Quantum cats are hard to see

Quantum cats are hard to see
Christoph Simon teaches physics at the University of Calgary. He is part of an international team of researchers who published a paper explaining the difficulty of detecting quantum effects Credit: Courtesy of the University of Calgary

Are there parallel universes? And how will we know? This is one of many fascinations people hold about quantum physics. Researchers from the universities of Calgary and Waterloo in Canada and the University of Geneva in Switzerland have published a paper this week in Physical Review Letters explaining why we don't usually see the physical effects of quantum mechanics.

" works fantastically well on small scales but when it comes to larger scales, it is nearly impossible to count photons very well. We have demonstrated that this makes it hard to see these effects in our daily life," says Dr. Christoph Simon, who teaches in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Calgary and is one of the lead authors of the paper entitled: Coarse-graining makes it hard to see micro-macro entanglement.

It's well known that are fragile. When a photon interacts with its environment, even just a tiny bit, the superposition is destroyed. Superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum physics that says that systems can exist in all their possible states simultaneously. But when measured, only the result of one of the states is given.

This effect is known as decoherence, and it has been studied intensively over the last few decades. The idea of decoherence as a was raised by Erwin Schrödinger, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, in his famous cat paradox: a cat in a box can be both dead and alive at the same time.

But, according to the authors of this study, it turns out that is not the only reason why quantum effects are hard to see. Seeing quantum effects requires extremely precise measurements. Simon and his team studied a concrete example for such a "cat" by using a particular quantum state involving a large number of photons.

"We show that in order to see the quantum nature of this state, one has to be able to count the number of photons in it perfectly," says Simon. "This becomes more and more difficult as the total number of photons is increased. Distinguishing one photon from two photons is within reach of current technology, but distinguishing a million photons from a million plus one is not."


Explore further

NIST researchers create 'quantum cats' made of light

Journal information: Physical Review Letters

Citation: Quantum cats are hard to see (2011, December 16) retrieved 20 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2011-12-quantum-cats-hard.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Dec 16, 2011
Everything we know about the observable universe is the result of the interactions of various aspects of it with each other: light vs matter, matter vs matter, etc.
If a 'parallel' universe 'exists' in some sense, but is not able to interact with any aspects of 'our' universe, then that renders it indistinguishable (in an operational sense of the word) from that which does not exist. If it *is* able to interact with any aspect of 'our' universe, then its effects are observable, and it is in effect within our observable universe.
Bottom line: a 'parallel universe' is a tautological impossiblity.

Dec 16, 2011
@tadchem - that is a semantic argument. many things that underlie our understanding of the universe cannot be measured. your statement confuses our *technological* ability to measure with the absolute ability to measure. they are not the same thing.

Dec 16, 2011
Right, but that's a fallacy based on an incorrect assumption about the meaning of "probability".

As I outlined the other day, there is really only one "possibility" in any deterministic model of the Universe.

When you fip a coin it either lands heads, tails, or very rarely on edge.

But there was only one possibility, because the outcome is pre-determined by the initial conditions and the laws of physics. There were not two possibilities chosen at random. There was one pre-determined outcome chosen by a mathematical formual based on initial conditions.

Additionally, textbook scenarios in physics are always highly improbable, isolated systems where, by design, you creat a system with an uncertain characteristic, but this does not represent REALITY.

Dec 16, 2011
Like for an example, the old "neglecting friction" clause in a physics text book is an absurdity.

Addtionally, the whole "quantum wave collapse" thing is an absurdity, because in the real world, there are no isolated systems, and in the real world, there's never a time whenever a tiny sub-set of objects or particles "really" only interact with one another; there's always interaction coming from "everything else" in the real universe.

Therefore, the cat is either dead or alive, but not both.

you won't know the difference until you examine it, but rest assured, if there is any order to the universe, determinism ensures there is only one "possibility". All other apparent possibilities are illusions caused by partial knowledge or partial understanding.

Dec 16, 2011
Schrodinger's Cat is an absurdity that has nothing to do with physics.

It's an absurdity because the imaginary cat is isolated in an imaginary box, seperating it from the REAL laws of physics and the real interaction of all the real matter and energy in the universe.

"This statement is both truth and false."

That's about equally absurd to the cat in the box problem.

If you had an actual cat in an actual box, and you knew all the laws of the universe AND the exact positon of all forms of matter, energy, and anything else that may exist, then you could tell exactly if and when the cat died, and without looking.

But Shrodinger's cat is neither alive nor dead. It's an absurd, imaginary construct.

Dec 16, 2011
Well, here's an even better example of an absurdity.

"This statement is false."

That's more simplified.

Now that's a perfect example of a self referencial absurdity. It's nonsense.

That's what Shrodinger's Cat is. Nonsense.

You have to think outside the box. What's happening in the remnant of the universe, etc.

Does a cosmic ray particle or a wave or neutrino or some other shit we don't know about influence the radio nucleid, causing it to decay, killing the cat?

What causes decay? Not the bs half life thing. What causes it?

Of course, the TOTALITY of the laws of physics, not just what we know, nor what we think we know, nor our approximations.

That is why I say the cat is neither dead nor alive. It's an absurdity based on partial knowledge.

Tic-Tac-Toe is on a 3-by-3 grid, and yet you can't play the game without the external universe and it's laws: The paper to write on, gravity, friction for the pen to write, etc.

The answer is outside the box...

Dec 16, 2011
Nanobanano :

Determinism is not a settled scientific fact. Chaotic systems are a perfect example. There is no minimum scale on which chaotic attractors are no longer chaotic. Hidden variable theory (which ascribes hidden determinism to quantum mechanics as advanced by Bohm and others) has so far proven unable to account for experimental results. The idea that the universe is a deterministic machine comes from Laplace, Descartes and others, and is just an idea.In your coin flip example, there is not even a clear definition of what separates the edge of the coin from the rest of reality. On an atomic or smaller scale, there is only a probability density.

Dec 16, 2011
Sorry Nano but your extensive posts simply demonstrate that you don't understand the fundamentals of quantum physics.

To take your coin example: until you check the result, for YOU, it exists in all possible states. Not only heads/tails/edge but also some extremely unlikely but possible results of that coin speeding away into the outer space, disappearing into the thin air and so on.

You will only determine which one took place -for you- when your own waveform interacts with that of the coin, there is a wavefirm collapse and only one of the pissibilities eventuates.

Your illusion that the laws of classical mechanics tell you exactly which on will happen is exactly that - an illusion. It happens due to the fact that the probability of all the other outcomes is exceedingly small so you THINK they don't exist...but they do.

Dec 16, 2011
10 cats
1 poison filled box

Experiment: 10X 1 cat in box for 10 minutes.
Result: 5 cats are dead. 5 cats come out alive.
Pattern: 50% chance of cat death.

Question: Cat 11 goes in the box for 10 minutes. Does it come out alive or is it dead?

Dec 16, 2011
10 cats
1 poison filled box

Experiment: 10X 1 cat in box for 10 minutes.
Result: 5 cats are dead. 5 cats come out alive.
Pattern: 50% chance of cat death.

Question: Cat 11 goes in the box for 10 minutes. Does it come out alive or is it dead?

Half-dead, half-alive.

Dec 16, 2011
Answer: a 50/50 mixture of the two. Simultaneously. At the same time.

Dec 16, 2011
The point of the analogy is that you don't know what is going on in the box until you open it and look in, but the act of you looking in destroys the conditions of the closed box.

You can't see inside of atoms without opening them, but when you open them you destroy their closed system conditions.

Dec 16, 2011
Can we please leave behind religious pseudo-science crap?

Dec 16, 2011
I don't believe a word of it.


But you should.

In reality we can place a camera in the box and watch the cats evolution in real time.

We don't have a camera small enough to fit inside of an atom to observe the evolution in its natural state. The only way to see the contents of an atom is to break it open.

Dec 16, 2011

That is what QM tells us.

I don't believe a word of it.

Your choice.

But so far, that's the best theory we have and it makes predictions which match the observed facts (including your own computer) so damn well, it's hard to just "disbelieve" it.

Unless you can offer something better, you'll just have to live with your disbelief.

Dec 16, 2011
Well, here's an even better example of an absurdity.

"This statement is false"


This isn't an absurdity. This is a well-known mathematical proof dating back to the 1930s (if I remember right) which states that any formal logical system by neccessity will have statements which can be neither proved nor disproved.

In simpler terms - they don't make sense WITHIN that theory.

[p.s. My apologies to those who know what I'm talking about - I know I had to cut some corners to simplify it]

Dec 16, 2011
Interaction with the random fluctuations of the vacuum are the randomizing factor that can not be removed from the equation, and which make the universe non-deterministic.


Actually, it is removed via the procedure of renormalization.

The non-deterministic nature of qm comes about through interpretation of the squared modulus of the wave function being a probability amplitude.

@Grizzled, you may be thinking of Kurt Godel and the incompleteness theorem (?). He used a few methods, diagonal slash and sets that are not members of themselves. :)

Dec 16, 2011
The state function evolves over all possible histories for an isolated universe, and only realizes a state compatible with one of those histories the moment it is touched by an outside observer.

That is what QM tells us.

I don't believe a word of it.


Fortunately, science isn't about belief .. and Reality is under no obligation to conform to a-priori intuitions of the mind. That is the mistake that Einstein, Dirac, and Schrodinger made in making like statements.

If we demand an intuitive understanding of reality, we in effect, force reality to conform to our own a-priori conceptual structure. We force Reality into paradigms that are dependent on mind,.. time, space, causality. Classical physics can be made consistent and intuitive, but at the quantum level one has to be careful not to interject intuitive biases.


Dec 16, 2011
I've always hated the cat in the box analogy. It is a confusing invalid way to help people understand a concept.

In reality coherence extends only to the measuring device which provides input to the switch to kill the cat. In doing so the wavefunction collapses at the point of measurement.

The state of anything resembling what we would call a "cat" today within any box that can be constructed by man is effected only by the result of an already collapsed system on the switches measuring device. The cat was never a part of the same coherent system. It is a disservice to invent a scenario which implies something we know to be false.

Dec 16, 2011
In essence the cat must become it's own universe, isolated from the world around it


You don't find that a tad absurd that you use a thought experiment that could never exist in the real world in an attempt to describe the real world?

"suppose we have pink unicorned elephants that fly at half the speed of light..."

In fact, a pink unicorned elephant that flies at half the speed of light is more realistic than a cat being isolated from the universe.

You're so used to the absurdity that you don't even see it as such.

Dec 16, 2011
I've written on "Schrödinger's theory and Schrödinger's cat"
Schrödinger's cat. The probability expresses the statistical chance for the cat. There's nothing more to say about it. There's something wrong with Schrödinger's theory if this is a necessary implication.
I'd also like to point out that the "mystery" of Schrödinger's cat comes down to the Copenhagen Interpretation, that I follow strictly on the observation point only, of having to be observed for something to exist. Schrodinger's cat goes clearly against this, even as an indirect observation. I therefore think that the whole of this line of thinking (Schrödinger's cat etc.) is flawed. It's almost embarrassing how mistaken it seems in regard to the huge interest.
Schrödinger's cat can also be set up with a rat, by requirement of the ladies, slightly sedated and laid under the guillotine. So when this condition of the atom triggers, the guillotine blade falls and decapitates the rat, rendering it certainly and clearly dead, ...

Dec 16, 2011
I can refer you to my own writing on Schrodinger's Cat (or Rat) and you will see that I've proven that the above author is WRONG, just like the above people say, the Schrodinger's Cat kills Schrodinger (iff. such a relation is necessary)! Cheers!

Dec 16, 2011
And let's just give something else here.

Everything in modern technology and applications is based on classical physics.

Quantum physics is used in virtually nothing that I know of in consumer products, although there are Quantum dots and such, but even in such cases, they are produced from a "top down" approach using classical machines...

The weather forecasting is done using purely classical physics, and the resolution of the data is the primary limitation on existing forecasting. In order to get more accurate and precise forecasts, making a stronger computer won't help. they'd need about 4 times more weather stations and more radars and satellites all over the planet in order to get double the precision.

Even then, it wouldn't involve quantum physics.

Rocket science doesn't involve quantum physics. Even ion rockets or solar sails don't use quantum physics.

I don't even know of any practical, "bottom up" quantum technologies in use, except in research labs...

Dec 16, 2011
... and the reason for that is most known quantum machines have no practical use except under absurdly isolated conditions, and even then, most known algorithms are only useful for absurdly specialized problem or set of math problems, some of which don't even have a known, real world application.

We'll probably have quantum computers and quantum networks one day, but it won't be the stuff of science fiction, that's for sure.

I said that to make the point that if Quantum theory is so correct, why do classical predictions work to within exactly the limits of margin of error in instrumentation?

Dec 16, 2011
Computing, however, involves quantum mechanics, and the above "uninformed" attitude by the above poster, Nanobanano, is taken away by referring to anything involving a quant, a particle, any given machine, and the person is wrong, definitively! Quantum mechanics remain though only or mostly in experimental set-ups so we'll see! We refer Nanobanano to Princeton University studies of quantum mechanics and the best papers elsewhere! (Nobel prizes? I think so! You can start with Erwin Schrodinger himself, for the 1933 prize!)

Dec 16, 2011
Computing, however, involves quantum mechanics,


There are no quantum computers on the market, with one possible exception, which is probably a hoax.

The computer you are using does not use entanglement, that's for damn sure. Neither does it work with individual electrons or photons.

So it cannot be quantum.

Dec 16, 2011
Let's hold quantum physics, quantum mechanics and classical physics separate! I'm coming back to this, but to my knowledge the merger between these 3 hasn't been achieved and classical physics remains limited, to my knowledge. Have you read about dr. Dick Bierman's experiments? To rule out quantum physics by the above argumentation makes no sense at this point because Quantum Physics is about science and not about what you can use in your daily life.

Dec 16, 2011
The probability expresses the statistical chance for the cat. There's nothing more to say about it. There's something wrong with Schrodinger's theory if this is a necessary implication.
I'd also like to point out that the "mystery" of Schrodinger's cat comes down to the Copenhagen Interpretation, that I follow strictly on the observation point only, of having to be observed for something to exist.

Well, if the wave-function is a linear super-position of all possibilities, only one of which is observable,.... then it stands to reason that observation must force "it" into one reality, thus causing the state reduction ("collapse") and probability interpretation of the wave-function.

What is it that you object to? We can only know about observations.

Schrodinger admitted that his cat example was a bit sillly,... in fact he wished to mock the Bohr interpretation, but it back fired.

In my view, qm is merely an epistemological problem, as above and in relation to Kant's philo.

Dec 16, 2011
From perspective of dense aether theory we are huge density fluctuations of aether and everything bellow 2 cm distance scale (the wavelength of CMBR) is observed from extrinsic perspective of quantum mechanics, above this scale everything is observed from intrinsic perspective of general relativity. At the scale of atom nuclei or dense neutron stars both these perspectives are merging again.
http://www.aether...cale.gif
Quantum mechanics predicts, the wave packets of all particles will expand into infinity, general relativity consider gravitational collapse into singularity. So called classical physics is the range, where the predictions of both theories compensate mutually in hyperdimensional reality. The realm of quantum mechanics therefore begins at much larger scale of forces, which are violating inverse square law, like the Casimir force and various dipole forces.

Dec 16, 2011
If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be.


Observation does not force reality.

Only one "possibility" is observable, because the others are not actually possible; they are figments of your imagination caused by some combination of ignorance, partial knowledge, or some other mis-understanding.

"neglecting friction" is not possible either.

"perfect insulation" is not possible either.

"ideal fluid" is not possible either.

"ideal machine" is not possible either.

these are all absurdities which have no place in a physics text, yet you find them there all the time.

Dec 16, 2011
"neglecting friction" is not possible either.
"perfect insulation" is not possible either.
"ideal fluid" is not possible either.
The supercritical helium is neglecting friction - or not? I do agree, the formal models are based on idealization of reality. As Einstein once said: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." But some idealization is necessary, or you couldn't predict anything.

Dec 16, 2011
these are all absurdities which have no place in a physics text, yet you find them there all the time.- Nano


Absurdities, according to a mind evolved to operate crudely on the macroscopic scale. By expecting Reality to be burdened with satisfying your intuitive sensibilities, you subject it to all manor of conceptual contortions. Why should one expect Reality to 'think' like a mind does, ... and so be as a mind expects. By conceptualizing Reality, you've added a component to the final knowledge. Leave intuitions out, so physics can proceed .

Dec 16, 2011
If you had an actual cat in an actual box, and you knew all the laws of the universe AND the exact positon of all forms of matter, energy, and anything else that may exist, then you could tell exactly if and when the cat died, and without looking.

Faith in determinism. Trick being there is no exact position per the uncertainty principle.

Dec 16, 2011
And let's just give something else here.
-- ok, let's --

Everything in modern technology and applications is based on classical physics.
-- Wrong. Unless your computer is using vacuum-tubes technology it depends critically on quantum physics. All those nasty semiconductors, you know. Displays too. No matter if it's an old CRT or the latest and greatest in LCD/Plasama, it's stll QPh. --

Quantum physics is used in virtually nothing that I know of in consumer devices
-- Wrong. See above. --
Rocket science doesn't involve quantum physics.
-- Wrong. Atomic clocks for starters. GPS systems depend on them. --
I don't even know of any practical, "bottom up" quantum technologies in use
-- That may be true. But saying you don't know something isn't saying much.


Dec 16, 2011
Leave intuitions out, so physics can proceed .
The formal physics exhausted the range opened for conceptualizing and formalizing of reality already. Now we will be forced to return into more intuitive understanding of reality again. It's similar to observation of water surface with its own waves - at the shorter distance the transverse waves are more useful, but when these waves will disperse into many ones, the less deterministic approach will become more effective.

Dec 16, 2011
If you had an actual cat in an actual box, and you knew all the laws of the universe AND the exact positon of all forms of matter, energy, and anything else that may exist, then you could tell exactly if and when the cat died, and without looking.

Faith in determinism. Trick being there is no exact position per the uncertainty principle.

This is true but, even before the uncertainty principle, (during the heyday of determinism) there were still objections to the above idea - namely: what will you use to predict the outcome? Is the machine you use part of that Universe you model? So it has to model itself too? And it's own running? For completness. But..how could THAT be?

Dec 16, 2011
Faith in determinism. Trick being there is no exact position per the uncertainty principle.


Actually, I despise determinism. It's just, I can't explain how reality could be anything else in a purely mechanical fashion, and still have any order.

Moreover, gee, those deterministic computer models do such a damn good job at predicting stuff, and deterministic models using classical physics do such a damn good job of calculating what is necessary for a mission, enabling NASA to land a space probe on Mars, or time a fly-by of Pluto 12 years later.

Pretty convincing stuff for classical physics and determinism.

If determinisme is real, then free will is an illusion.

If determinism is not real, prediction, as well as most of science, is an illusion. i.e. The NHC has no skill, they only appear to have skill, etc. Computer would not work, because computations would be meaningless. Computation on computers requires determinism to be meaningful. Output is determine by input

Dec 16, 2011
"What causes decay? Not the bs half life thing. What causes it?" - nano

It is caused by the interaction between the Quarks that make up the particles composing the nucleus and the quantum vacuum in which they exist. Once a vacuum fluctuation of the proper type and sufficient energy and duration is encountered the wave function of the nucleus and the vacuum fluctuation combine to create a disintegrated nucleus plus energy lost back into the void.

Second. The energy of spacetime becomes greater than the gluons can handle. Excess energy is released in the form of photons.

Dec 16, 2011
Grizzled:

You are quite clearly wrong.

There are no classical computers using quantum principles.

My computer doesn't have quantum memory, or quantum processors or anything of the such.

In fact, the basics of the technology has not changed in many decades, other than miniaturization.

That's why they are called classical computers, because they are based on classical mechanics.

Dec 16, 2011
@Grizzled, you may be thinking of Kurt Godel and the incompleteness theorem (?). He used a few methods, diagonal slash and sets that are not members of themselves. :)


Ok, so I get Cantor, Russell, and Godel mixed up.

Dec 16, 2011
Second. The energy of spacetime becomes greater than the gluons can handle. Excess energy is released in the form of photons.


See that.

You offered a physical CAUSE, not a random probability.

Now, what causes the cause?

In the real world, stuff happens for a reason.

The problem of shrodinger's Cat is that the question is framed with a lack of information, making it impossible to solve.

It's sort of like if your teacher gave you "Y = X Z" and said "solve for Z" and didn't give you any more information.

The best you could say is "Y - X = Z", but that's a silly response and doesn't say much of anything, other than there's a relationship.

But without knowing at least something about Y and X you can't know what Z is.

Z is determined by the values of Y and X.

Dec 16, 2011
Grizzled:

You are quite clearly wrong.

There are no classical computers using quantum principles.

My computer doesn't have quantum memory, or quantum processors or anything of the such.

In fact, the basics of the technology has not changed in many decades, other than miniaturization.

That's why they are called classical computers, because they are based on classical mechanics.


There are no computers making "quantum calculations", yet,.... however, all existing modern computers use solid state devices, diodes, transistors, etc,.. that can only be understood via quantum mechanics.

Dec 16, 2011
If a 'parallel' universe 'exists' in some sense, but is not able to interact with any aspects of 'our' universe, then that renders it indistinguishable (in an operational sense of the word) from that which does not exist. If it *is* able to interact with any aspect of 'our' universe, then its effects are observable, and it is in effect within our observable universe.


Interactions of parallel universes result in all the weird things the quantum physics is referring to.


Dec 16, 2011
everything bellow 2 cm distance scale (the wavelength of CMBR)

Well yes maybe but the CMBR has all wavelengths - blackbody radiation. Maybe that adds some flexibility to your theory.

Dec 16, 2011

There are no computers making "quantum calculations", yet,.... however, all existing modern computers use solid state devices, diodes, transistors, etc,.. that can only be understood via quantum mechanics.


I believe you are mixing up concepts such as the "quanta" in the sense of a discreet packet of a substance, vs the concepts, such as superposition and entanglement.

I don't disregard the idea that matter is made of "tiny things" like atoms and particles.

Superposition and entanglement appear in artificial, "engineered" and highly isolated laboratory circumstances, such as some of the articles we often read posted here. Like for exmaple, they used a laser to vibrate one diamond, and the other spontaneously vibrates with it.

We should not confuse the notion of the particles of matter or energy, which is relevant to miniaturization, with that of superposition or entanglement, which is not, at this time involved in computers.

Dec 16, 2011
I said that to make the point that if Quantum theory is so correct, why do classical predictions work to within exactly the limits of margin of error in instrumentation?

Quantum theory determines the lower limit of the margin of error.

Dec 16, 2011
Well, whatever.

Racetrack memory is going to use Spintronics, but even that won't involve entanglement or superposition.

So how do you justify your position, or giving me poor feedback?

Oh wait, I forget, anyone who points out how absurd the existing framework really is gets automatically shunned...

Dec 16, 2011
Grizzled:

You are quite clearly wrong.

That's why they are called classical computers, because they are based on classical mechanics.

Nope, I'm quite clearly right and you are just confused.

Your problem is that for some obscure reason you think of Quantum Physics (in relation to computers) only in the terms of entanglement, Q-bits and such. This is wrong. The simplest P-N transition in semiconductors is Quantum. Just you try explaining it from the classical point of view.

Look, I'm really getting tired trying to hammer home a pretty obvious point - what you call "classical" computers of today simply wouldn't be possible without QM. Same for TV sets, GPS...heck, practically ALL modern electronics.

Dec 16, 2011
What is so strange with the idea of parallel universes? There is definitely and without any doubt one universe, at least, and even this fact is very strange. (Some would sleep better if this never happened, so strange it is.) What "thing" in the world can prevent that one additional universe is created, or exists infinitely long time, along with ours? Or 10 universes? Or 10 power 967?

Then I find no problem to handle parallel universes as separate entities, and still of provable existence because of its mutual interactions. To state that any "thing" which is in interaction with our universe is a part of it, is a cruelty upon logic. We can be in the same room, and still are two separate people. We can talk each other and touch each other, still preserving our integrities and attitude. Can have sex, and even then are two, not one.


Dec 16, 2011
Bottom line: a 'parallel universe' is a tautological impossiblity.

Another tautology - the total energy of the universe is 0. Else where did it come from? It seems the universe would not be the complete picture.

Dec 16, 2011
"Seeing quantum effects requires extremely precise measurements."
Well I think seeing itself is a quantum effect - photons exciting certain photoreceptors in the eye.

Dec 16, 2011
What is it that you object to? We can only know about observations.
My answer: it is common knowledge that Schrodingers cat destroys Schrodingers theory. That's what the cat was there for in the first place!

Dec 16, 2011
Another tautology - the total energy of the universe is 0. Else where did it come from? It seems the universe would not be the complete picture.


If you have two ideal mirrors facing one another in assymptotically flat space-time...

You could have a laser aimed precisely aligned and have the light reflect between them transfering momentum from the photons to the mirrors.

If the mirrors are initially 1m apart, then a 1 Watt laser could impart about 300,000,000 Joules worth of Net energy on the mirrors each and every second by pushing them apart, moreover, the very first photon would last for an eternity, eventually providing infinite net acceleration (or limited by C anyway,) if it was ideal mirrors.

It's completely absurd, yes, but it obeys the man-made "laws" of physics!

Dec 16, 2011
Because they INSIST that the cat is in TWO states, dead AND alive and this is now known to be dead wrong! The cat will never be both dead and alive and this is where the limits to human abilities come in! You are not all-knowing! We have to admit that the world obtains states that we have no clue of and that we need to get to definite observation to be certain of it! The "possible worlds" considerations belong to a different topic! You get it, please?

Dec 16, 2011
To state that any "thing" which is in interaction with our universe is a part of it, is a cruelty upon logic. We can be in the same room, and still are two separate people.

Another cruelty of logic - if you're in the same room you must be in the same universe.
I have no problem with multiverses but I suspect the voids are impenetrable to photons, for example. The medium (spacetime) is part of the universe; no medium, no photons or other particles.

Dec 16, 2011
What is it that you object to? We can only know about observations. By Noumenon, above!

My answer: it is common knowledge that Schrodingers cat destroys Schrodingers theory. That's what the cat was there for in the first place! (I'm sorry to have posted this twice! I just wanted to correct it!)

Dec 16, 2011
@Seeker2 We will see. If quantum computer masters to crack 1024-bit key, using 2 power 1024 computations in parallel universes, then it is for sure. Our universe has too few quarks to do that classically.

Dec 16, 2011
the man-made "laws" of physics!

Yes I've been wondering about those man-made laws of physics. I suspect nature has its own laws and doesn't really care about the man-made laws.

Dec 16, 2011
To state that any "thing" which is in interaction with our universe is a part of it, is a cruelty upon logic. We can be in the same room, and still are two separate people.

Another cruelty of logic - if you're in the same room you must be in the same universe.
I have no problem with multiverses but I suspect the voids are impenetrable to photons, for example. The medium (spacetime) is part of the universe; no medium, no photons or other particles.

And what of neutrinos? Maybe they have one foot in a parallel universe while another is in ours. The one foot in the other allows the neutrino the unprecedented freedom to travel through the planet unimpeded, but is also detectable because it partially coincides with our reality.

Dec 16, 2011
Besides, this stupid "quantum theory". If there is a used cat's "house"/box in some building. How do you know that the cat is either born yet, alive or dead? As this is 3 states, do we get a new problem? Thi-hi-hi-hi... :-)

Dec 16, 2011
That is, the former cat is dead and they're waiting for a new one, but this cat /can/ be in a cat's mother womb, and not born yet, but pre-sold to new owners?

Dec 17, 2011
All of this talk about the technicalities of the quantum systems. But all of you are forgetting one important thing here; the variable of the conscious mind in analyzing all of this. That has not been addressed once here, nor has it ever been adequately explained in any real detail, ever. But, for some reason, it is assumed that what we perceive must be 'real', when in fact, the only thing we know for sure is that we experience. Another illusory concept is the notion of 'time', which really does not even exist, since it is an abstract idea. It's always now, no matter what 'time' it is. "Time" as we know it to be defined correctly, is nothing more than a measurement of a rate of positional displacement of particles, and nothing more. But for some reason, we tend to think of it as some sort of linear, steadily moving 'thing', in the abstract thought processes. It is not. And, this I believe to be the most important mistake that Einstein made; to include 'time' as "c", a constant, itsnot

Dec 17, 2011
Schroedinger's wife is complaining again so he puts her in the box. She pulls a .44 Magnum from her purse and resolves that the minute he opens the door, she'll blow his head off.

When he opens the door is he alive or dead?

Dec 17, 2011
But all of you are forgetting one important thing here; the variable of the conscious mind in analyzing all of this. ... the only thing we know for sure is that we experience.


Exactly. The omnipresence of consciousness, impossibility to think "outside" of it misleads us to ignore it; yet it is the most important thing in the world.

There is an analogy with gravitation. Prior to Newton and Galilei, nobody, except some excentric philosophers, felt that there can be a problem with things falling down. The popular notion was that Earth is flat and the fact that things falling down is natural-born to all masses. (Aristotle's system with universe's center of gravity in the middle of round Earth was not so widely accepted even in scholar circles.) The civilization needed to "step out" of Earth to really see and accept the fact that gravitation is not trivial and that there are places without it.


Dec 17, 2011
What is it that you object to? We can only know about observations. By Noumenon, above!

My answer: it is common knowledge that Schrodingers cat destroys Schrodingers theory. That's what the cat was there for in the first place!


It is common knowledge that Schrodinger wave-mechanics is still a valid description. Even considering decoherence, there is still a ontological problem.

Schrodinger came up with the cat analogy and Einstein came up with the EPR paradox, in hopes of showing that qm has to be incorrect,.... but both back fired, because neither thought experiment does anything to disprove qm,.. only makes apparent the non-intuitive nature of it.

Now, obviously on the macroscopic scale of things we don't see this odd behavior,.. so whatever the underlying nature of qm is, it must reduce to what we experience on our level. However, since the cat and box is to be considered as an isolated system, the same "issues" arise.

Dec 17, 2011
It is easy to laugh upon middle-age people. But the same scenario happens in present time. There are people ready to fight bloody wars only to be allowed to ignore consciousness. Some refuse even to accept its existence, others neglect it as epiphenomenon or "improper use of language". The popular notion of our time is that computers will be conscious just delivering necessary machine resources or proper algorithms.

Someday, I hope, we will be again forced to "think outside" and see that "Earth is not flat". Maybe, in the 20-50 years timeframe, when quantum information technology penetrates the society, notion that non-mechanical and non-classical information states are important to processes in our brain, will be accepted as the most natural explanation to the conscious phenomena.

Dec 17, 2011
"Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious."

Dec 17, 2011
dbl post (remove)

Dec 17, 2011
But all of you are forgetting one important thing here; the variable of the conscious mind in analyzing all of this. ... the only thing we know for sure is that we experience.


This is why qm is non-intuitive and gives some people great difficulty. I mentioned Immaneul Kant above, who's core philosophy expresses the fact that intrinsic facilities of the mind determine the form of experience. We cannot have a pure and untainted knowledge of Reality because given the nature of mind, we add the conceptual structure which amounts to boxing in or conforming reality, into artificial paradigmns. "artificial" in the sense that Reality as it is in itself (Kant's Noumenal reality), is unconceptualized and so free of these subjective limits.

We can only interact with reality through observations, ... by then we have already subjected reality to conditions of the mind in acquiring knowledge, and so have changed it fundamentally; the Schrodinger evolution breaks at that point.

Dec 17, 2011
hi, just a check if i understand this. when the box is locked the cat is both dead and alive because of schrodingers equation. when you open it a division occurs, when you see that the cat is dead at that moment the cat will at the same time still be alive but in a parallel universe?

Dec 17, 2011
Time" as we know it to be defined correctly, is nothing more than a measurement of a rate of positional displacement of particles, and nothing more. But for some reason, we tend to think of it as some sort of linear, steadily moving 'thing', in the abstract thought processes.


Yes, and it is one of the a-priori "artificial" conditions of experience given the nature of mind, mentioned above. Time is not a discoverable physical entity in itself. It is never observed, only applied. It is a Real aspect of phenomenal reality, but by "phenomenal reality", one must realize that we add the conceptual component.

Dec 17, 2011
No parallel universes are needed.


That's correct, but there is the "multi-verse" interpretation for people who wish to have faith that the wave-function is a "real entity" and is never "collapsed" via state-reduction, ...despite the fact that it is not observable as such, and does not explain how or why a particular out come manifests to a particular conscious reality, rather than another. So, it causes more issues than it solves.

[Ehelred has trouble with me using Kant's philosophy wrt a epistemological interpretation of the non-intuitive aspect of qm,... but then he accepts the multi-verse interpretation, which imo only adds a consciousness problem, unnecessarily.]

Dec 17, 2011
In dense aether theory every vacuum fluctuation can serve as an independent reference frame, capable of independent interaction with (observation of) neighboring reality. It's nothing very strange about it, but this concept itself doesn't lead into new predictions too. It basically says, every observer will see somewhat different picture of reality, which is trivial conclusion. I'm not reluctant to this view - but until it will not demonstrate some predictions, I have no usage for it.

Dec 17, 2011
All this debate is well and good, but who will empty Schrodinger's litterbox ?

------

The premise of the article doesn't seem to be anything different than the normal " Large quantum numbers produce classical effects " statement of the correspondence principle...


Dec 17, 2011
The "innuendo" of insisting on "contextualism"/"quantum interaction" is to be trapped in failure because what do you know of nature or reality or anything else merely from sitting there in an armchair, feelin/sensing "contextualism"/"quantum interaction": definite answer, NOTHING!

Dec 17, 2011
Still, most of the comments here (or _0_, zero) actually doesn't deal with the problem of cat destroying the Schrodinger's or why it should be the other way around! This is dubious, people! (Excuse me for "feelin" and perhaps it's not nothing, but rather very little!)

Dec 17, 2011
actually doesn't deal with the problem of cat destroying the Schrodinger's or why it should be the other way around


What do you mean?

Dec 17, 2011
if you say you understand quantum..you don't understand quantum...

Dec 17, 2011
WOW- What a waste of space to see so many posts misdirected. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in ourselves... but it started with the original blogger. Schrodinger did NOT use the cat example (loosely termed a "thought experiment") to demonstrate decoherence or the duality of quantum states.... rather he did the OPPOSITE. This example is supposed to show the impossibility of these particular quantum theory postulates.
It is maddening to see physics professors, writers, and masses of "hey, i just thought of why all physics is wrong" folks continually misstating this example and its purpose.
PLEASE STOP DOING THAT.
Now, it wont do any good, but for all of you who dispute the fundamental duality nature of quantum theory because it doesn't make "sense", you are wrong, and there has never been one single experiment to test these matters that has even hinted that they are wrong. The error, dear friends, is not in the stars, it is in how we look at them...

Dec 17, 2011
Hey, smarta**, by (the petty) Wikipedia (but more than enough for you): Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, usually described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents a cat that might be alive or dead, depending on an earlier random event. Although the original "experiment" was imaginary, similar principles have been researched and used in practical applications. The Cat paradox is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. In the course of developing this experiment, Schrödinger coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement).

Dec 17, 2011
I havent read all the posts here but I get the general gist. The question comes down to whether the universe is deterministic, as surmised by classical physics, of which relativity is a part, or whether it is non-deterministic as surmised, and purportedly proven, by quantum physics. In quantum physics, the ramification of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is that we live in a nondeterministic universe. As original stated, you can never know both the momentum and position of a particle with absolute certainty, not because the technology hasnt advanced enough to determine their precise states, but because they do not exist in any precise state and the more you precisely measure one state, the less you can precisely measure the other. Heisenberg was aware of the monumental implication of his equation and, in fact, on the day he developed the equation while working with Niels Bohr in Denmark, he got into a cab with the German ambassadors son and stated that he just overturned determ

Dec 17, 2011
determinism. As previously stated in these posts, every experiment performed dealing with the quantum realm has demonstrated the probabilistic and therefore nondeterministic nature of subatomic particles and even larger particles. Bbucky balls composed of something like 20 carbon atoms have demonstrated in experiments this wavelike, superposition, spread-out nature until they react with the environment and decohere.

Einstein was a determinist to his dying day because everything he knew about the universe told him that it was deterministic. He believed quantum mechanics was incomplete. He believed, from his ideas of special relativity, that time has dimensional qualities and like a dimension is transversed from one location to another or more precisely from one event to another. Just like moving one foot to your right or left, that spot doesnt exist all of a sudden just because you move there, but rather was there before you moved your foot. Similarly with time, the future already

Dec 17, 2011
Similarly with time, the future already exists and it is an illusion that we think it does not already exist and is yet undetermined. As recently discussed in Brian Greenes NOVA series (go to PBS Home Video on the web)and in his book, The Fabric of the Cosmos, if an alien billions of light years away gets on a bicycle and moves towards earth, the aliens current time will correlate to that of earth of a couple hundred years in our past; if the alien turns around and moves in the opposite direction, that is, away from earth, the aliens current time will correlate with that of earth of a couple hundred years in earths future. The equations of relativity predict this, and relativity has never failed experimental tests. The implication is that the future already exists, despite the fact that we cant see it. If it already exists, as Einstein believed, then it is predetermined and determinism is the nature of the universe.

Dec 17, 2011
and determinism is the nature of the universe
Only very subtle portion of observable reality can be reliably predicted with using of math. It follows from equations of quantum mechanics (the uncertainty principle and Bell theorems in particular), this indeterminism is the nature of the Universe.
the aliens current time will correlate to that of earth of a couple hundred years in our past
Because the future is not testable, those of aliens the less, such untestable claims belong into fairy tales and natural philosophy, not the science. The science deals with testable predictions only.

Dec 17, 2011
a blank statement about what was or was not at the "beginning" is pointless unless you manage to find a way to define what it is you mean by "beginning".

So far, physicists have not been able to adequately do that

Maybe they prefer the cyclic universe theories.

Dec 17, 2011
rcir88:

I wish you were right, because like I said, I hate determinism. I'd like to thing there was at least some sort of chance of free will existing.

But the reality is all of science shows the universe to be deterministic. Hawking even said so in his book black holes and baby universes.

The calendar, even very ancient solar/stellar calendars, such as stone henge and the pyramids, always work (when adjusted for precession,) so that they predict every stellar alignment even eons into the future. And of course, precession is baded on classical physics, not QM.

Your car engine and all other machines work because of precise timing coupled with determinism.

the random number generation algorithm on your computer is deterministic, because it's typically based on a seed input and the clock on the computer. The number is not "really" random. It is pre-determined by the initial conditions.

Dec 17, 2011
But the reality is all of science shows the universe to be deterministic.

Sure was up until about 1900.
Hawking even said so in his book black holes and baby universes.
Must have changed his mind. Per http://www.hawkin...tures/64 "scientific determinism, remained the official dogma throughout the 19th century. However, in the 20th century,"
Maybe this century they've decided to go back to the 19th century.


Dec 17, 2011
the initial state of the universe is not even known to have manifested.

The initial state of the universe was manifested when the laws of nature were first enacted.

Dec 17, 2011
"the random number generation algorithm on your computer is deterministic

No quantum physicist would dispute this. They would make the point that true randomness only exists in the quantum realm. It is impossible to predict with absolute accuracy, where, for instance, a subatomic particle will land moving through a double slit apparatus. Only its probability of ending up one place or another can be predicted. As I stated above, this applies even to particles as large as bucky balls. To be cont.

Dec 17, 2011
I think the Quantum Computing relates to a quartz similar to the quartz that run the system time! Just so you are notified!

Dec 18, 2011
Quantum physics is used in virtually nothing that I know of in consumer products, although there are Quantum dots and such, but even in such cases, they are produced from a "top down" approach using classical machines...

Tunnel diodes biased into their negative resistance region of operation have been used since the 1960's in analog communication equipment like old TV sets. They use electron tunneling through a potential barrier that classical physics predicts is impossible for the electrons to cross.

Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices are used in MRI machines. SQUIDs use Josephson junctions and their operation is based on electron tunneling.

Those are just 2 quantum devices used every day whose geometry is specifically designed to exploit the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and whose operation cannot be explained with classical physics.

The classical manufacturing methods used to construct them doesn't change how those devices operate.

Dec 18, 2011
Schroedinger's wife is complaining again so he puts her in the box. She pulls a .44 Magnum from her purse and resolves that the minute he opens the door, she'll blow his head off.

When he opens the door is he alive or dead?


Actually just like the quote you fail to inccorperate 4th dimension into your story, which would tell us how much time Schroedinger's wife had to prepare for the husband's return. Perhaps he immediatly reopened the door, quickly dashing her plans? Or opened the front of the door and then sat on the otherside of a bullet-proof shatter-proof glass window?

Dec 18, 2011
true randomness only exists in the quantum realm.

Some good points on this post but those cricket noises on a summer night seem pretty random to me.

Dec 18, 2011
"does not explain how or why a particular out come manifests to a particular conscious reality, rather than another." - NoumenTard
Observation doesn't require consciousness.
I must differ. Even a modicum of consciousness would greatly increase the quality of his observations!

Dec 18, 2011
thank you! that was clarifying.

Dec 18, 2011
true randomness only exists in the quantum realm.

Some good points on this post but those cricket noises on a summer night seem pretty random to me.


Interesting that you would mention crickets while we have a thread about macroscopic entanglement.

Of course, they are entrained_not_entangled, maybe entrainment is the entanglement in macroscopic objects we are looking for ?

Dec 18, 2011
"does not explain how or why a particular out come manifests to a particular conscious reality, rather than another." - Noumenon

Observation doesn't require consciousness. You are just jabbering pointless mumbo jumbo.- VendiTard



Observation by definition requires a conscious mind, imbecile..

Dec 18, 2011
.... scientific instruments being an extension of the mind since they are designed by and results interpreted by conscious mind.

I think what you mean to say , but are too ignorant to articulate it properly,.. is that 'state reduction does not require an mind', as in decoherence. I mentioned this above.

Dec 18, 2011
every experiment performed dealing with the quantum realm has demonstrated the probabilistic and therefore nondeterministic nature of subatomic particles - rcir88


I interpret this as being a result of our inability to measure and specify the randomizing vacuum conditions surrounding the object being measured. - VendiTard


-As I already pointed out to you in another thread, the vacuum energy has nothing to do with the nondeterministic nature of qm. That issue is handled via Renormalization. This is justified because, ....as is the case in basic classical physics, ....only relative differences in energy are observable, otherwise it can be considered meaningless.

-You purport to re-interpret quantum indeterminacy issue by invoking an infinite amount of indeterminacy,. ...as you put it the "RANDOMIZING vacuum conditions" !?!

Dec 18, 2011
..the "multi-verse" interpretation for people who wish to have faith that the wave-function is a "real entity" and is never "collapsed" via state-reduction, ...despite the fact that it is not observable as such, and does not explain how or why a particular out come manifests to a particular conscious reality, rather than another.. - Noumenon


Observation doesn't require consciousness. You are just jabbering pointless mumbo jumbo. - VendiTard


Now that I've included my full quote above, we see how VendiTard is a typical dishonest commie.

Where am I not being factual above? The above is wrt the "many-worlds interpretation", which I don't agree with.

Dec 18, 2011
The error, dear friends, is not in the stars, it is in how we look at them..." - Limestone


Ya, but the rules of QM still don't make any sense. I accept that they adequately characterize nature. I object to them on the basis that they do not describe any natural process. - VendicTard


This is an issue with your lack of understanding, not science.

My, so called "mumbo-jumbo" posts above wrt epistemology and Kant, are in support of hard science, and are against the wrong headed emotional expectations that qm should "make sense" and be intuitive, to you.

I am a positivist,... you are a meta-physicists, seeking an emotional and intuitively satisfying comprehension of the underlying nature of reality.

The best that science can do, given the inductive method, is to link observables together consistently as possible through hypothesis and theories. These models should not be interpreted as BEING the reality itself. They are merely a means of obtaining predictive power.

Dec 18, 2011
I Ya, but the rules of QM still don't make any sense. I accept that they adequately characterize nature. I object to them on the basis that they do not describe any natural process.. - VendicTard


It is valid to have faith that there is an underlying reality (to qm),.. but this is unknowable even in principal.

The act of conceptualizing Reality, changes it,.. conforms it within epistemologically dependent conditions. This, imo, is why qm cannot be made intuitively consistent.

This does not mean there is no underling reality,... it's just that it cannot be encapsulated in a form dependent on mind, which has evolved to operate on macroscopic reality.

In other words, given the nature of mind, our intrinsic intuitive cognitive faculties, are inadequate in representing qm consistently,... thus qm is non-intuitive.

Science is about making predictions, not about "comprehending" Reality. This was the lesson of the qm revolution, which you missed.

Dec 18, 2011
I speculate that quantum mechanics has got light all wrong. I think that photons are omniscient subatomic particles that when excite light up just like a filiment and then as they get excited begin to move around freely and from the results of collisions "ring" at different frequencies and our eyes distinguish these frequencies as color.

We say for instance that light behaves as a wave and a Particle. I suggest that light behaves only as a particle and not in anyway as a "wave" in my observation of light some twenty two years I have only been able to conceptualize the behavior of light and its behavior as any other particle of a larger whole. and its not so much that i cant understand as to why light is thought of in the way that it is because for one thing we cant really feel it.... its not a tangible thing and the closest comparison we have is magnetism and electromagnetism yet another force that we can since but can not see and i cant really suggest that people ar

Dec 18, 2011
1. Light bounces off an object: photons have no mass.... and yet electromagnetic fields pass directly through most elements. I have read this is due to opposing forces between the photon and the field of electrons around most molecular structures acting as a kind of trampoline, however when approaching reflective glass or a crystal even though the thickness of some of these things varies much more than say the very non permeable laptop I'm typing on it well you know some pass some get stuck and come back through but the chemical make up of glass is about the same as sand and i don't know what beach your at but i cant see clear down to the bed rock when i'm looking for change. That would also take a large amount of the fun out of treasure hunting. ....So, even though the same amount of electrons are present, the chances for contact goes down when chemical make up in concern is uniform? that makes me think that light has nothing to do with the electron. but structure of the molecule

Dec 18, 2011
2. Water behaves as if it has waves though we do not think of water as behaving in wave form when it is in motion. we just say that it has waves. But clearly we can see that light dissapates from an area when the source is taken away if light was solely a particle it would do something noticeable it is not a solid and you cant fill a glass with it but we can store it via conversion into another form of energy not photons exactly we cant keep photons. and lets face it things must agree. most things do... But when water moves energy is transferred via motion from molecule to another because of its chemical bond. i think that photons exist like water they light up when energy is being transferred from one object to another and when they get excited. unlike water, because it does not have a bond the particles move freely until the energy has been passed on and entropy takes its toll as the photon loses motion so it is we can not see it.

Dec 18, 2011
3. motion: Now it may seem strange that although light is a soley a partical that it would move in the manner that it does but if you think again in comparison to a gas that spreads quickly it reaches into everything now if you give that gas momentum its a completely different story it explains why light bends around an object obviously like water moving in one direction it has a tendency to create a pull and like air moving over the plane of a wing to create lift.

Dec 18, 2011
Continued from above. Hidden variables that would explain quantum events such as entanglement have been ruled out by experiments based on the ideas of Irish physicist John Stewart Bell. There is no underlying deterministic mechanism that explains the probabilistic nature of quantum events. Conversely, we may mistakenly view many macroscopic events as deterministic because of their extremely high probability, but at a fundamental level, the universe operates in a nondeterministic manner. I believe the determinists have only one refuge left, and this is with relativity, as I tried to explain in a previous post.

Dec 18, 2011
Hidden variables that would explain quantum events such as entanglement have been ruled out by experiments based on the ideas of Irish physicist John Stewart Bell.

As I recall, there were still experiments conducted in the early 1980s (published in Physical Review Letters) which eliminated a certain group or class of such possible theories. By now the memory of what exactly that group was is getting a bit hazy here but it was very definitely only a specific (albeit large) group of them but not all.

Do you mean that one or something later which I missed? If so, a link would be appreciated.

Dec 18, 2011
cricket noises on a summer night seem pretty random to me.

As far as crickets are concerned, I think their random noise is a result of entropy, a statistical idea that states that there are more ways to have a disordered collection of things than an ordered collection of things, in this case cricket noise. Hence, the natural tendency is for increasing entropy. I make a distinction between disorder and random. By random, as I define it, I mean an occurrence that has no underlying cause, but rather occurs purely by chance, albeit, in the case of QM, within a certain probability.

Dec 18, 2011
"does not explain how or why a particular out come manifests to a particular conscious reality, rather than another." - Noumenon

Observation doesn't require consciousness. You are just jabbering pointless mumbo jumbo.- VendiTard



Observation by definition requires a conscious mind, imbecile..
No it doesnt. Define conscious. Define mind. 'Observation' in the physical sense is interaction. You are indeed jabbering pointless lyrical kantian philo Krapp.

Instruments 'observe' whether there is a qualfied 'mind' to respond to them or not. Would you say that instruments work differently depending on the quality of the mind 'observing' their output? Of course not.

Dec 18, 2011
'Observation' in the physical sense is interaction-Otto.


christ, are you kidding me!,... to observe requires a mind! If you mean interaction then say interaction!

Please see my entire quote to see what I was talking about in context. I was speaking about many-worlds-interpretation and conscious observation in particular. Yes, decoherence is a valid pov.

Dec 18, 2011
christ, are you kidding me!,... to observe requires a mind! If you mean interaction then say interaction!
No I am not kidding you. A widget can replace your observing mind and the effects on the overall system would remain the same. There is NOTHING beyond the physical. The brain is just another widget. PERIOD.

Dec 18, 2011
christ, are you kidding me!,... to observe requires a mind! If you mean interaction then say interaction!
No I am not kidding you. A widget can replace your observing mind and the effects on the overall system would remain the same. There is NOTHING beyond the physical. The brain is just another widget. PERIOD.


Yes, no kidding. What's your point? Where did I insinuate that there is something beyond the physical wrt to consciousness?

Above, I am using the word consciousness and observation as it relates to a mind in the appropriate context,... i.e to become aware.

I'm not sure what you point is here? Are you referring to decoherence? If so, decoherence does not collapse the wave-function, nor does it explain the measurement problem.

Kant's philo mentioned above concerns the philosophy of knowledge (epistemology), which of course relates to science, as science attempts to acquire knowledge of reality.

Dec 18, 2011
What's your point? Where did I insinuate that there is something beyond the physical wrt to consciousness?
When you suggested it and the 'mind' were required for observation:
Observation by definition requires a conscious mind, imbecile..
-A categorical statement which we can categorically reject.

A tripwire observes the passage of an animal and triggers a camera which takes a picture of it. Or not. The tripwire 'observes' the animal whether a picture is taken for some human with a mind to look at or not.

As someone said in one of these threads, waveforms are collapsed and coherence is lost all the time and we have no clue of it.

Dec 18, 2011
Sigh,... Otto, inanimate things don't observe, people do. K. Scientific instruments are tools used for observation. You can say instruments observe you if want to,.. but people designed those instruments and people ultimately interpret the results. Observation, in the context that I used it above, means a conscious mind becoming aware of the results.

I think I see your trouble wrt Observation,....

Dec 18, 2011
There is NOTHING beyond the physical. The brain is just another widget. PERIOD.


Of course there is nothing beyond physical, however, physics does not end with cog wheels or zeros and ones. The brain is quantum, precisely, it is a network of distributed nano-mechanical quantum processors, i.e. neurons. Or do you think you can have a classical algorithm for 6-plus degree-of-freedom real-time 3D image recognition with 10^15 ops per second, as is anticipated by classical neuronal model of brain? Never.

Dec 18, 2011
As someone said in one of these threads, waveforms are collapsed and coherence is lost all the time and we have no clue of it. - Otto


This is factually incorrect, and seems like a popular misapprehension on this site.

As I already stated on this thread multiple times, decoherence does NOT collapse the wavefunction. This is where your trouble lies with "observation" above.

A total superposition of the entire systems possibilities still exists and remains coherent as a totality. Decoherence does NOT explain the measurement problem either.

The idea of decoherence is to supply an "explanation for the APPEARANCE of wavefunction collapse", ... that is to say, an explanation of the "mechanism by which the classical limit emerges out of a quantum starting point".

We already knew that classical physics must resolve from the quantum level, so this is not a fundamental discovery in itself. It does not resolve the most perplexing aspects of qm.

Dec 18, 2011
The quantum wavefunction doesn't collapse during observation, the wave function of observer just undulates at phase with the wave function of object observed during observation (which is basically, what the entanglement is about from intrinsic perspective). http://aetherwave...-of.html

Dec 18, 2011
Any measurement is an observation Tard Boy, and any interaction that alters the state of the observed is a measurement.

Have you been an idiot all your life, NoumenTard?

"Observation by definition requires a conscious mind, imbecile" - NoumenTard



Wow. It is pointless to debate these semantics with you. You can define interactions as "measurements" and "observations" if you want,... But I know of no one who uses those phrases when the word interactions is available,... except those who INCORRECTLY believe that such unaware "observations" and unknown "measurements", result in wave-function state reduction.

Dec 18, 2011
"Otto, inanimate things don't observe, people do. K. Scientific instruments are tools used for observation." - NoumenTard

Machines have been making and recording observations of physical systems for decades Tard Boy.

Observation = interaction. Nothing more.


Yes, no shit. Instruments are an extension of a conscious observer. As I said, "You can say instruments observe you if want to,.. but people designed those instruments and people ultimately interpret the results. "

What is the specific point of saying that consciously unknown interactions equates to an measurement???

If you're thinking of decoherence as causing a measurement in the sense of causing a state reduction,... you are misinformed, as decoherence as an interpretation of qm, does no such thing!

I see no other motivation for saying observations or measurements are the same as interactions.

Dec 18, 2011
"Wow. It is pointless to debate these semantics with you." - NoumenTard

It is pointless to try and teach you QM.

If you want and debate philosophy or semantics, then go visit a Religion board and knock your socks off.


You're are quit incapable of teaching me qm, as you have demonstrated your ignorance above. You are clearly a bull-shitter as well. The only ones you will fool, are those who are more ignorant than you,.. while those who know something of the subject matter, will see my posts as factual.

I'll give you a chance, ask again,... What is the specific point of saying that consciously unknown interactions equates to an measurement or observation???

Such interactions which presumably cause decoherence, do NOT solve the measurement problem. Therefore phrasing is misplaced.

Dec 18, 2011
"Science is about making predictions, not about "comprehending" Reality. This was the lesson of the qm revolution, which you missed." - NoumenTard

Nothing was missed. I simply reject the concept as an excuse that old, tired and inferior minds use to avoid thinking about the magical properties of the small that have been manufactured by physicists to predict the outcome of experiments.

One might as well argue that tiny pink unicorns are the grand actors in sub atomic processes.

Nevertheless I accept that the rules work to the known limits of observation.


I would suggest you study some basic philosophy of physics, epistemology, and scientific method which should all be prerequisite.

Dec 18, 2011
The wave function is a mathematical function. It is a mathematical construct. It is unreal. Unrealized in the real world.
If so, how is it possible, it's measured? http://physicswor...ws/46284 It is pointless to try and teach you QM.

Dec 18, 2011
The wave function is a mathematical function. It is a mathematical construct. It is unreal. Unrealized in the real world.

It doesn't represent anything physical as far as is known. It's "collapse", is just another way of saying that the object under consideration becomes localized to a specific point in space rather than being characterized by an extended complex mathematical function.



I meant to give you a 5 for this correct explanation.

The Schrodinger wave-function is deterministic and appears to be accurately describing "something", some aspect of underlying reality. But, it is not Observable itself and, as you put it, "It doesn't represent anything physical",.. by which naturally you mean observable. Only observables (dynamical variables) can be measured and known as Real,.....

Dec 18, 2011
Noumenon, please allow me to to get into your very one-sided discussion with Vendicar. Please understand that you've lost. Hopelessly. This is from a disinterested observer.

You are free of course to hold whatever beliefs you like but, you can't possibly promote them here, you are just not in the same weight category. Sorry, but that's how it is.

Dec 18, 2011
con't. ....so it appears that you contradict yourself due to your lack of understanding. On the one hand you say that interactions, i.e. whatever the wave-function represents, decoherencing with the environment, ... are equivalent to observations or measurements. Yet, on the other hand you say these are "Unrealized in the real world". Well, they must NOT be equivalent to observations or measurements then.

In fact, in qm nomenclature, the phrase "observable" has a very specific meaning (a dynamical variable operator, and once wave-function collapse due to proper measurement, a specific eigenvalue), and is not applied to wave-function decoherence (interactions generally) at all.

QED.

Dec 18, 2011
Noumenon, please allow me to to get into your very one-sided discussion with Vendicar. Please understand that you've lost. Hopelessly. This is from a disinterested observer.

You are free of course to hold whatever beliefs you like but, you can't possibly promote them here, you are just not in the same weight category. Sorry, but that's how it is.

Anyone can make such blanket statements with out providing specific points, so either go away, or tell me where I am wrong. I certainly am willing to learn.

Dec 18, 2011
4. Color: Back to motion: frequency these guys have so much room to move and are being excited by other forces that until they hit an atom the frequency is constant and of course as in all cases with light there must be a lot of very very very tiny particles so many that there is only a chance of them hitting an atom and then ringing to a new frequency and that being said i think depending on what they hit and the way that they hit it would ring specifically to that frequency changing the way we perceive it exactly like the difference between the sound inside the of the lobby and the sound inside of the auditorium. now this would explain why testing for wave function is so difficult. light is just more like sound only a medium. Frequencies of light and sound are comparable this would also explain why loud noises tend to make things brighter just via moving the air when no chemical reaction nor energy was technically moving according to qm.

Dec 19, 2011
I may be out of subject but anyone here love 'Fringe'?? (the series)...

Dec 19, 2011
its a series that involves alternate universes and timelines. pretty cool.

Dec 19, 2011
It's well known that quantum systems are fragile. When a photon interacts with its environment, even just a tiny bit, the superposition is destroyed. Superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum physics that says that systems can exist in all their possible states simultaneously. But when measured, only the result of one of the states is given. This effect is known as decoherence,... - physorg article


If by "destroyed", the author means "collapsed", the article is wrong here. In addition, he/she incorrectly conflates "measured" with "decoherence". I see posters have relied on this faulty information.

From Wiki, "Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the appearance of wavefunction collapse,.... A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level)... Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the measurement problem".

Dec 19, 2011
tell me where I am wrong. I certainly am willing to learn.
--- Noumenon.
That's the problem. You are quite clearly not willing to learn.

He keeps trying to explain to you. Over and over. Others tried too. You just ignore them all and keep repeating the same sensless set of mantras. Just try to stop for a second, take a deep breath, re-read their posts and try to think. It's all there already.

Dec 19, 2011
Before the occurrence all there is is probabilities. Nothing is certain until it occurs. Occurrence destroys possibilities.

Schrodingers cat in a box thought experiment is meant to differentiate between probabilities and certainties. A highly probable event will most likely occur but it isn't certain until the occurrence.

It is a measurement problem (technological) but it also exemplifies human limits (our inability to consider infinite variables). We are finite creatures and limited in nature. We can't consider all factors as new factors arise constantly.

No matter how probable an event is you can't ever be certain that it will occur.

Dec 19, 2011
Just try to step back a bit and see the whole picture. Where is current technology leading? What will tick in robots in 30-50 years from now? Where will be electronics, nanomechanics and quantum information technology by then? If you consider current mainstream research, you can easily see that control systems of future are robust distributed networks of nanomechanical quantum processors. Millions and billions of subminiature processing units and each of it with thousands of qubits. Is this not the case with the networks of nerves in us? Consider that evolution does not rely on our limited knowledge, evolution always plays with all possibilities the nature offers!

Of course, then, consciousness has everything with QM.


Dec 19, 2011
tell me where I am wrong. I certainly am willing to learn.
--- Noumenon.
That's the problem. You are quite clearly not willing to learn.

He keeps trying to explain to you. Over and over. Others tried too. You just ignore them all and keep repeating the same sensless set of mantras. Just try to stop for a second, take a deep breath, re-read their posts and try to think. It's all there already.


That's pretty vague Grizzled. Since you are being so bombastic in your assessment, I ask you to tell me where i'm wrong. Referring to others post will not work,...

Dec 19, 2011
"The Schrodinger wave-function is deterministic and appears to be accurately describing "something", some aspect of underlying reality." - NoumenTard

It is deterministic in the way it computes the probabilities of an outcome to an experiment. Or more precisely if you run an experiment many, many times, the distribution of outcomes is computed by summing the wave function as it traverses all possible paths to the 4-voxel of observation, once you multiply the wave function by it's complex conjugate.

No one has yet to find a set of pulleys, levers, strings, or fields that make such a thing possible.


Yes, the unitary hamiltonian evolution of the wave function evolves in time accurately until a state reduction occurs. This is the problem with qm. ok.

I understand your problem with it, as everyone has a problem with it. I propose a more positivist approach, and say the rules are the best we can do. An analysis of knowledge leads me there.

Dec 19, 2011

No matter how probable an event is you can't ever be certain that it will occur.


Doesn't that rest on whether the universe is finite vs infinite ?

Sorry if that's a stupid question, I think once again I'm confused.

An infinite universe would mean infinite copies of everything, events included ?

Wouldn't probabilities in QM be determined in a localized probability space ?

..ie, you can only state probabilities of events within a given space.

Thanks for all the great discussions btw, guys.

Dec 19, 2011
Sigh,... Otto, inanimate things don't observe, people do. K. Scientific instruments are tools used for observation. You can say instruments observe you if want to,.. but people designed those instruments and people ultimately interpret the results
Hmmm... so all I have to do is provide one example to dispute this and thereby collapse the waveform of your philo bankruptcy? Okay. Animals observe. One could teach a chimp to operate your instruments. Or even a philo who had absolutely no inkling of what he was measuring could be similarly trained.

Or you could construct a widget to do exactly the same things with no human interaction.
I would suggest you study some basic philosophy of physics, epistemology, and scientific method which should all be prerequisite.
Philosophy has the same relationship to science as gullivers travels does to a road map. Dr hawking only pointed out the obvious. Scientific discovery REPLACES philo/religio musing at every step.

Dec 19, 2011
Sigh... Nou, the difference between science and philo wordplay is that philo wordplay never explained ANYTHING. This becomes evident as science advances and consistently replaces philo creativity by showing it to be dead WRONG.

Things like morality can now be explained scientifically, and these explanations consistently show that the haughty philos who concocted their theories within the gloomy laboratories of their own brains, were engaging at best in state-sponsored social engineering; and at worst, shameless deception.

For instance take the word epistemology. You guys like to toss words like this at opponents because you are fairly confident it will throw off their train of thought. 'Epis - what? Huh?' but it is a worthless word which connotes entirely different things depending on which philo from whatever school is using it.

Leave it go man. It makes you look cheap.

'Philosophy is dead.' -Stephen hawking

Dec 19, 2011
'Philosophy is dead.' -Stephen hawking

-Worth repeating.

Dec 19, 2011
"I propose a more positivist approach, and say the rules are the best we can do." - Noumenon

Then you leave physicists with a level of comprehension equal to that of a piece of paper that records those rules. I.E. no understanding at all. Vendichild


No, intuitive understanding, true,.. but it allows for predictive knowledge.

I respect your desire to want science to be about explanation,... but that ship has sailed irrecoverably IMO, and the facts do far back that up,.. in addition to a sound analysis of philosophy of knowledge.

Dec 19, 2011
For instance take the word epistemology. You guys like to toss words like this at opponents because you are fairly confident it will throw off their train of thought. 'Epis - what? Huh?' but it is a worthless word which connotes entirely different things depending on which philo from whatever school is using it - Otto


You seem to come off like you know enough about philo to make judgements wrt it's validity, yet don't know what a basic philosophical term like epistemology means.

I expected readers to wiki it, but I also stated it's meaning above. It is an analysis of knowledge, it's scope and limits. Such an analysis is obviously relevant to science generally and qm in particular because we've have reached the point where intuitions failed to provide a conceptual framework in which to model quantum level phenomenon.


Dec 19, 2011
,... Logic is a branch of philosophy. Further, physicists engage in philosophical matters all the time when they consider ontological questions. I'm on my 3rd read of a Penrose book where he says that there is still an ontological problem with the 'density matrix' (concerning decoherence). Hawking likewise engages in philosophy,.. in fact the same position I hold, positivism,.. when he says just calculate since the nature of the underlying reality is unknowable ; VD, engages in philosophy when he expects reality to be intelligible intuitively.

I not going to debate you on this. There are many highly regarded philosophy of physics texts available,... hmm in fact I have one written by Heisenberg.

Your flippant rejection of philosophy is motivated only by your ignorance of it.

It has a long and relevant history with science. In fact interpretations of qm are philosophical in nature.

Dec 19, 2011
You seem to come off like you know enough about philo to make judgements wrt it's validity, yet don't know what a basic philosophical term like epistemology means.
Now this is the sort of argument I am talking about. 'Since you're not sufficiently learned in all the various interpretations and reinterpretations and reinventions and historical development etcetc... then you're not qualified to judge.

So just how many schools with how many interpretations and how many arguments are there? And which ones are only a little less incorrect than the next? And how closely does this whole realm resemble that of the religions? Structurally they are exactly the same which is sufficient grounds for rejection.

But then there are the many scientists like feinman and Krause and Dawkins and yes hawking et al who know far more philos who bug them with theories which these scientists will tell you, are worthless.

I stand on the shoulders of giants.

Dec 19, 2011
,... Logic is a branch of philosophy.
No, logic when used by scientists and mathematicians is science. When it is used by philos to define words like ontology it is fuzzy word math ie lyricism.
Further, physicists engage in philosophical matters all the time when they consider ontological questions
Physicists engage in science when they are trying to ascertain the nature of reality. Philos will call this activity philosophy in order to try to glean some credit for it. But the scientists will snicker as they know better.

-Hey I just looked up ontology (never can keep that pasta straight). 'Ontology is the branch of metaphysics...' -and that's where I stopped. As there IS no meta-physics, how could it have branches? More word spaghetti.

Dec 19, 2011
i've always interpreted the uncertainty principle as proof of non-deterministic fatalism.

think about it before you jump on it.

Dec 19, 2011
Logic is a branch of philosophy. - Noumenon

No, logic when used by scientists and mathematicians is science. When it is used by philos to define words like ontology it is fuzzy word math ie lyricism.- Otto


"In philosophy, Logic is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. Logic [..] is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. [...] In philosophy, the study of logic is applied in most major areas: ontology, epistemology, ethics, metaphysics." - Wiki

Dec 19, 2011
"The philosophy of mathematics is the branch of philosophy that studies the philosophical assumptions, foundations, and implications of mathematics. The aim of the philosophy of mathematics is to provide an account of the nature and methodology of mathematics [..]. The logical and structural nature of mathematics itself makes this study both broad and unique among its philosophical counterparts." - Wiki

There is a long list of mathematicians and scientist who are also philosophers. As a very short list, these come to mind;

Blaise Pascal
Bertrand Russel
Alfred North Whitehead
Kurt Godel
Hermann Weyl
Wittgenstein
Gottfried Leibniz
Rene Descartes
Willard Quine
Gottlob Frege
Michael Dummett


Dec 19, 2011
"In philosophy, the philosophy of physics studies the fundamental philosophical questions underlying modern physics, the study of matter and energy and how they interact. The philosophy of physics begins by reflecting on the basic metaphysical and epistemological questions posed by physics: causality, determinism, and the nature of physical law. It then turns to questions raised by important topics in contemporary physics:
-Physical cosmology: space, time, the origin and ultimate fate of the universe;
-Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics: energy, work, randomness, information;
-Quantum mechanics: the rival interpretations thereof, and its counterintuitive conclusions.[...]"- Wiki

Dec 19, 2011
Physicists engage in science when they are trying to ascertain the nature of reality. Philos will call this activity philosophy in order to try to glean some credit for it. But the scientists will snicker as they know better. - Otto


"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." Albert Einstein 1944

Dec 19, 2011
For instance take the word epistemology. You guys like to toss words like this at opponents because you are fairly confident it will throw off their train of thought. 'Epis - what? Huh?' but it is a worthless word which connotes entirely different things - Otto


"How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' - Albert Einstein 1916

Here is a book that might interest you;
http://www.amazon...04E0Z55C

Dec 19, 2011
Noumenon, please allow me to to get into your very one-sided discussion with Vendicar. Please understand that you've lost. Hopelessly. This is from a disinterested observer.

You are free of course to hold whatever beliefs you like but, you can't possibly promote them here, you are just not in the same weight category. Sorry, but that's how it is.


Anyone can make such blanket statements with out providing specific points, so either go away, or tell me where I am wrong. I certainly am willing to learn.


I'm still waiting Grizled.

It's not that I think I can't learn from someone else,... Its that the over the top, condescending nature of your post (and VD's) leads me to wonder if you are not just a bs'r.

Please show me where I have been factually wrong and then corrected by VD.

Dec 19, 2011
In philosophy, Logic is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning
-Where it relies solely on fuzzy word definitions subject to disparate interpretation, and so fails miserably.
Logic [..] is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. [...]
-Disciplines within which it means entirely different things
In philosophy, the study of logic is applied in most major areas: ontology, epistemology, ethics
Again we see philos using respectable words to try to lend credibility to worthless words. Like this one:
metaphysics.
...
There is a long list of mathematicians and scientist who are also philosophers.
No, this is a list of people who did science and something else on the side. Entertainment? Religion? Poetry?

Which of their works is more applicable today? Which has withstood the test of time? Where in science do ding an sich or dasein belong? OR metaphysics?? NOWHERE.

Dec 19, 2011
]The philosophy of physics begins by reflecting on the basic metaphysical and epistemological questions...
Indeed. And this is where the scientists who chance to read it begin to figit and experience glassy eyes. This is where feynman and krause begin to suspect they are being bamboozled. Because they KNOW they know what knowledge and reality are. They study it in exquisite detail and model it succinctly with NUMBERS not WORDS.

And because of their training and experience they KNOW no philo ever had the tools to understand either knowledge or reality.

And so they look at the vast amount of output from philos throughout the ages and conclude that it was a SHAM. A herculean attempt to avoid saying 'I dont know' once god was discarded. A placekeeper for those in Authority until the scientific means to explore these things developed.

You show me where anyone on that list of yours was producing relevant philosophy and I will show you how they were in actuality doing science.

Dec 19, 2011
Without calculations philosophical viewpoints are artistic renditions (models).

Quantifying and qualifying the model to real world data turns the art into a picture.

A philosopher is like a painter wheras a physicist is like a verifier of the realisticism of the rendering.

You can't have physical understanding without incorporating the physical values around you. Mass is a number, charge is a number. Etc. I don't know of any ways to deal with numbers other than math.

A physicist is a qualifier of philosophy (whether his own or someone else's).

Dec 19, 2011
I accept that they adequately characterize nature. I object to them on the basis that they do not describe any natural process.
they adequately characterize but do not describe nature? Must not be that adequate.

Dec 19, 2011
hi, just a check if i understand this. when the box is locked the cat is both dead and alive because of schrodingers equation.

The cat better be alive when you close the box else what's the point unless it's going to magically come back to life?

Dec 20, 2011
I interpret this as being a result of our inability to measure and specify the randomizing vacuum conditions surrounding the object being measured.
...
I interpret this as the observations taking place before the randomizing effects of the vacuum have a chance to significantly alter the state of the observed combined with the quantum alignment of that state with the preferred alignment of the equipment doing the observation.
Seems like the uncertainty principle should be creeping into these discussions somewhere. I'm not really sure exactly how it fits though.

Dec 20, 2011
And what of neutrinos? Maybe they have one foot in a parallel universe while another is in ours. The one foot in the other allows the neutrino the unprecedented freedom to travel through the planet unimpeded, but is also detectable because it partially coincides with our reality.
Yes well you can detect something but it might not be the same thing as what you started out with. These little thingies suffer from serious schizophria.

Dec 20, 2011
Actually measuring the speed of neutrinos may be even a worse case than the cat in the hat experiment. You see the cat may have turned into a rat and then back to a cat before you can measure its time of flight. So what was its position and time of flight before it turned into a rat?

Dec 20, 2011
As I have attempted to explain somewhere above ,.. the entire reason for me to interject Kant's philosophy of knowledge here, was in essence to promote a more positivist perspective qrt qm, and show that metaphysical speculation,... that is, proposing notions that are unobservable in principal (i.e. intuitive an underlying reality to qm),... are irrational and unsupported by scientific fact as well as an analysis of pure reason.

So if OttoGhost had reading comprehension skills, it would understand that my point is actually aginst the very thing he accuses me of.

As a historical point, Kant's purpose was to show that Metaphysics can NOT be a source of knowledge. I refer the interested reader to "A Critique of Pure Reason",... one of the most influential philosophical texts ever written,... crucial to science IMO. I respect if others disagree. I know that Smolin does for example. IMO it is meaningless to try to 'comprehend' what goes on in between observations.

Dec 20, 2011
@OttoGhost,

I not going to carry on a debate about the relevance of philosophical notions to someone so suspiciously anti-philosophy.

I provided two quotes from ALBERT EINSTEIN on the importance of an analysis of epistemology, yet you still blather your same non-sense about physicist not respecting philo. Einstein even used the bloody word 'epistemology'.

Heisenberg wrote a book on philosophy and physics! I suspect Neil's Bohr knew of Kant, but can't prove that.

This discussion above is about qm, not philosophy itself. Everyone who engages in interpretations of qm, and other like matters, are engaging in philosophy, despite your personal unawareness of this fact.

You remind me of Ethelred; Anti-philo for the sake of being Anti

Done.

Dec 20, 2011
,... oh, one final point; I never implied anywhere that philo can replace physics. Not one time. Yet Otto, you put his notion forward as if I had. Speculations wrt interpretations fall under the realm of philosophy of physics,... a real and valid subject of study.

Dec 20, 2011
,.. it doesn't matter that some physicists have no respect for philo,.. if I can I show you ONE prominent physicists that thinks it's vital, then that defeats your point. I see your Hawking and raise you an Einstein.

Dec 20, 2011
These little thingies suffer from serious schizophria.
Or maybe schizophrenia.

Dec 20, 2011
...proposing notions that are unobservable in principal (i.e. intuitive an underlying reality to qm),... are irrational and unsupported by scientific fact as well as an analysis of pure reason.
'Underlying reality'... What is that? Something meta-physical? This is why scientists laugh at such poop.
As a historical point, Kant's purpose was to show that Metaphysics can NOT be a source of knowledge.
No, among other things his purpose was to reinforce the notion of a netherworld called the 'meta-physical' where pixies and intellectuals could reside with their Authority intact and their tenure assured. Many oak-paneled offices there.

Without god there still needs to be a 'foreverafter' where people can escape to after death; if not in eternally youthful bodies then at least with eternally youthful intellects. Its the same old Lie that keeps people believing and participating; a place to go after we leave this one. An escape from the cage. Alas, it is NOT THERE.

Dec 20, 2011
I provided two quotes from ALBERT EINSTEIN on the importance of an analysis of epistemology, yet you still blather your same non-sense about physicist not respecting philo. Einstein even used the bloody word 'epistemology'.
His understanding and use of the word, from the perspective of an accomplished SCIENTIST who knew full well what it took to understand knowledge and reality, was completely different from that of people without similar perspective.

In other words, what he meant by epistemology was necessarily completely DIFFERENT from what the normal everyday philo would mean. He would have completely discarded their researchless and experimentless and numberless constructions in favor of those arrived at by painstaking scientific analysis.

In yet other words only scientists can have any clue as to the proper meaning of epistemology. And ontology. And etcetc. This is why they do not keep philo reference books on laboratory shelves. Except maybe for pretense and decoration.

Dec 20, 2011
Everyone who engages in interpretations of qm, and other like matters, are engaging in philosophy, despite your personal unawareness of this fact.
I know this is what philos who sit back in their fat leather chairs and think they can ascertain the nature of reality with only the power of their intellects, and with WORDS, would want us to think.

Scientists dont use the philo-word to describe what they do. Just because philos do, doesnt make it so. This is only mildly annoying to scientists, and good for the occasional joke during lectures. That is, until grant money or oak-paneled office space becomes scarce. Scientists do have the advantage though as only they ever get tangible results.

'Philosophy is dead.' -hawking. No philo can talk it back to life. Next - Religion!

Dec 20, 2011
...oh, one final point;
the realm of philosophy of physics,... a real and valid subject of study.
NOT according to hawking, and feynman, and krause, and dawkins, etcetc et al, because they have all SAID as much.

This includes all the many 1000s of working scientists and engineers who do their work quite well in the complete absence of such musings. The philosophy of science only helps to keep desperate philos employed.

"Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics." -hawking

-How could it?

Dec 20, 2011
,.. it doesn't matter that some physicists have no respect for philo,.. if I can I show you ONE prominent physicists that thinks it's vital, then that defeats your point. I see your Hawking and raise you an Einstein.


LOL you are getting quite desperate. Is Otto actually making some points that are getting through? Are you starting to see your chosen field is a waste of time?

What you are feeling is called cognitive dissonance. You are trying to hold two opposing ideas at the same time. Normal people feel this, but you've been poisoned with bad ideas for so long you may not recognize the feeling.

You now have two options:
1) learn to live with and eventually ignore the dissonance
or
2) drop one of the opposing ideas and regain consonance.

If you go with 2, choose wisely :)

Dec 20, 2011
The philosophy of science is not worth of paying from taxpayers money, after all, in the same way, like any other phillosphy. On the other hand, the physicists like Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Hawking or Feynman wrote many essays about philosophy of science, actually the more, the more they denied its role in science development, because they felt, they can influent public feeling more effectively with essays, then with scientific publications. And many of them become popular just thanks to their essays. Everyone knows, Hawking doesn't require the God for example - but what it actually has to do with science? It's a pure philosophy and Hawking even makes money with it. And what the methodology of science is based on? Just on the philosophy of K.R.Popper and many crackpotfighters even argue with his philosophy all the time. So I perceive the negativistic stance of many scientists toward philosophy a bit hypocritical in this point.

Dec 20, 2011
,.. oh, one final point; I never implied anywhere that philo can replace physics. Not one time. Yet Otto, you put his notion forward as if I had.
SURE you did.
was in essence to promote a more positivist perspective qrt qm, and show that metaphysical speculation,... that is, proposing notions that are unobservable in principal (i.e. intuitive an underlying reality to qm),... are irrational and unsupported by scientific fact as well as an analysis of pure reason.
In Other Words (IOW), philos are perfectly qualified to step in and start speculating where, according to THEM, physicists can not (yet) venture. Like religionists they eagerly wait for scientists to say 'we dont know yet' so they can say 'Well we do - kant (or jesus) told us all about it long ago.'

And then they reach into their novel collection and begin reinterpreting snippets of stuff written by people who could have had no knowledge of developments since they died, and declare it relevent. How is that possible?

Dec 20, 2011
LOL you are getting quite desperate. Is Otto actually making some points that are getting through? Are you starting to see your chosen field is a waste of time?


I assure you, Otto is entirely unprepared to discuss these matters with me. He does not even understand what philosophy is. It does not even appear he reads my posts at all. I can't even tell whether he really understands what i'm talking about. He equates religion to philosophy. That's it, why should I continue with him?


Dec 20, 2011
What you are feeling is called cognitive dissonance. You are trying to hold two opposing ideas at the same time. - FrankHerbert


Is that so. Tell me big mouth, what two opposing views do I hold at the same time, given my above posts?

Dec 20, 2011
He does not even understand what philosophy is.
Yes, I understand that it is DEAD because people who know far more about it than you do TELL me that it is. Plus all the other reasons I have given. Dead. Kaput. Weggewerfen. Hochgewerfen. Aus den Fenster geflogen.
He equates religion to philosophy.
Let me see... learned gentlemen dressed in tweed/sackcloth from opposing schools/sects asserting mutually exclusive beliefs/dogmae in describing totally nonsubstantial phoenomena using esoteric wording which means entirely different things in each school/sect. What does this smell like to you?

And each will tell you you dont know near enough to criticize them because, well, basically, you lack FAITH.

Science rejects you. That is enough for me.

Dec 20, 2011
He does not even understand what philosophy is.

Yes, I understand that it is DEAD because people who know far more about it than you do TELL me that it is.


You're not even close to being qualified to ascertain what I know of philosophy or physics.

"The philosophy of physics studies the fundamental philosophical questions underlying modern physics [....] questions raised by important topics in contemporary physics;
-Quantum mechanics: the rival interpretations thereof, and its counterintuitive conclusions." - Wiki or any modern encyclopedia.

Interpretations of qm are a matter of philosophical discussion, because those issues are not able to be settled now via physics. Every physicist that engages in such discussions, are discussing philosophy of physics. This is not a matter of my personal opinion,... it is a matter of plain fact.

I gain nothing from further discussion with a person of you obvious intellectual immaturity. Go find something shiny to play with.

Dec 20, 2011
I gain nothing from further discussion with a person of you obvious intellectual immaturity. Go find something shiny to play with.


*DING* *DING* *DING*, we have a winner! Otto, of course.

Dec 20, 2011
Some more facts that GhostofOtto will entirely ignore;

"Philosophy of science looks at the underpinning logic of the scientific method, at what separates science from non-science[...]. There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately [epistemology], and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world." - Wiki or any modern encyclopedia

Thomas Kuhn is a well know philosopher of science,.. with a Ph.D. in physics. There are many others. Again, one of the greatest scientist of all time, Albert Einstein, thinks epistemology is vital for science.

QED.

Now, f'off you frustrating adolescent troll.


Dec 20, 2011
I gain nothing from further discussion with a person of you obvious intellectual immaturity. Go find something shiny to play with.


*DING* *DING* *DING*, we have a winner! Otto, of course.


Anyone who is even remotely literate of physics and/or philosophy would see in a minute that the guy is incoherent, mindless, pointless, and obviously immature.

So, if the point was to argue for the sake of arguing until the other guy bailed amongst a barrage of meaningless and pointless non-sense,... then yes, I concede victory to OttoGhost1923. (who i suspect is Ethelred).

Dec 20, 2011
What you are feeling is called cognitive dissonance. You are trying to hold two opposing ideas at the same time. - FrankHerbert


Is that so. Tell me big mouth, what two opposing views do I hold at the same time, given my above posts?


Did you forget to answer my question FrankHubris, or are you hiding under your desk with Grizled?

I will not discuss anything with Otto, because he does not read my posts, or is profoundly ignorant and is unable to comprehend them. This is clear because my point and Kant's was AGAINST the notion of metaphysics as a means of acquiring knowledge,.. i.e. It is meaningless to seek what the underlying reality is apart from observation.

[he doesn't even know what "underlying reality" in the context of qm!]

Dec 20, 2011
jeeez Noumenon you will never conquer Calibans by teaching them reading the Books

Dec 21, 2011
It is meaningless to seek what the underlying reality is apart from observation.
The question is observation of what. And how would you relate that observation to anything physical if you had no theory motivated by some philosophy, as with Einstein? Actually Einstein had more than a philosophy - he had faith in his predispositions. Good for motivation - along with religion - but a bit risky.

Dec 21, 2011
Thomas Kuhn is a well know philosopher of science,.. with a Ph.D. in physics. There are many others. Again, one of the greatest scientist of all time, Albert Einstein, thinks epistemology is vital for science.
Uh you mean 'thought' don't you? And as I pointed out he was talking as a scientist not a philo, about a scientific and not a philo concept.
"Philosophy of science looks at the underpinning logic of the scientific method, at what separates science from non-science[...].
SCIENCE separates science from non-science/nonsense.
There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately [epistemology], and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world."
And it was scientists who discovered these truths by doing science, NOT philos by talking about them. Scientists continue to refine this, NOT philos.

Dec 21, 2011
Thomas Kuhn is a well know philosopher of science,.. with a Ph.D. in physics.
Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach.
[he doesn't even know what "underlying reality" in the context of qm!]
-As any scientist will tell you there is no 'underlying' reality. There is only reality. And the only way to understand it is to poke at it and prod it and model it using numbers.

Talk was ALWAYS cheap. Good for impressing rubes of all persuasions however, which is important.

Dec 21, 2011
OTTO is not Ethelred. Ethelred has no imagination. He does have a sort of rudimentary sense of humor.

Dec 21, 2011
I concede victory to OttoGhost1923. (who i suspect is Ethelred).

You should seek help. It really is a strong sign of serious mental illness when you have to assume everyone that disagrees with you is the same person.

Anyway, Otto has thoroughly destroyed any opinions that may claim philosophy is valuable to science. It's all BS so people who aren't smart enough to actually accomplish anything can claim they are great thinkers.

Look at Aristotle. The Greatest Philosopher single-handedly set back science 2000 years. Good job guys!

Dec 21, 2011
The two of you knuckleheads are just plain ignorant. You are light years away from me being interesting in you immature drivel. As I said above at least three times, I am a positivists wrt to science.

By concocting an irrelevant straw-man argument, that philo is all bs, you are merely feigning participation in the above discussion. I suspect you are perpetually disinterested in anything, and just argue for the sake of arguing,... like typical no-nothing trolls.

You two bone-heads remind me of religious dolts, who despite a profound lack of knowledge of a subject, pronounce it useless in effecting their faith.

I take it FrankHubris is incapable of answering my question.

Dec 21, 2011
It takes true intelligence to understand the importance of philosophy. Given infinite time I could produce an infinite number of equations all yielding the same answer. An equation can be formulated in an infinite number of differing ways and still have the same result.

Philosophy is the probability factor. Philosophy is the narrowing of the possible into the probable.

There exist an infinite number of possible equations that depict reality.

Without philosophy humans are incapable of answering anything.

In fact, without philosophy there is no question to begin with.

Dec 21, 2011
[he doesn't even know what "underlying reality" in the context of qm!] - Noumenon

-As any scientist will tell you there is no 'underlying' reality. There is only reality. And the only way to understand it is to poke at it and prod it and model it using numbers. - GhostOtto


Christ you are ignorant. Read slowly multi-times, (and then do not bother to respond),...

1) Given the fundamental incompatibility between the unitary evolution of a system, and the state reduction to a observable,... it "appears" that there is an aspect of reality which the quantum formulation has not been able to encapsulate ( i.e, an UNDERLYING REALITY). Thus the proposed incompleteness of qm and the hidden variable theories. This is the context in which I used that phrase given the above discussion.

Vendicar mentioned this above. If you were competent you would agree that there must be an 'underlying reality' relative to what qm is able to describe, ...that is, if you think qm is incomplete and e

Dec 21, 2011
....
2) Science cannot know, in advance, that all of reality can be modeled on a one to one basis, consistently across all scales of experience. This is why science is not founded on deductive reasoning, but is instead, founded on inductive reasoning. Rene Descartes deductive scientific method is not correct, and therefore there is a faith that is required in guiding science.

In order to carry on a discussion with you, I have to provide the proper context, facts, history, definitions, and counter arguments. Please PM me you password, and I'll finish the discussion myself., otherwise please bugger - off.

Dec 21, 2011
Philosophy isn't important in science ?

Than how did atomism come about ?

By the debates between Leucippus, Democritus, Heraclitus and Parmenides, these debates also happened in other ancient societies as well.

That is the original standard model.

Dec 21, 2011
Anyway, [...philosophy] It's all BS so people who aren't smart enough to actually accomplish anything can claim they are great thinkers. - FrankHubris


Your ignorance is rather astounding. So, Einstein didn't accomplish anything,... because he had a great respect for philosophy and the importance of an analysis of knowledge wrt physics, as is clear from the quote I provided above. What about all the other physicist I mentioned?

It's a truism, after-all that if one proposes to acquire knowledge about reality, that the definition and limits of knowledge be analyzed. Yet, you still can't penetrate into this?

Only a profound ignorance and naiveté, could give one such confidence to proclaim an entire intellectual pursuit useless, especially one that examines they very foundation of scientific reasoning and knowledge.

Dec 21, 2011
An equation can be formulated in an infinite number of differing ways and still have the same result.
Huh?
Philosophy is the probability factor. Philosophy is the narrowing of the possible into the probable.
What? I thought this was what experimentation and analysis is for.
There exist an infinite number of possible equations that depict reality.
WHAT? Only a relative few of them actually do. The only way to know is by experimentation and analysis.
Without philosophy humans are incapable of answering anything.
Oh let me try: 'Without meringue humans are incapable of answering anything. Without pain humans are incapable of answering anything.' What twaddle.
In fact, without philosophy there is no question to begin with.
Question: what do I need to do to feed myself? (get a job) Question: what do I have to do to determine the rate of descent in a vacuum? (experiment) Question: what do I need to do to describe the nature of QM? (experiment and mathematics.

Dec 21, 2011
According to scientists, none of this is philosophy. According to those who actually make progress in discerning the nature of reality, NONE of what they do is philosophy.

Frankly, idle philos sitting in the wings and trying to take credit after the fact for what scientists discover through their training, experience, and hard work, is a little Revolting. Leeches are revolting.

Lets see you guys be honest and use your own educations to list here all the many philo schools throughout the ages which were absolute and utter FAILURES in light of subsequent scientific revelations, even though dozens of proponents wrote hundreds of works and taught thousands of students based on the absolute confidence that what they were selling was an undeniable and exacting description of How the World Works. Come on, cleanse yourselves.

I'll start: Platos forms. Skepticism. Rationalism. Idealism. Transcendental idealism. Ding an sich haha. Dasein HAHAA. The noumenon HAAAHAAAAA!

Okay your turn.

Dec 21, 2011
Here you go - Einstein like hawking rejects philo epistemolomology:

"At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best, and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities."

"...no sooner has the epistemologist, who is seeking a clear system, fought his way through to such a system, than he is inclined to interpret the thought-content of science in the sense of his system and to reject whatever does not fit into his system. The scientist, however, cannot afford to carry his striving for epistemological systematic that far."

-I extracted these quotes from this pasta vat:
http://171.67.193...science/

Dec 21, 2011
-written by a philo using his very best powers of flummery to try to show that einstein did not merely read the papers available at the time, confer with the people who wrote them, examine the evidence and crunched the numbers himself, and devised his theories as a result... No, he first needed to

"[learn] about the historicity of scientific concepts from Mach. But his preferred way of modeling the logical relationship between theory and evidence was inspired mainly by his reading of Pierre Duhem's La Théorie physique: son objet et sa structure (Duhem 1906)."

-Because einstein of course needed to hear Duhem say

"It follows that when there is a conflict between theory and evidence, the fit can be restored in a multiplicity of different ways...No statement is immune to revision because of a presumed status as a definition or thanks to some other a priori warrant."

-because those things would never have occurred to him on his own. What rubbish.

Dec 21, 2011
The author shamelessly tries to assign philo thinking to an einstein quote...

"Einstein asks how one can assign a definite electrical charge everywhere within a material body, if the interior of the body is not accessible to test particles."

-And then after the quote, which is obviously only einstein describing the relationships of the physics in question and the inferences one can make from them, the author concludes

"One can hardly ask for a better summary of Duhem's point of view in application to a specific physical theory."

-The point is that it is the PHYSICS which shapes einsteins conclusions of the exact relationships he is describing in the quote. THE PHYSICS tells him what conclusions to draw, not some detached system of epistemology conceived by someone with no knowledge of the PHYSICS which einstein was describing. Someone who was dead and gone long before the exact nature of that corner of reality was ascertained by SCIENCE.

Dec 21, 2011
More rubbish:

"But while they all agreed that what Kant regarded as the a priori element in scientific cognition was better understood as a conventional moment in science, they were growing to disagree dramatically over the nature and place of conventions in science."

-What, you mean dissention within the ranks? Does this happen often in philoland?

"With the help of new logical tools and a more sophisticated verificationist semantics, Schlick and Reichenbach were refining Poincaré's idea of conventional definitional elements in science into the classic logical empiricist view that the moment of convention was restricted to conventional coordinating definitions that endow individual primitive terms and, by extension, the individual synthetic propositions constructed out of them with empirical content."

-Sure they were. And meanwhile scientists were fabricating real tools and semantic-less theories, and these philos were becoming even more irrelevant.

Dec 21, 2011
Here is the first part of your first quote;

"Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them; but it can not be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now"

He is NOT saying here that the physicists needs to ignore or reject philosophy, rather quit the opposite!!

What he is saying here (in context), is that the Physicist himself, needs to take up philosophical matters, since "the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic", and the physicists is more qualified in the technical theories themselves (where the shoe pinches).

He's saying the opposite to what you c

Dec 21, 2011
,... to what you clam.

"...no sooner has the epistemologist, who is seeking a clear system, fought his way through to such a system, than he is inclined to interpret the thought-content of science in the sense of his system and to reject whatever does not fit into his system. The scientist, however, cannot afford to carry his striving for epistemological systematic that far."


This is true. From a positivist stand point, physics can not stop progress if the intuitive concepts fail to provide a rational foundation. This is what occurred. QM continued progress without the expected intuitive expectations.

He is saying here, that science had to continue and leave behind that "god does not play dice".

Dec 21, 2011
Tellingly, it seems einstein began to reject the musings of philos in general:

"It was this argument over the nature and place of conventions in science that underlay Einstein's gradual philosophical estrangement from Schlick and Reichenbach in the 1920s."

"I do not feel comfortable and at home in any of the isms. It always seems to me as though such an ism were strong only so long as it nourishes itself on the weakness of it counter-ism; but if the latter is struck dead, and it is alone on an open field, then it also turns out to be unsteady on its feet. So, away with the squabbling."

The author asks

"What could Einstein mean by saying that he concedes that the natural sciences concern the "real," but that he is still not a realist and that the "real" in the statement, the physical world is real," is an "intrinsically empty, meaningless category"?"

-It is clear that at this stage in his life he has come to regard such philo questions as meaningless.

Dec 21, 2011
Even the author asks the question

"Is Einstein here also criticizing his own youthful philosophical indiscretions?"

-Undoubtedly.

But as einstein was sensitive to the realities of the social and political environments within which he operated, and because in later years he had become a media whore, he was of course being tactful and polite.

Dec 21, 2011
Your interpretations are off the mark, as I have shown above. Philosophy was important to Einstein his entire life, despite rejecting some notions.

In any case, it is clear that Einstein rejected Bohr's interpretation and would have rejected mine above had I presented it to him long ago.

He believed that it was possible to encapsulate all of reality in a way that is rationally intuitive. History has not born this out with qm, so far.

Dec 21, 2011
He is NOT saying here that the physicists needs to ignore or reject philosophy...!!
Well of course. He is a bigdeal philo writing in none other than the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philostoff. His mission is to SELL.

But even when examining the quotes he uses to press his case it is clear that einstein was extricating himself from the whole 'lets talk ourselves into a solution here.'

"what troubled Einstein was that a verificationist semantics made the link between theory and experience too strong, leaving too small a role for theory, itself, and the creative theorizing that produces it."

Einstein may have strayed somewhat from this conviction that epistemology must necessarily derive from experience and NOT the other way around, in part because at the time there were no ways to test much of his work.

But so much has happened since then! Ask hawking about M theory. This has changed the nature of knowledge in ways no word epistemologist could ever have anticipated.

Dec 21, 2011
M-theory is thus far not even wrong. It is not a science yet.

What hasn't happened since then is that QM became an intuitive theory. So, wrt my original point, nothing has happened since then.

Dec 21, 2011
He is NOT saying here that the physicists needs to ignore or reject philosophy...!!


Well of course. He is a bigdeal philo writing in none other than the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philostoff. His mission is to SELL.


Was not the first two quotes of yours from Einstein? I'm saying you interpreted them incorrectly. I'll repost again,...

Dec 21, 2011
"Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them; but it can not be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now" - Einstein


He is NOT saying here that the physicists need to ignore or reject philosophy, ....rather quit the opposite!!

What he is saying here (in context), is that the Physicist himself, needs to take up philosophical matters, since "the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic", and the physicists is more qualified in the technical theories themselves (where the shoe pinches).

He's saying the opposite to what you claimed.