE!!

If it has Prior to measurement it has a linear .combination of all possible values.


No it does not!

This Fourier like wavefunction collapses into our concepts upon measurement, collapses into a singular value which our experiment creates. It's the value of the concept which we suplied. .......


A Fourier wave-function is NOT a single coherent wave but a superposition of many coherent waves. A single photon is a SINGLE coherent wave and can thus NEVER be a Fourier-superposition of many photon-waves.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (53) Apr 16, 2013
Prior to measurement it has a linear combination of all possible values. This Fourier like wavefunction collapses into our concepts upon measurement, collapses into a singular value which our experiment creates. It's the value of the concept which we suplied.
A Fourier wave-function is NOT a single coherent wave but a superposition of many coherent waves.


That's what I said.

A single photon is a SINGLE coherent wave and can thus NEVER be a Fourier-superposition of many photon-waves.


It is in standard QM, from which I'm arguing. I'm not debating here outside that context.

@natello, I'll check your links when I get time,....
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (21) Apr 16, 2013
By the way Noum, open is Otto's new puppet. It amuses me
Hey there compulsive neurotic

-Say aren't you the guy from oregon who would compromise the business he owns by posting his customers here on physorg
No, Otto I live in a world of owning a cnc business (48 employees) ...

Some of my local customers:
http://www.smosarms.com/
http://www.bigborecanyon.com/
http://fidelisarms.com/

http://grabcad.co...uery=gun
-because, well, that's what compulsive braggarts do, right?
http://phys.org/n...ers.html

('I own you' says the bedbug) See ottos profile page for more embarrassing behavior.
I didn't find cold fusion or magnetic motors for example: these findings are worth to research - not the muon fusion
-So you STILL didn't look at the site, and wonder how these guys could be producing pions in prodigious amounts? How do you expect people to your theories if you don't explore the theories of others?

Cheap pions means cheap muons.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2013
A Fourier wave-function is NOT a single coherent wave but a superposition of many coherent waves.


That's what I said.


No you have not. You have said that a photon is a superposition of many photon-waves BEFORE you make a measurement. It is not! It is ALWAYS a SINGLE coherent wave.

It is in standard QM, from which I'm arguing.


That does not mean that what you are arguing must be correct.

I'm not debating here outside that context.


Obviously not! You do not have the brainpower to explore any other avenues than the "standard dogma" even when the standard dogma clearly violates ALL experimental results EVER measured. Once it is in the Bible it must be correct; come Hell or High Water! Right?

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (22) Apr 16, 2013
our characterization or conceptualization of Reality is what I called Empirical-reality above and even stated it is a valid description of experience (observation), ...just not of Reality independent of mind
Jeez nou why don't you just use the source instead of pretending you made it up by yourself?

"Many accounts of Kant's philosophy treat "noumenon" and "thing-in-itself" as synonymous...Opinion is far from unanimous [aahaaa of course it is!]

"Kant...regards things-in-themselves as existing:"...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears."
http://en.wikiped...Noumenon

-As if ding an sich wasn't an absurd idea to begin with.

Really, what is it about you philos that makes you think you can plagiarize with abandon? (philos only restate old crap with new words)
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2013
This is a nonsense - for example the entangled atoms still their have individual atom nuclei well separated
...If they can do this the ARE NOT entangled at all

This just another nonsense: the boson condensate state is defined just with the fact, it's atoms are entangled mutually.


Which means that they cannot act as separate entities anymore, which you claim that they can! Thus what YOU call a "boson-condensate" IS NOT a boson-condensate at all.

But it doesn't mean, they're dissolved into single wave.


If they are not, they are distinguishable and distinguishable entities cannot be a boson condensate!

Instead of it, they do behave like the grain cobs in the wind: their motion is synchronized, yet they remain perfectly individual.


Grain cobs in then wind CANNOT be a QM condensate because one can still distinguish them. Even your standard text books claim that within a QM condensate the entities that condensed cannot be distinguishable.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (20) Apr 16, 2013
If you say that reality can't be experienced independent of the mind - I agree
-See, that is a sentence full of words without meaning outside of context. We cannot 'experience' nanoseconds or pulsars or neurons without instruments. And there is no such thing as mind, only a thing called the brain.
But I do think that reality exists objectively independent of the mind (and that the presence of the mind does not change reality). So I'd argue: reality is objective (and cannot be otherwise - because for all we know reality was around a long time before the mind came along. No matter that the concept of 'time' has not much meaning without the mind...but there are states of the universe that are 'mind-free' but nevertheless objectively real)
And the universe would continue to function exactly as it does, over the course of time, if brains weren't here to experience it.

The presence of brains in the universe has absolutely no effect on how it functions whatsoever.
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (21) Apr 16, 2013
This is something Kant had no way of knowing. But he could guess with great fluorish and no one could contradict him because they had no idea either.

But we know better now. Science has no use for empty words like 'reality' and 'experience' and 'mind'. Science gives us increasing confidence that all phenomena are entirely explainable within the context of immutable, universal laws.

Science gives us patience. We need no longer guess. We need no longer fall victim to charlatans who would exploit our ignorance and our fears.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2013
..If they can do this they ARE NOT entangled at all..


This is just one of many big misunderstandings of yours. You just don't understand physics - this is the whole problem.


It is YOU who has this problem. To make this judgment you must be sure that YOU understand physics. I have seen ANY PROOF whatsoever that you even EVER studied physics or really contributed to physics anywhere. In my case my CURVIT is on the internet for all to see. Where are yours?

YOU do not have one since you are just a young brainless upstart who knows nothing and never will know anything!

So why not to discuss in scientific way?


A further illustration of your arrogance: YOU have NEVER in your infantile life discussed ANYTHING in a scientific way and are incapable of EVER doing so!
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (54) Apr 16, 2013
"Kant...regards things-in-themselves as existing:"...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears." - Otto's Wiki Link


Why does your posts cause me to debate the internet instead of you? Obviously the source of Noumenal Reality cannot be appearance given its definition. We're in a 'position to think them as things in themselves' simply by removing the conceptual structure WE supplied in the process of acquiring empirical knowledge of it. There must be a "something" unconceptualized.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (56) Apr 16, 2013
Jeez nou why don't you just use the source instead of pretending you made it up by yourself?

What? I have referenced Kant many times here, with your knowledge of having done so, stop lying. Unlike you, I don't use the internet to argue for me. I gave a reference to a physicist whom has very similar views, determined independently from myself.

"Many accounts of Kant's philosophy treat "noumenon" and "thing-in-itself" as synonymous...Opinion is far from unanimous [aahaaa of course it is!]


Your partial wiki quote seems to be saying that it is not unanimously thought that Kant himself associated the two exactly,.... I do, and also, along with those many accounts, believe he did, as it is as clear given the context of the entire argument. There is nothing to say of Noumenon in a positive sense,... which is the point. You must subtract what we add to knowledge to derive the notion of a "something" existing independently from us.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (55) Apr 16, 2013
The presence of brains in the universe has absolutely no effect on how it functions whatsoever. This is something Kant had no way of knowing. But he could guess with great fluorish and no one could contradict him because they had no idea either.


I never made such a statement, nor has Kant. You're just making up non-sense as you type.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (21) Apr 16, 2013
You're just one of people, who introduce the philosophy and religion into discussion most often here
I rarely initiate it. I enjoy attacking it when others such as religionists or philos post it. I feel it is my civic duty.
Nearly every post of yours is deeply off-topic
So are yours as anyone will tell you.
BTW Which words the science is using is a philosophy as well
Since your dense aether stuff is all words and no math or evidence, we must conclude that it is philosophy (or poetry)(art?) and not science. Certainly not science.

Now... crank #2;
the source of Noumenal Reality cannot be appearance given its definition
The source is the fantasms of idle German intellectuals guessing profoundly.
There is nothing to say of Noumenon in a positive sense,...
-You mean 'at all' I think.
You must subtract what we add to knowledge
Holy Jesus freeking H. Christ.
I have referenced Kant many times
-and yet you coin the term 'Empirical-reality'. Reference please.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2013
Let make the things clear: at the moment, when you don't understand, what the above article and experiment is exactly about, whole the discussion is OT twaddling. The only post, which explains it was downvoted - so I'm not maintaining any illusions about intelligence of posters here.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (55) Apr 16, 2013
I have referenced Kant many times
-and yet you coin the term 'Empirical-reality'. Reference please.


You're confused about that phrase? It is very well known to anyone who knows anything about science. It's implied via the scientific method.

"The empirical reality is the reality that can be deduced from repeatable observations."
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (55) Apr 16, 2013
You must subtract what we add to knowledge

Holy Jesus freeking H. Christ.


Here is the full quote with an edit to help you, since you are too lazy to associate previous posts....

"You must subtract what we add to knowledge [i.e. the conceptual structure of that knowledge, stated multiple times above] to derive the notion of a "something" existing independently from us."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (21) Apr 16, 2013
The only post, which explains it was downvoted - so I'm not maintaining any illusions about intelligence of posters here
Perhaps the illusion originates in the delusion that your theory is somehow functional? Anyway I admire your tenacity. You keep trying the same thing expecting different results.
Here is the full quote with an edit to help you, since you are too lazy to associate previous posts....
And what makes you think that more lyrics adds any substance to the original verse? What is KNOWLEDGE nou? Philos never had a clue.

What do any of your words mean? They only inform us about gullibility.
ValeriaT
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2013
Sorry - this is just another post, which has absolutely nothing to do with article subject. I'm using to ignore such a comments completely.
Philos never had a clue
LOL, it's just you, who is twaddling about Kant in every thread - not me..:-) Because you don't understand the subject, you even cannot recognize, who understands the subject here and who not. Your twaddling about how philosophy is clueless regarding physics cannot cover the fact, you're clueless as well and it cannot replace matter of fact discussion.
Estevan57
3.3 / 5 (28) Apr 17, 2013
Otto - "What do any of your words mean?" How embarrassing.
So how does listing a customer compromise my business? Hmmmmm?
Does it speak to your intentions, lite I mean open, I mean Otto?

If I were you I would keep the comments link away from others - it really does show your manufacturing ignorance.

http://rationalwi..._reality

Nice one Otto, you rant endlessly against religionists and philosophy but you don't know what empirical reality is.

See also Scientific Method.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (17) Apr 17, 2013
@Steve

Why is it you need this explained to you? You are an neurotic, infatuated stalker. Nearly every single post you make is about me. You show up every day to downrate every post I make.

Does this bother me? Does one barnacle slow down a ship? Not much.

But your mania has caused you to post enough personal info on this site to lead someone right to your business. Anyone here would tell you how dangerous and reckless it is to expose yourself, your employees, and your clients, on the internet in this manner.

In addition you post client links in the same thread where you seem to express a basic lack of knowledge of things like heat treating and how heat affects the function of firearm components.

Your clients could also see that the person they are doing business with is a stalker, a liar, and a degenerate. Per my profile page.
http://phys.org/p...tto1923/

-'Why are we buying from a looney who spends so much of his time stalking people on the internet?' Hmmm?
SethD
1 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2013
What a funny mambo-jumbo article. It reminds a lot of the way in which Copenhagen misinterpretation "handled" the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox: it didn't -- it simply dodged it! http://en.wikiped..._paradox
Estevan57
3.5 / 5 (27) Apr 17, 2013
Otto, Otto, Otto, If someone wants to find my business and show up at the door they are certainly welcome to do so. If they show up at lunch or before they get fed as well.

By the the way dumbass, I do have a company webpage. It's used for advertising! On the internet! To find customers! To provide services! And promote commerce! Find me now, pudel.

Crawl out from your parents' basement, get a real job, and take yer meds, Physorg Comments Troll Otto.

Until the 15th I have been on vacation for two weeks.
How many posts of yours during this time?

When caught at trollish behavior, always attack.
Hmmmm lite, I mean open, I mean Otto?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (18) Apr 17, 2013
By the the way dumbass, I do have a company webpage. It's used for advertising! On the internet!
Si let's have a link- I'm sure lite or open would like to visit.
Until the 15th I have been on vacation for two weeks.
How many posts of yours during this time?
Well you've shown up every day to 1/5 me. This is commitment steve. Or pathology.
Hmmmm lite, I mean open
Sorry these people aren't me. And between the 2 of us which one is the documented liar?

So you aren't concerned if your clients see your behavior and your misuse of their good names while stalking on the Internet. So you won't mind then if I repost it whenever you show up? Not to endanger the innocent people in your vicinity mind you, but to remind readers what a deranged idiot you are.

I feel it is my civic duty.
Estevan57
3.4 / 5 (25) Apr 18, 2013
Well now basement boy, if you somehow must insist on posting my customers to show that...what? Here are some more - Look them up for yourself pasty face.

Boeing, Columbia Aviation, BAE Systems, Cessna, Nikon, Olympus, Nikken, Fluke, Bushnell, Garmin, Leatherman, Tektronics, Medtronics, Siemens AG, BAE Systems, Leupold & Stevens, Benchmade, Gerber, Kai, A-DEC, DCI, Liebmann Optical, Avophotonics, Mitsubishi, Cadillac, Lockheed Martin, Plantronics, GK Audio, Sunn, Curtiss-Wright, Mentor Graphics, Brother, Nike, Agilent, Honeywell, Flextronics, Intel, HP, Keytronic, Microsoft, Samtec, Jabil, Schweitzer, Telect, Xerox, Tyco, Applied Medical, Aseptico, Conmed, Dexcom, Essilor, Grace Biolabs, Roche, Peak Surgical, WelchAllyn, Avtec, Jetseal, Carlisle, Eaton, Peco, Audix, Williams Controls, Blackhawk, Grovtec, and many more.

Thanks for the free advertising.

I don't have to be around to have you downvoted Otto.
That's what nieces are for.
Nickle a vote, nickle a vote. Lite, open, Otto.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (16) Apr 18, 2013
-So you advertise on your website that youre a stalking, lying, neurotic corrupter of little girls? No, you do that here, and then you lead whoever sees those things directly back to your business.

You are supposedly responsible for the continued employment of 48 people but it seems that stalking and lying here is more important to you than the future of your business, or their continued employment.

Why would you be willing to take that risk steve? Why would anyone do so unless in their minds their own egos were the most important thing to them?

Come on steve admit it - you dont give a shit about anyone but yourself.

If you are a boss (which I sincerely doubt) I bet you would fire anyone who was using company resources to do these things. You know, jeopardizing your companys reputation and business.

I do know that bosses in ANY of the companies you list would do this.

But since it is YOU who is doing it, its ok right? What other rules do you think you deserve to break esai?
Estevan57
3.4 / 5 (25) Apr 18, 2013
Why do you ASSume I post from work?

When caught at trollish behavior, always attack.
Hmmmm lite, I mean open, I mean Otto?
swordsman
1 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2013
In the never-never-land of quantum abstraction, anything is possible. This has some similarity to the Bohr abstraction (which QM advocates now agree is incorrect), except that it stretches the imagination even further. It is more like religion than science.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (17) Apr 22, 2013
ASSume I post from work?
-Because you said so dumfuk don't you remember? That's where you pay your poor little neice to stalk people on the Internet. I'll put it in my profile page just for you when I get time. Better hope your boss or your clients never see it.
Estevan57
3.2 / 5 (24) Apr 22, 2013
Ha Ha ha, my supposed poor little niece is in her 20s, 5 foot 11 and a 1/2 (remember the 1/2" she says) and makes a wage suitable for a college grad with a degree in Finance.
You seem to be fixated on a woman you have never met. Any particular reason?

Hey stupid!..............two computers.

I work with business owners and professional clients, do you really think they would give a
rats (Ottos') ass about what I do with you? Get out of the gutter and your moms basement.

Send me a resume Otto, you can post it here, and maybe I can find work for you.
Can you speak Spanish? Pick fruit? Drive a farm truck? Move irrigation pipe?

A person as unrelentingly bitter as you must be unemployed, or on his way out the door.....

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (15) Apr 23, 2013
my supposed poor little niece is in her 20s, 5 foot 11 and a 1/2 (remember the 1/2" she says) and makes a wage suitable for a college grad with a degree in Finance
But you're a liar esai. You do nothing but lie. See my profile page. Adults do not stalk people for nickels do they?
Hey stupid!..............two computers
So you admit you pay people to stalk on company time (again).
I work with business owners and professional clients
-as do many secs and receptionists and bosses sons.
do you really think they would give a
rats (Ottos') ass about what I do with you?
I think they would be rightly concerned about the type of character you exhibit. You're a compulsive liar and stalker. Do you lie to them?

You have no compunctions about exhibiting these traits in public, in association with your clients websites. You apparently have no common sense.

Of course your clients would be concerned about these things. Any boss would fire someone who does these things.
Bryan_Sanctuary
1 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2013
The questions, confusion and rhetoric here all indicate a wide range of opinions and confusion. In a nutshell:

quantum mechanics is a theory of measurement, not of Nature

Reality is a pure state of a system. That is a system occupies one dispersion free state.

Locality is the absence of interaction when two systems have moved beyond a certain distance from each other.

Well that sounds like local realism.

The problem seems to be that people think that Nature is what we measure. We cannot because of the Heisenberg Principle. For example if an observable depends on, say, two non-commuting operators, then in one experiment you cannot extract all the info of that system.

That means that stuff must lie deeper:.

The nay sayers will say "Bell" and I say that Bell made a mistake in thinking a spin has a single axis of quantizaiton, whereas it has two orthogonal axes, then Bell is repudiated.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2013
quantum mechanics is a theory of measurement, not of Nature


This is semantics: Our whole existence is measurement! We can only know Nature through observation, and observation IS measurement ALL THE WAY. Our senses are measuring apparatuses and our brains are the interpreters of what we measure: So why do you separate "Nature" from "Measurement"?

Quantum mechanics is not different from the reality we observe everyday through our senses. I am getting sick and tired of people who claim that quantum mechanics is different from our everyday experiences and therefore "weird". It is NOT weird: Only the retarded people who interpret it in terms of the Copenhagen interpretation are the really weird ones!!
Bryan_Sanctuary
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2013
Johanfprins: Nature cares not one iota if we know anything or not. To Nature we are an uninteresting interaction no different from any other. Nature also cares not about your brain and what you might think you "know" by probing a system.

Of course Nature is different from measurement: have you not heard of Heisenberg?

Johnboy said: "I am getting sick and tired of people who claim that quantum mechanics is different from our everyday experiences and therefore "weird". It is NOT weird"

You are way off base. Weirdness comes from you guys who believe qm is complete and believe in non-locality. Quantum weirdness is the catch-all used to express ignorance about qm and Bell..

All you have to do to shut me up is explain non-locality. Explain it or accept that something must be wrong. QM is a great theory of measurement, but EPR were right. If stuff does not make sense, then it probably is wrong. Bell's theorem is wrong. He made the wrong assumption about spin, not locality. :)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2013
Nature cares not one iota if we know anything or not. To Nature we are an uninteresting interaction no different from any other.


Thus Nature is not accessible to us? So why are you then posting crap about Nature? Or do you think YOU are God whose interaction is MORE than "any other"?

Nature also cares not about your brain and what you might think you "know" by probing a system.


So why are we doing physics and discussing it?

Of course Nature is different from measurement: have you not heard of Heisenberg?


I have heard about Heisenberg and his hallucinations!

All you have to do to shut me up is explain non-locality.


A SINGLE coherent wave IS in immediate contact with itself no matter how large it is. Thus if you add something to it at one end you can transfer it to the other end in a non-local manner and even faster than the speed of light. I can demonstrate this experimentally within my laboratory by entangling billions of "electrons".
Bryan_Sanctuary
1 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2013
@Johnboy I will ignore your "God" comment.

I am simply saying that you cannot measure everything because of Heisenberg. So some stuff is hidden from us. Give you an example: a system depends on two canonically conjugate operators (doing qm here), then you cannot measure them both simultaneously. Hence you miss stuff.

We do physics because we are curious. Nature does not care about that. The Earth did very well before we evolved. Earth will do very well after we are extinct.

I will ignore your hallucinations comment which seem gratuitous. Heisenberg was on the side of Bohr and complementarity, which I figure is your point of view (?).

Quantum mechanics is also wave mechanics, but waves only extend to infinity mathematically. There is a point after which the interaction is negligible. Waves are only an approximation which result from the collective properties of ontic particles.

You failed to answer my question: Please give a cogent explanation of how non-locality works.
Bryan_Sanctuary
1 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2013
@ swordsman: "It is more like religion than science"

Good point. This statement is applicable to pretty much all of quantum information theory which rests upon the absurd and unexplained notion of non-locality. Until this is explained, or debunked, there are aspects of physics which are religion.

Religion: revelation and philosophy. Revelation is the belief in something without any proof. Like God. The belief in non-locality is revelation since no one can explain it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2013
The problem seems to be that people think that Nature is what we measure. We cannot because of the Heisenberg Principle. For example if an observable depends on, say, two non-commuting operators, then in one experiment you cannot extract all the info of that system
Statistics is measurement.
That means that stuff must lie deeper:
Probability works quite nicely until something better comes along. SCIENCE FUNCTIONS. Your philosophy doesnt affect this one way or the other.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2013
Good point. This statement is applicable to pretty much all of quantum information theory which rests upon the absurd and unexplained notion of non-locality
Allow me to repeat: SCIENCE FUNCTIONS. It functions quite well with the theories it already has.

Your PHILOSOPHY doesnt affect this one way or the other.
Bryan_Sanctuary
1 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2013
@TheGhostofOtto: Sorry I should have said in my comment: "We cannot measure everything because of Heisenberg".

Of course we can measure, Statistics and probability are not the issue,

SCIENCE FUNCTIONS: I agree, but can you please predict if a silver atom will deflect up or down before it reaches the Stern Gerlach filter.

I am not knocking quantum mechanics, but it seems to lead to stuff that makes no sense: non-locality. So unless you accept the religion of quantum weirdness, then logically you have to conclude that QM is incomplete, or at the very least accept that something is missing in our understanding of Nature.
Estevan57
3.4 / 5 (25) Apr 24, 2013
So I'm a liar Otto? Just because you say so? Tell that to FrankHerbert and lite and open.
You still haven't stated anything I have actually lied about. So quick to accuse though.

Perhaps I will ask my niece to pray for you on company time, will that make you happy?

The horrific loss of two minutes of productivity when I am on vacation doesn't bother me in the slightest.

You follow and down-vote dozens of people on this site with your sockpuppets and scream stalking when someone follows your regular anti-everything rant. Hypocrite much?

If you hadn't used Google to find old posts and downvote me and others hundreds of times I wouldn't give the slightest damn about such a downtrodden troll such as you.

You are starting to sound increasingly out of touch with reality, do you need to see a doctor?

Get a job, woman.
http://www.jobgro...e-oregon
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2013
I am simply saying that you cannot measure everything because of Heisenberg.


And I disagree with your simple statement.

So some stuff is hidden from us. Give you an example: a system depends on two canonically conjugate operators (doing qm here), then you cannot measure them both simultaneously. Hence you miss stuff.


Momentum and position of the center-of-mass of an entity are canonically conjugate and you can measure them simultaneously or else Galileo's inertia is null and void: Which it is not!

We do physics because we are curious. Nature does not care about that. The Earth did very well before we evolved. Earth will do very well after we are extinct.


I have NOT argued against this but with your belief, which you cannot prove, that we cannot know how Nature functions. If this is so we cannot know whether we cannot know this: Thus by stating that this IS so, you rely on superstition. Your belief lies outside of physics.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2013
I will ignore your hallucinations comment which seem gratuitous. Heisenberg was on the side of Bohr and complementarity, which I figure is your point of view (?).


No it is NOT my point of view! It is absolute nonsense to state that a wave is complementary to a particle, unless you can define why, what you consider is a particle, cannot be a wave. I have NOT found such a definition anywhere in the scientific literature EVER.

Quantum mechanics is also wave mechanics, but waves only extend to infinity mathematically.


But not physically, since all REAL waves are subject to boundary conditions which determine their shapes and sizes within our Universe.

You failed to answer my question: Please give a cogent explanation of how non-locality works


I have given you an excellent explanation. If you cannot follow it there is just not enough grey matter between your ears Zephyr!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2013
Religion: revelation and philosophy. Revelation is the belief in something without any proof. Like God. The belief in non-locality is revelation since no one can explain it.


Revelation is your belief that there exists aspects of Nature that we cannot measure, even though there is no experimental proof whatsoever that this is so. Non-local interactions can be experimentally measured so you do not have to take these effects on faith. I do agree that the explanations given in the mainstream literature for these interactions are wrong. They are wrong since it is not realized that these effects prove that "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity" are Voodoo concepts.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (13) Apr 24, 2013
So I'm a liar Otto? Just because you say so? Tell that to FrankHerbert and lite and open.
You still haven't stated anything I have actually lied about. So quick to accuse though
Well this too is a lie yes? See my profile page for documentation. Drop quotes into GOOGLE to find the source.
You are starting to sound increasingly out of touch with reality
-says the lying, stalking troll who pays underage relatives to stalk others for him. On company time. For his clients to see. These things are reality steve. Keep exposing yourself and foaming at the mouth.
can you please predict if a silver atom will deflect up or down before it reaches the Stern Gerlach filter
You mean now or when science actually figures out how? Your conclusions based on what science does not yet know, makes them religion or philosophy, not science.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (55) Apr 27, 2013
All you have to do to shut me up is explain non-locality. Explain it or accept that something must be wrong. QM is a great theory of measurement, but EPR were right. If stuff does not make sense, then it probably is wrong.


You must consider carefully what you mean by "does not make sense"?

You can only mean that Reality at the quantum scale does not accord with how our minds evolved to order experience at the macro scale. In other words, it does not make intuitive sense.

But, to expect that all scales of Reality conform itself consistently within mind dependent intuitions, .... is what turns out, conclusively, does not make observational sense.

It has been irrefutably proven via the Bell inequality tests, that the notion of 'local hidden variables', of which EPR assumes, can never account for the stronger correlations of QM observations. Since these results are independent of theory, QM must be complete,... or, a future complete theory must incorporate non-locality.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (55) Apr 27, 2013
All you have to do to shut me up is explain non-locality. [..] something must be wrong. [..] If stuff does not make sense, then it probably is wrong. - Bryan


Nature also cares not about your brain and what you might think you "know" by probing a system. - Bryan


You're using your 'intuitive sense' to gauge whether non-locality is 'wrong' or not. By the same token, Nature does not care about your brain and how it might order experience intuitively, ...nor how the particularity of the evolution of your mind facilitates intuitive experience. Therefore, the notion that 'it does not makes sense to you', is insufficient reason to conclude non-locality is wrong.

In fact, as I mentioned, non-locality is an irrefutable observational fact, independent of any future theory. All theories must accept it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (12) Apr 27, 2013
@gnu
You can only mean that Reality at the quantum scale does not accord with how our minds evolved to order experience at the macro scale. In other words, it does not make intuitive sense
When a tree falls in the woods, it makes exactly the same noise whether we are there to hear it or not. We may be able to devise ever better ways of recording and analyzing that noise, buy these developments do not affect the nature of the noise AT ALL.

The immutability of natural laws is the foundation of scientific exploration. They dictate how we explore them, not the other way around. Only SCIENCE is capable of exploring the counter-intuitive. Our OPINIONS have no effect on the method of this exploration.

Philosophers constantly get stuck on this. Scientists do not.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (53) Apr 27, 2013
quantum mechanics is a theory of measurement, not of Nature


Correct. QM is a theory of observational experience, not of Independent Reality.

Locality is the absence of interaction when two systems have moved beyond a certain distance from each other.


But, also, 'local realism' includes the assumption that a qm entity has a definite state, determined by hidden variables, that determines values of observables, irrespective of actual measurements being performed, i.e. counterfactuality. This has been experimentally refuted, and so 'objective realism' along with it.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (53) Apr 27, 2013
The problem seems to be that people think that Nature is what we measure. We cannot because of the Heisenberg Principle. [..] That means that stuff must lie deeper:.


More subtle than that. QM is not a theory of Independent Reality (Nature), it is a theory of (observational) experience, i.e. of empirical reality. This implies that we conform QM Reality within concepts, by the necessity of observation at the macro scale. Independent Reality is by definition unconceptualized. Every concept is an presumption upon Reality,... a means of conforming and ordering it which we supply.

Is it a wave or a particle? Neither. These concepts can not span Independent Reality. Reality is conformed to them by mind. Also, assumptions like locality, counterfactuality, objects in an arena of space-time, separability, causality,... all fail as a conceptual framework in which to model qm observations consistently.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (54) Apr 27, 2013
When a tree falls in the woods, it makes exactly the same noise whether we are there to hear it or not.


Not really, but I get your point. Yes, 'Reality exists independently of mind', .. I agree. See my screen name. However, please understand the distinction being made, that 'empirical reality' or 'phenomenal reality', does NOT exist independently of mind,.... because those terms imply knowledge of reality (by mind) and so include as necessary components, concepts and ordering structures supplied by mind.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (54) Apr 27, 2013
The immutability of natural laws is the foundation of scientific exploration. They dictate how we explore them, not the other way around. Only SCIENCE is capable of exploring the counter-intuitive. Our OPINIONS have no effect on the method of this exploration. Philosophers constantly get stuck on this. Scientists do not.


Natural laws are dressed in concepts (i.e. we conceptualize Reality to acquire knowledge of it), ...they're dripping with such presumptions as locality, counterfactuality, of space and time, separability, causality,... even by many present scientists! While philosophers have arrived at such epistemological problems long ago.....
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (55) Apr 27, 2013
....."I am now ready to state why I consider Bohr [wrt Copenhagen Interpretation] to be not only a major figure in physics but also one of the most important twentieth-century philosophers. As such he must be considered the successor to Kant" - Abraham Pais (A physicist).

Bernard d'Espagnat (a physicist) states in his book "On physics and Philosophy"** that he arrived at similar epistemological conclusions as Kant, independently, by reflections on the conceptual foundations of QM. The above book contains "Kant" on nearly every other page.

**"..surely the most complete book to have been written on this subject and one likely to last a long time" - Roland Omnès (a physicist).
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2013
....."I am now ready to state why I consider Bohr [wrt Copenhagen Interpretation] to be not only a major figure in physics but also one of the most important twentieth-century philosophers. As such he must be considered the successor to Kant" - Abraham Pais (A physicist).


I believe that sometime in the not so far future, Bohr, Heisenberg and Born will be identified as sophists who led physics astray. They probably did not do so deliberately, but they just did not have the insight to see the wood from the trees. In addition they had private agendas and were incredibly arrogant in the manner in which they eliminated Einstein's, Schroedinger's and de Broglie's valid objections. They just did not have the abilities of Einstein! Unfortunately our modern theoretical physicists have even less.

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (54) Apr 28, 2013
How can you say that given that the list of conceptual presumptions, (that I have listed above), have been shown to have been what has led physics astray,.. and had to be reluctantly dropped to make progress.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2013
How can you say that given that the list of conceptual presumptions, (that I have listed above), have been shown to have been what has led physics astray,.. and had to be reluctantly dropped to make progress.


Unfortunately mainstream physics has not yet dropped these presumptions which are not based on experimental evidence: Therefore physics is in a dead-end street hunting for "particles" like the Higgs-boson for which there will NEVER be experimental proof that it has the function it is claimed that it must have. Describe an experiment which can prove or falsify that the blip they have seen in CERN last year actually causes a material to have mass. Nobody can. This is useless physics!

It is utter Voodoo to claim that before you measure Nature only consists of possibilities which become reality as soon as you measure. A person who believes this should be in an insane asylum.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (53) Apr 28, 2013
It is utter Voodoo to claim that before you measure Nature only consists of possibilities which become reality as soon as you measure. A person who believes this should be in an insane asylum.


Before you measure, Independent Reality, what you are calling "Nature",... is whatever it is, which remains unaffected by observation!

Now, 'Empirical Reality' can only consist of Observational-Possibilities which become Conceptual-Values as soon as you measure....
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (52) Apr 28, 2013
....The problem people have in is confusing Reality as existing independently from mind (being called Independent Reality here), ....and reality as known by mind (Empirical Reality). What is the difference? The latter must be in the form of concepts, while the former is not.

The Born Rule for interpreting the Schrödinger equation is NOT, 'the probability of a entity Being at X', but instead 'the probability of Observing an entity at X', because the discontinuity between the unitary evolution of the wave-function, and the state reduction upon measurement, necessarily involves mind in observing, communicating, and designing apparatus, as explained above.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2013
Before you measure, Independent Reality, what you are calling "Nature",... is whatever it is, which remains unaffected by observation!


At last an intelligent remark by you! It seems some cells remained after your frontal lobotomy!

Now, http://rationalwi..._reality can only consist of Observational-Possibilities which become Conceptual-Values as soon as you measure....


Any idiot with an IQ of even zero knows that when you make a measurement your apparatus can change what IS out there before the measurement into something else. This is NOT just happening on the "quantum scale", but on any scale. And anybody with brains will realize that such a change is not determined by the reality out there before you measure, BUT by the measuring apparatus. Thus ONLY when the measuring apparatus allows different outcomes will you get different outcomes. This DOES NOT mean that the reality out there BEFORE you measure is a "probability-distribution"! GET IT?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2013
Consider a roulette wheel with just one hole within which the marble can end up. With every roll of the marble you will get the exact same result. No probability involved. When the wheel has more than a single hole, the marble has a a probability to end up in any of the holes. This probability is caused by the wheel (the measuring apparatus). The marble IS NOT on its own a probability distribution. GET IT?
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2013
....The problem people have in is confusing Reality as existing independently from mind (being called Independent Reality here), ....and reality as known by mind (Empirical Reality). What is the difference?


There is ONLY a difference when your measuring apparatus cannot measure Independent reality without changing it in what we get (which you stupidly call "empirical reality"). If you have brains you can interpret "empirical reality" to deduce the "independent reality". This is the task of a physicist with brains: Unfortunately they seem to all have died out.

The Born Rule for interpreting the Schrödinger equation is NOT, 'the probability of a entity Being at X', but instead 'the probability of Observing an entity at X',


And this is ONLY possible when your apparatus has a sensor at X which can measure an entity at X. It is thus determined by the apparatus AND NOT THE the wave. A wave encountering a sensor with which it resonates WILL collapse into the sensor.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2013
The latter collapse of a REAL WAVE does not mean that the wave's intensity is a probability distribution.

because the discontinuity between the unitary evolution of the wave-function,


What "unitary evolution"? When the boundary conditions does not change the wave stays EXACTLY THE SAME: NO EVOLUTION WHATSOEVER. When you make a measurement, you change the boundary conditions so that ONLY NOW the wave "evolves" (morphs) into another wave.

and the state reduction upon measurement, necessarily involves mind in observing, communicating, and designing apparatus, as explained above.


BULLSHIT! When the wave encounters a sensor (whether this sensor was designed by a mind or not) it will change in the same way; whether there is a person present or not. Physics is NOT Voodoo!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (14) Apr 28, 2013
Nou and philos in general fail to appreciate that what they derisively call the 'mind' is in fact the brain which evolved through intimate interaction with the laws of nature as they work macroscopically. The brain however is capable of designing instruments to explore these laws microscopically.

This design process is guided by interaction with these laws. The laws dictate the nature of the instruments, not the other way around. They are constantly improved by this continued interaction, which often is counterintuitive. The scientific method leads researchers away from the constraints of their macroscopic intuition.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (51) Apr 29, 2013
Nou and philos in general fail to appreciate that what they derisively call the 'mind' is in fact the brain which evolved through intimate interaction with the laws of nature as they work macroscopically.


'Brain' or 'mind', changes nothing in this argument; I said above the mind evolves at the macro scale, replace with "brain" if you want. Further, for you to assess what "philos fail to appreciate", requires that You have knowledge of that subject.

Amusingly, you're making a roughly similar argument to Kant, which I reject because QM/relativity has shown it to be wrong,.. i.e. that since a-priori intellectual faculties determine the form of experience and so the conditions for knowledge to be possible at all, that through such (evolved) a-priori "synthetic propositions", we can attain "transcendental" knowledge, that is, certain knowledge of reality (prior to experience). But QM has shown that such intuitions fail in ordering observation at that scale.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (51) Apr 29, 2013
,.... further, we can in fact continue to attain (predictive) knowledge of reality as qm demonstrates,.. just not intuitively based, and not descriptive of Independent Reality.

The brain however is capable of designing instruments to explore these laws microscopically.


We must still do so at the macro level, which is why we must use concepts like position, particle, wave, locality, separability, counterfactuality, causality at that scale, which does not span Reality proper. THIS is why the Schrodinger time/space evolution,( what I called Unitary Evolution above), collapses upon a measurement,... IOW is incompatible and discontinuous with the 'state reduction'.

[and no decoherence does not solve this measurement problem]
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2013
'Brain' or 'mind', changes nothing in this argument; I said above the mind evolves at the macro scale,


What "macro-scale" are you talking about? Only those aspects that our senses can "observe"? Our minds also evolved to realities that our senses cannot directly observe. It does not matter whether this involves macro- or atomic realities.

To make a distinction between knowing macro-reality (not directly accessible to our senses) and knowing reality on the atomic scale (which are also not directly accessible to our senses), is absurd. In fact it is superstitious Voodoo! If your mind can evolve to understand the one it can also evolve to understand the other. In fact macro-reality must, and can be shown that it does, dovetail seamlessly with reality on the atomic scale!

One does not need to invoke paranormal concepts like "wave-particle" duality and "probability-waves".

johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2013
,.... further, we can in fact continue to attain (predictive) knowledge of reality as qm demonstrates,.. just not intuitively based, and not descriptive of Independent Reality.


Utter claptrap!

We must still do so at the macro level, which is why we must use concepts like position, particle, wave, locality, separability, counterfactuality, causality at that scale, which does not span Reality proper.


These concepts, except "particle" are all valid at the quantum mechanical scale: "Particle" is also not valid on the macro-scale except if it refers to a smaller wave-energy of a similar coherent wave with more wave-energy!

THIS is why the Schrodinger time/space evolution,( what I called Unitary Evolution above),


THERE IS NO SUCH EVOLUTION when there is NO change in the potential energy term of the Schrodinger equation. Stop hallucinating like Heisenberg did!
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (54) Apr 29, 2013
@johanfprins, your comments illustrate my point. You as a physicist reject standard QM on the basis of what you call vodoo,..... a failure to validate your intution of 'objective realism'. The salient point I'm making, in line with the present article, is that physics at the qm scale is not descriptive of Reality as it exists independent of observation. That is what QM is telling us,... and what "philos" have had already determined long ago. You like some other physicists wish to save a Realism point of view rather than give it up for a 'logical positivism' outlook.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (53) Apr 29, 2013
Btw, we don't have microscopic experimental equipment. All such apparatuses are macroscopic and designed and interacted with at the macroscopic scale. THAT is the issue. It's set up to detect a particle at a "location", for example, so that is the conceptual Form that We arrange and add to 'empirical reality, that 'Independent Reality' must conform to. The result is NOT a description of Reality as it is in it self,.. it is a description of experience, observation, 'empiracal reality' (small r).

macro-reality must, and can be shown that it does, dovetail seamlessly with reality on the atomic scale!


Decoherence gives an explanation of how the macro scale arises from the micro,... but does not solve the measurement problem.

Also, i'm not making reference to just our senses, but our entire conceptual structure as a component of empiracal reality.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (53) Apr 29, 2013
THERE IS NO SUCH EVOLUTION when there is NO change in the potential energy term of the Schrodinger equation.


What!!? Did you misspeak here? Yes of course there is, when the wave-function is a superposition of several stationary states, ...even if the potential DOES NOT change there is spatial and or temporal evolution, such is the point of that equation. In this case the potential just gives the possible stationary states. There are animations at wiki showing the wave evolution with a static potential term.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (54) Apr 29, 2013
,... but you are motovated to reject standard qm, because it does not make "sense" to you, despite QED being the most sucessful physical theory devised by man to date. You must drop this useless 'objectivie realism' as a guide,...... cut the cord already.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2013
your comments illustrate my point. You as a physicist reject standard QM on the basis of what you call vodoo,.....


You are deliberately dishonest here: I do not reject "standard QM" but the Voodoo-interpretation of it by paranormal philos like you.

The salient point I'm making, in line with the present article, is that physics at the qm scale is not descriptive of Reality as it exists independent of observation.


This is NOT a salient point since nobody with a sound mind will believe or propagate such claptrap.

That is what QM is telling us,... and what "philos" have had already determined long ago.


That is NOT what Schroedinger's equation tells you! Only foolos will conclude this.

You like some other physicists wish to save a Realism point of view rather than give it up for a 'logical positivism' outlook.


If you want to define utter stupidity as "logical positivism" it is your right to freedom of speech to do so. But it remains claptrap!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2013
Btw, we don't have microscopic experimental equipment.


Thus an atomic electron detecting a photon by absorbing it is a macroscopic measurement! The generation of a photo-electron is a macroscopic measurement! LOL!

All such apparatuses are macroscopic and designed and interacted with at the macroscopic scale.


I have just proved to you to you that this statement is a lie!

The result is NOT a description of Reality as it is in it self,.. it is a description of experience, observation, 'empiracal reality' (small r).


So are ALL measurements whether they are macroscopic, microscopic femtoscopic or what have you.

Decoherence gives an explanation of how the macro scale arises from the micro,.


How does decoherence do this? You are again hallucinating!

Also, i'm not making reference to just our senses, but our entire conceptual structure as a component of empiracal reality


I am also doing this but it does not lead me to embrace the paranormal!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2013
THERE IS NO SUCH EVOLUTION when there is NO change in the potential energy term of the Schrodinger equation.


What!!? Did you misspeak here? Yes of course there is, when the wave-function is a superposition of several stationary states, ...


The solution of the Schroedinger equation is NOT a superposition of several stationary states and can never be such a solution.

even if the potential DOES NOT change there is spatial and or temporal evolution, such is the point of that equation.


No there is none: There is only a spatial collapse or inflation when a Schroedinger wave increases or decreases its energy by absorbing or emitting a light-wave. No temporal evolution is required for this to occur. It occurs instantaneously and is therefore called a quantum jump.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2013
,... but you are motovated to reject standard qm, because it does not make "sense" to you,


Quantum mechanics makes PERFECT sense to me. What is NOT making sense is "wave-particle duality", "complimentarity", and "probability waves". These concepts are not required to make sense of quantum mechanics: In fact, as Feynman stated NOBODY understands the Copenhagen interpretation. He is correct since this interpretation is senseless Voodoo.

despite QED being the most sucessful physical theory devised by man to date.


There is NO PROOF that QED is the "most successful physical theory devised by man"; no matter how many times you repeat this dishonest mantra.

You must drop this useless 'objectivie realism' as a guide,...... cut the cord already.


I am not using it as "guide". I do not have to, since it is valid on both the macro-scale (classical mechanics) AND the micro-scale (quantum mechanics). The SAME laws of physics, apply in both cases.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (13) Apr 29, 2013
'Brain' or 'mind', changes nothing in this argument; I said above the mind evolves at the macro scale, replace with "brain" if you want.
'Mind' is an outdated word which implies many outdated concepts. For instance what do you mean by 'evolve' in reference to mind? Science is investigating how the brain has evolved and how this affects our behavior. A 'mind' 'evolving' at a 'macroscale' (??) means nothing.
Further, for you to assess what "philos fail to appreciate", requires that You have knowledge of that subject.
You really ought to stop using this argument. I have knowledge of the conclusions of many people who have far more knowledge of science and philosophy than either of us and I have often referenced them.

I do not have to debate whether philosophy is relevant to science with you, in order to agree with hawking that it is not.

I dont have to be adept at juggling your words with you, in order to accept the opinion of dan dennett that these words are worthless.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (16) Apr 29, 2013
Yes, 'Reality exists independently of mind', .. I agree. See my screen name...Kant, which I reject because QM/relativity has shown it to be wrong,.. i.e. that since a-priori intellectual faculties determine the form of experience
-But thats just what noumenon means, isnt it?

"The noumenon is a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of the senses. The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to "phenomenon", which refers to anything that appears to, or is an object of, the senses."

Natural laws are dressed...dripping
Your philowords make me physically ill.
with such presumptions as locality, counterfactuality, of space and time, separability, causality...philosophers have arrived at such epistemological problems long ago
How could they without the evidence, without doing the work to find out? The world could have turned out to be entirely different and philos would not have known the difference.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (54) Apr 29, 2013
I do not have to debate whether philosophy is relevant to science with you, in order to agree with hawking that it is not.


- There is no debate. You are simply factually incorrect. Philosophy of science and in particular philosophy of physics is in fact relevant, and an actual existing field. In fact interpretations of physical theories IS philosophy. This was pointed out to you above. I referenced a physicist above who writes on this subject,.... there are many.

- In a previous thread I used a Hawking quote to demonstrate to you, that not only does he discuss philosophy of physics, but that he admits to having a logical positivists pov, a philosophical position,.. which I'm supporting above in opposition to Realism, so he and I would agree!
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (54) Apr 29, 2013
Yes, 'Reality exists independently of mind', .. I agree. See my screen name. However, please understand the distinction being made, that 'empirical reality' or 'phenomenal reality', does NOT exist independently of mind,.... because those terms imply knowledge of reality (by mind) and so include as necessary components, concepts and ordering structures supplied by mind.


-But thats just what noumenon means, isnt it?

"The noumenon is a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of the senses. The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to "phenomenon", which refers to anything that appears to, or is an object of, the senses."


That definition is not quite right as used by Kant. Noumenon is unknowable in principal. It means Reality as it exists in itself, or in other words, unconceptualized Reality. It simply contrasts with phenomenon, which means reality as known or experienced,.. i.e. empirical reality.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2013
"The noumenon is a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of the senses. The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to "phenomenon", which refers to anything that appears to, or is an object of, the senses."


That definition is not quite right as used by Kant. Noumenon is unknowable in principal.


Why is it unknowable? Do you not have a brain?

It means Reality as it exists in itself, or in other words, unconceptualized Reality.


Only an observer without any brains will never be able to conceptualize actual Reality; since such an observer is too stupid to follow the clues supplied by "empirical reality".

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (13) Apr 30, 2013
There is no debate. You are simply factually incorrect. Philosophy of science and in particular philosophy of physics is in fact relevant, and an actual existing field
So is astrology. So is phrenology. So what? It is a failed field.
in fact interpretations of physical theories IS philosophy
According to philos it is. According to scientists your philosophies useless to them.
This was pointed out to you above.
I referenced a physicist above who writes on this subject,.... there are many
No there are few and dwindling. Dennett is a philo of science. HE says the terms you typically use here, are 'worse than useless'.

- In a previous thread I used a Hawking quote to demonstrate to you, that not only does he discuss philosophy of physics
according to you, not him.
logical positivists pov, a philosophical position
YOUR TERM not his. Another shameless and parasitic attempt to own science. He has no NEED for -isms and has SAID so.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (15) Apr 30, 2013
There is no debate
Right. To scientists, philosophy is at best an annoyance.
This was pointed out to you above. I referenced a physicist above who writes on this subject
They pursue many pleasant diversions. Some write scifi. At least these guys are honest enough to admit that what they are doing is meant for entertainment purposes.
In a previous thread I used a Hawking quote
Hawking says that 'philosophy is dead.' What does this say to you about his opinion of your attempts to categorize what he does in philo terms?
That definition is not quite right as used by Kant
It was written by an apparent expert in your field. Take it up with him.
It means Reality as it exists in itself, or in other words, unconceptualized Reality
Blah. Gibberish. Poetry. Entertainment. Crap. Sinister deception. You should be ashamed.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (53) May 01, 2013
There is no debate

Right. To scientists, philosophy is at best an annoyance.


Your ingorance knows no bounds;

"How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc." - Albert Einstein

And Here you can find a very incomplete list of prominent scientists who are known also as philosophers of science.

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (53) May 01, 2013
I don't know what your argument actually consists of, except to tell me 3rd person that some other guy doesn't think philosophy has relavance. The list of well known scientists who disagrees with that is too long for that pov to be taken seriously.

Btw, Hawking was likely speaking of general philosophy, and not Philosophy of Physics. I don't know if he has ever read D'Espagnat or is aware of the above argument or accepts the Copenhagen Interpretation of qm. I do know that he considers himself a Positivist,... which my arguments above actually support.

Try making actually contextual counter-arguments rather than telling me so and so made such and such general statement.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (54) May 05, 2013
Nou .. fail to appreciate that what they [sic] call the 'mind' is in fact the brain [...] there is no such thing as mind, only a thing called the brain.


Imagine if we were able to enumerate and provide a complete neurophysiological explanation for all mental operations. In principal this should be within the realm of scientific possibility, since as you rightly say the brain is physical and so observable. You could then have a full description of a neurophysiological state of a given persons brain, along with resulting neuron events in response to whatever stimuli.

But this description is not the actual neuron/synapses state. Instead it's a Description in terms of concepts, which a-priori presumes an functioning brain already. The experience of consciousness can not arise from knowledge of a given neurophysiological state,... you can't then "be" the other person. Thus mind is to be distinguished from brain, least you enter into a recursive regression.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (54) May 05, 2013
,... further the term "mind" is not even a philosophical term, its one used by neurologists (scientists) who consider mind distinct from brain, ....in that it is an essentially collective phenomenon, .. non-separable into individual neuron states.

Someone needs to clean up the dead bodies I've left in this thread.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (8) May 05, 2013
,.Someone needs to clean up the dead bodies I've left in this thread.


I do not think you have left dead bodies. You are the only one who stinks like a dead body!
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (9) May 05, 2013
And Here you can find a very incomplete list of prominent scientists who are known also as philosophers of science.
For example Feynman dismissed the role of philosophers in science very actively ("shut up and calculate!") - but what we can see in his public discussions and TV shows is nothing but a pure philosophy. I do perceive such a stance as somewhat hypocritical attempt to retain informational monopoly about science inside of science. But the scientists (actually any group of people) cannot judge reliably, what is best approach for science without qualified public feedback. Actually the more, the more they're payed from mandatory taxes and separated from free market feedback in this way.
jose_rojas_1675
1.8 / 5 (5) May 25, 2013
Quantum Mechanics helps expand our perception to a new level, no doubt about it. Einstein's "Time dilation" also contributes to develop a deeper view of the world around us. I wonder if "entanglement" could influence cosmology too?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (9) May 26, 2013
What are you guys talking about?


The usual bunch of demented souls who cannot distinguish Artha from Martha! Go to any thread on this forum and you will find the usual BS by Noumenon, ValeriaT, Natello, etc. etc.etc. They just contaminate physics with their brainless lack of logic!