Loop quantum gravity theory offers glimpse beyond the event horizon

May 27, 2016, International School of Advanced Studies (SISSA)

In principle, nothing that enters a black hole can leave the black hole. This has considerably complicated the study of these mysterious bodies, which generations of physicists have debated since 1916, when their existence was hypothesized as a direct consequence of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. There is, however, some consensus in the scientific community regarding black hole entropy—a measure of the inner disorder of a physical system—because its absence would violate the second law of thermodynamics. In particular, Jacob Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking have suggested that the entropy of a black hole is proportional to its area, rather than its volume, as would be more intuitive. This assumption also gives rise to the "holography" hypothesis of black holes, which (very roughly) suggests that what appears to be three-dimensional might, in fact, be an image projected onto a distant two-dimensional cosmic horizon, just like a hologram, which, despite being a two-dimensional image, appears to be three-dimensional.

As we cannot see beyond the event horizon (the outer boundary of the back hole), the internal microstates that define its entropy are inaccessible. So how is it possible to calculate this measure? The theoretical approach adopted by Hawking and Bekenstein is semiclassical (a sort of hybrid between classical physics and quantum mechanics) and introduces the possibility (or necessity) of adopting a quantum gravity approach in these studies in order to obtain a more fundamental comprehension of the physics of .

Planck's length is the (tiny) dimension at which space-time stops being continuous as we see it, and takes on a discrete graininess made up of quanta, the "atoms" of space-time. The universe at this dimension is described by quantum mechanics. Quantum gravity is the field of enquiry that investigates gravity in the framework of . Gravity has been very well described within classical physics, but it is unclear how it behaves at the Planck scale.

Daniele Pranzetti and colleagues, in a new study published in Physical Review Letters, present an important result obtained by applying a second quantization formulation of loop quantum gravity (LQG) formalism. LQG is a theoretical approach within the problem of quantum gravity, and group field theory is the "language" through which the theory is applied in this work.

"The idea at the basis of our study is that homogenous classical geometries emerge from a condensate of quanta of space introduced in LQG in order to describe quantum geometries," explains Pranzetti. "Thus, we obtained a description of black hole quantum states, suitable also to describe 'continuum' physics—that is, the physics of space-time as we know it."

Condensates, quantum fluids and the universe as a hologram

A "condensate" in this case is a collection of space quanta, all of which share the same properties so that even though there are huge numbers of them, we can nonetheless study their collective behavior by referring to the microscopic properties of the individual particle. So now, the analogy with classical thermodynamics seems clearer—just as fluids at our scale appear as continuous materials despite consisting of a huge number of atoms, similarly, in , the fundamental constituent atoms of space form a sort of fluid—that is, continuous space-time. A continuous and homogenous geometry (like that of a spherically symmetric black hole) can, as Pranzetti and colleagues suggest, be described as a condensate, which facilitates the underlying mathematical calculations, keeping in account an a priori infinite number of degrees of freedom .

"We were therefore able to use a more complete and richer model compared with those done in the past in LQG, and obtain a far more realistic and robust result," says Pranzetti. "This allowed us to resolve several ambiguities afflicting previous calculations due to the comparison of these simplified LQG models with the results of semiclassical analysis as carried out by Hawking and Bekenstein". Another important aspect of Pranzetti and colleagues' study is that it proposes a concrete mechanism in support to the holographic hypothesis, whereby the three-dimensionality of black holes could be merely apparent: all their information could be contained on a two-dimensional surface, without having to investigate the structure of the inside (hence the link between entropy and surface area rather than volume).

Explore further: Escaping gravity's clutches: The black hole breakout

More information: Daniele Oriti et al, Horizon Entropy from Quantum Gravity Condensates, Physical Review Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.211301

Related Stories

The Big Bang versus the 'Big Bounce'

July 6, 2012

Two fundamental concepts in physics, both of which explain the nature of the Universe in many ways, have been difficult to reconcile with each other. European researchers developed a mathematical approach to do so that has ...

Theorists apply loop quantum gravity theory to black hole

May 31, 2013

(Phys.org) —Physicists Rodolfo Gambini and Jorge Pullin of University of the Republic in Montevideo, Uruguay, and Louisiana State University respectively, have applied the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) to a simplified ...

The hot problem of black hole firewalls

April 14, 2016

For the last four years, physicists studying the mathematical underpinnings of black holes have been wrestling with a strange idea: that black holes contain a region known as a "firewall," which utterly annihilates matter ...

Black hole thermodynamics

September 10, 2014

In the 1800s scientists studying things like heat and the behavior of low density gases developed a theory known as thermodynamics. As the name suggests, this theory describes the dynamic behavior of heat (or more generally ...

Recommended for you

Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...

Physicists reveal why matter dominates universe

March 21, 2019

Physicists in the College of Arts and Sciences at Syracuse University have confirmed that matter and antimatter decay differently for elementary particles containing charmed quarks.

ATLAS experiment observes light scattering off light

March 20, 2019

Light-by-light scattering is a very rare phenomenon in which two photons interact, producing another pair of photons. This process was among the earliest predictions of quantum electrodynamics (QED), the quantum theory of ...

How heavy elements come about in the universe

March 19, 2019

Heavy elements are produced during stellar explosion or on the surfaces of neutron stars through the capture of hydrogen nuclei (protons). This occurs at extremely high temperatures, but at relatively low energies. An international ...

680 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

KBK
1.6 / 5 (29) May 27, 2016
Science has been turned upside down and the rules changed repeatedly. Time in passing makes such the norm, not the exception. The kind of mentality that refuses the new and cannot integrate it is the failure mode of a child that won't let go or change.

The dogmatic mind did not go anywhere, it became the engineering class in the sciences, with all their book driven facts. Physiology does not change that fast and recognizing it in self-reflection is the all important part in overcoming the dogmatic mindset.

Point is, billions have had out of time and timeless experiences. As well, perfected meta studies and literally thousands of studies on psychic sensitivities have been done.

The indicative is as Planck said - the universal nature is that of consciousness.

Time and unidirectionality are robust -- but are not the full reality, not by a long shot.

No matter what dogma screeches, it still fails to fit the model and the incessant manifold profundity of anomalies.
axemaster
4.2 / 5 (26) May 27, 2016
Well, that about covers my daily nutritional requirements for mumbo jumbo.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (14) May 27, 2016
Very interesting, it seems they've made mathematical contact with black hole gravity physics from LQG. That's within reach of getting contact with GRT. LQG's stock just went up.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (31) May 27, 2016
Background independent. :)
Nik_2213
4.7 / 5 (7) May 27, 2016
I thought myself well-read, but this stuff lost me...

FWIW, surely the infamous 'Event Horizon 'information paradox' is a red herring as a *real* Black Hole is NOT isolated, but surrounded by a searing accretion disk which will destroy any quantum coherence...
ursiny33
1.4 / 5 (9) May 27, 2016
Black holes is an idea from 100 years ago ,in a math equations that does not take into account, the structural limits of atoms ,protons or neutron's, when you collide neutrons in a particle accelerator they reach their structural limits in those high velocity kinetic collisions,and revert back into their quantum parts of their mechanical magnetic construction, that means when two neutron stars merge in a high velocity collision that those neutrons will all convert back into their quantum parts and all gravity will be able to construct from those parts is a super hot quantum particle plasma mass , not a black hole
ursiny33
1.4 / 5 (11) May 27, 2016
CCM quantum particle mass's are surrounded by 150 million degree heat where every atom that approaches this environment is stripped of its orbiting electrons ,that end up building a gravity held rotating negatively charged external magnetic field around the CCM and protons and the neutrons are drawn in to a high velocity neutron storm ,where high velocity kinetic collisions are turning those parts back into super hot quantum particle plasma to rain down by gravity to grow the mass
Otto_Szucks
1.7 / 5 (25) May 27, 2016
Well, that about covers my daily nutritional requirements for mumbo jumbo.
- axemaster

Are you referring to the mumbo jumbo of KBK's comment - or was it the mumbo of the article?
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) May 27, 2016
@Nik, the basic argument isn't very sophisticated and the accretion disk doesn't matter.

Mass has intrinsic entropy. If it falls into a black hole and that entropy isn't represented to the universe on the surface of the event horizon, then that entropy is lost, thus destroying entropy and violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics (AKA 2LOT). Therefore, the entropy of mass that falls into the black hole must be represented by entropy at the surface of the event horizon after the matter has fallen in. This is an extremely simplified version of the argument, but valid nevertheless.

Also, an accretion disk cannot violate the 2LOT either so there's no point in trying to move the goalposts out to the accretion disk.

It's worth noting that the Fluctuation Theorem proves that entropy cannot be destroyed even at the quantum level; at best you can create equal amounts of positive and negative entropy.
Mimath224
4.6 / 5 (14) May 27, 2016
@FineStructureConstant maybe KBK is promoting Biocentrism where Mind creates what we see (well, basically) so if that were true we could 'mingle with' what Mind has produced. Must try that and maybe de-create the universe.
@axemaster, that ought give you a double dose, Ha!
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) May 27, 2016
Background independent.
So?

String physics contacted GRT long ago; in fact one of its immediate precursors, Kaluza-Klein theory, is a direct extension of GRT. It's taken LQG this long to get there. It's nowhere near the front runner at this late date.
Mimath224
4.4 / 5 (9) May 27, 2016
@Da Schneib Is there a possibility that that once inside the BH reactions become endothermic thus a more ordered state and decrease in entropy...just a thought, that's all.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) May 27, 2016
@Mimath, it doesn't matter to the entropy of the BH because it can't be seen from outside the event horizon.
KBK
1.4 / 5 (18) May 27, 2016
Well, that about covers my daily nutritional requirements for mumbo jumbo.
- axemaster

Are you referring to the mumbo jumbo of KBK's comment - or was it the mumbo of the article?


Either or both will work.

Now eat your greens, It'll make you grow.

Speaking of that, 'the secret life of plants', is a well documented eye opener.
ursiny33
1.4 / 5 (11) May 27, 2016
Well if its a quantum particle mass then when it cools off and orbiting neutron particle storm is gone from no inner galactic material to deconstruct and its orbiting negatively charged field has a closer orbit and thru induction forces converts the quantum particle mass back into neutrons, that would change the laws of entropy to letting the balls out of the box ,and balls go out and make a new box over and over galaxy expansion, multiple point galactic creation, instead of single point creation,
ursiny33
1.4 / 5 (11) May 27, 2016
Alas poor Copernicus pointing out to wise man of the possibility of their mechanical comprehension as the opposite of truth
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) May 27, 2016
Well if its a quantum particle mass then when it cools off and orbiting neutron particle storm is gone from no inner galactic material to deconstruct and its orbiting negatively charged field has a closer orbit and thru induction forces converts the quantum particle mass back into neutrons
ummm you can't but that's not I don't even what a bunch of horsepucky.
ursiny33
1.3 / 5 (13) May 28, 2016
Maybe to someone who has no clue to the magnetic particle shell construction of neutrons, protons, and hydrogen atoms consisting of two quantum constructions of the electron and positron the building blocks of neutrons,protons, and hydrogen atoms, mass
ursiny33
1.5 / 5 (16) May 28, 2016
How to build a hydrogen atom from two quantum constructions, the electron and the positron, a positron has a positive dominant charge by it quantum mass make up, that charge can magnetically capture electrons to build a negatively charged shell of electrons around that particle from their opposite charges to produce a neutron , that neutron can magnetically capture positrons of of star emissions to build a positively charged shell around the negatively charged shell of the neutron to become a proton and that mass and spin momentum will capture and electron to orbit it to become a hydrogen atom , in a magnetic mechanical construction from this building blocks of opposite charges, that is magnetically mechanically possible and never conceived in mechanical terms,
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) May 28, 2016
My SMTP processor is down, our only choice is to quantify and calculate the backup microchip!
Send the mobile driver into the monitor, it will bypass the mainframe by programming its CGI form factor!
Use the high speed SSD processor, then you can back up the visual program!
Try to connect the UDP mainframe, maybe it will network the mobile array!

Maybe there's one for physics. Oh, wait, we have ursiny23! No problem!

Enjoy: http://shinytoyla.../jargon/
ursiny33
1.6 / 5 (20) May 28, 2016
No reason for anger at the construction of a different model , since you don't even have a separate comparative model to work with , its o k if I'm wrong it gets you thinking outside of your trained Para gram, and its ursiny 33 and you have just heard something you or anybody else every mechanically thought of, that has magnetic mechanical possibilities thank you very much lucky thing social physics media wasn't around for Copernicus I imagine alot anger was vented at him for his audacity in going against the flow
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (18) May 28, 2016
LOL

It's not anger, it's ridicule for your obvious attempts at trying to construct an argument by stringing unrelated concepts together.

It no workie like that. Get it?
ursiny33
1.7 / 5 (20) May 28, 2016
Ridicule is a character flaw of ones core being and an impediment of learning ursiny33@gail.com
Mimath224
4.3 / 5 (11) May 28, 2016
How to build a hydrogen atom from two quantum constructions, the electron and the positron, a positron has a positive dominant charge by it quantum mass make up, that charge can magnetically capture electrons to build a negatively charged shell of electrons around that particle from their opposite charges to produce a neutron , that neutron can magnetically capture positrons of of star emissions to build a positively charged shell around the negatively charged shell of the neutron to become a proton and that mass and spin momentum will capture and electron to orbit it to become a hydrogen atom , in a magnetic mechanical construction from this building blocks of opposite charges, that is magnetically mechanically possible and never conceived in mechanical terms,

@ursiny33 Come on, admit it, you got that from Star Trek didn't you. Unless you keep your 'magnetic mechanical construction' in continuous operation all you'll get is 'poof'.
Manfred Particleboard
1.6 / 5 (21) May 28, 2016
Gravity can not be moderated by the quantum equivalent of a particle, not in the standard sense anyway. If it were, then the particle that mediates gravity would be stuck behind the event horizon and the rest of 3 space could never be made aware of the mass that lies behind it...that is to say that a BH would be invisible to mass on our side of the universe. Clearly not the case.
Entropy, on the other hand, is information. And information might just sit outside the standard model. The holographic interpretation has some credibility to it in the way the universe is able to remember where mass is, was or will be. My pet theory is that Dark Energy is mass from the future telling mass in the present (at the Plank scale) where it will be. A sort of acceleration, or certainty, to a future position, mediated by information. Only at cosmological scales does the tiny amount of future information sum to a noticeable phenomena. That's as much as I can say with Haiku like constraints on this post
TechnoCreed
4.5 / 5 (17) May 28, 2016
@Da schneib
There are probably more motives for cranks than for science enthusiast to comment on Physorg. Although I do not understand what would drive the second to interact with the former; it is pretty easy to make distinction from coherent and incoherent comments. Personally, I am not much irritated by their presence; most of them are kept on ignore. But I do sense that their presence have a tendency to spark comments from scientophiles as if intelligence had to compete with nihilism or as if their tendency to generate chaos would drive coherent commentators to put things back in order. This drive looks just as much obsessive to me and anyway, it is the diversity of comments that gives color to PO.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (29) May 28, 2016
Background independent.
So?

String physics contacted GRT long ago; in fact one of its immediate precursors, Kaluza-Klein theory, is a direct extension of GRT. It's taken LQG this long to get there. It's nowhere near the front runner at this late date.


Have you been subsequently convinced that relativity is "background independent" then, because in This Thread, you argued otherwise, which was the point of my jab here.

As pointed out in following link String theory traditionally had to rely on a "fixed background", while LQG is manifestly background-independent. However, as I pointed out in the above thread string theorists are realizing the importance of background-independence.

https://en.m.wiki...g_theory
ursiny33
1.5 / 5 (15) May 28, 2016
CCMs are cosmic particle accelerators , in their constructed environment, they have a magnetic negatively charged vessel,from stripping atoms, entering the super hot environment and those neutrons and protons fall into a high velocity kinetic collisions stream orbiting the mass blasting those quantum construction apart, its not a smooth ride to some other dimension, all the quantum material stays in this dimension, the quantum particle dimension of its being and birth space , a quantum particle mass is not an idea outside of reality as is black holes sending your parts to a magical kingdom, of unknowns ,compared to the logic of the known of this space time dimension, in fact its more scientifically sane and rational in mechanical physics
ursiny33
1.5 / 5 (15) May 28, 2016
The Indian and south African partial sky survey found 64 CCMs in area that had the same orientation,spins on there axis , all pointing in the same direction but being separated in distances now the mechanical probability that those objects had those parameters' set from being born in the same galaxy, would be quite high, and direct evidence of galaxy expansion from an event to its galactic central core anchor of mass ,like a conversion back into neutrons as the mechanical cause , that's a possibility
ursiny33
1.5 / 5 (15) May 28, 2016
Galaxies are the factories of perpetual creation, the seeds, in the quantum particle dimension of our space time
ursiny33
1.4 / 5 (11) May 28, 2016
That the quantum construction of the building blocks, electrons and positrons they do not have equal charge make up , the electron has a dominant negative charge by its quantum particle mass and a minority quantum mass of a positive charge , that enables it to field chain with other electrons in magnetic lines of force, the positron has a dominant positive charge in its construction by by its quantum mass and a minority negative charge with in its construction, so when we measure these we see the dominant charge and classify it based on that, without realizing it true quantum construction, the only quantum construction that has an equal charge mass is the photon in quantum mass constructing it very close on that within a thousandth of equal quantum mass on its positive and negative make up , because its a fused together electron and positron , if it has a collision with other mass it breaks apart into two electrons , in its structural limits.
ursiny33
1.5 / 5 (13) May 28, 2016
If the photon hits a magnetic field around a mass it can safely ride on the magnetic field lines of electrons around the mass
Mimath224
5 / 5 (7) May 28, 2016
@ursiny33
Galaxies are the factories of perpetual creation, the seeds, in the quantum particle dimension of our space time

Not too sure that is true on the star level. I understand that stars are being created at as lesser rate than than those that cease to be stars. In the long term that would mean creation has a limit which means that quantum mechanical processes will settle to a lower level (a cold universe). If, I repeat, IF, expansion continues then gravity might not be able to start a collapse and start the process over again.
nwarden
1 / 5 (11) May 28, 2016
if you think of the universe as a massive computer, effectively a simulation, the black hole can be imagined as a glitch that occurs when the mass/density variable registered at any vertex wraps the counter. imagine that, just for fun.
nwarden
1 / 5 (11) May 29, 2016
I'm just a dreamer... but is it possible that a black hole is a massive ball of unsolvable entangled superposition? its contents can never be observed externally, so maybe any superposition state could never collapse... but it's moot because we can never test it or see it. ultimately, I think the universe will have secrets that can never be revealed. maybe we'll even have a proof to show that fact, which will be strangely and unsettlingly satisfying. oh that felt good.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (10) May 29, 2016
if you think of the universe as a massive computer, effectively a simulation, the black hole can be imagined as a glitch that occurs when the mass/density variable registered at any vertex wraps the counter. imagine that, just for fun.
I think neutron stars have glitches, and even then it's more properly referred to as a "feature."

So check your "counter" (or metric) before a supermassive black hole approaches, check it as it passes through, and check it after it has passed by – the "counter" (and the continuum) remain intact, perfectly "unwrapped." As soon as aLIGO detects a clear ringdown from a BH-BH merger we'll have a good idea of what happens to the "counter" during the time the BH "passes through."
cul8rmom1
1 / 5 (11) May 29, 2016
How about this. If you have say a scaffold of a 3 dimensional cube and you shine a light on it the shadow will be 2 dimensional. Lets say you shine a light on a 4 dimensional object the result would be a 3 dimensional shadow that we can perceive. Lets say in that dimension there is a bubble. The middle is empty. There are things on the film of the bubble. Lets call them particles. Lets say there is some type of "light" that shines from the outside thru those particles and creates a shadow inside the bubble. If you were to go the speed of light you would be on that film of the bubble. If the light shined on you the result could be anything within that bubble or everything depending on the light source. So infinite pretty much everything or our perception of it anyway. A blackhole would be a momentary hole in that film. There is no 3 dimensional shadow cast because there is nothing there.
cul8rmom1
1 / 5 (10) May 29, 2016
Say the light shines and the most finite amount of time would be a single frame. that is our reality. Each smallest amount of time would create another frame. Independent of the first but a projection of the same things. Like stacking up dimensions. We reside on that single frame as it travels thru an infinite 3 dimensional space which is actually just a projection of a higher dimension. The bubble wiggles like a bubble. Which would cause the smallest portion to look like different things depending on the angle your looking at. Could be a string, could be a circle.
epoxy
May 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (10) May 29, 2016
OK, black hole is supposed to be a condensate, that's nice. The condensate of what?
The condensate of space-time quanta, at the Planck scale.
Every mathematical model hides an underlying logic or geometry of physical model and I'm just therefore asking, which logic or geometry it is?
The logic of quantum mechanics applied to space-time at the Planck scale (formulating a quantum gravity) such that the homogeneous classical geometries of space-time arise or emerge at scales greater than the Planck length, from the dynamics and interaction of the condensate (analogous to a fluid), to give a description of black hole quantum states which is consistent with general relativity (beyond the Planck scale).
ursiny33
1 / 5 (8) May 29, 2016
Central core mass is ,a comprised of quantum constructions in fluid plasma form of positrons and electrons, from the cosmic particle accelerator its in
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (20) May 29, 2016
Although I do not understand what would drive the second to interact with the former
@Techno
it's not so much to "interact" with the former as to advocate for something that is provable, IMHO
(IOW- the scientific method)
if you allow the pseudoscience to propagate, it spreads and gains credibility simply by location and the refusal of those who actually understand to refute it
(this is how many laymen or the scientifically illiterate will actually see it)

... so unless there is a refute, it's a valid concept to someone who is scientifically illiterate... and there are people out there who actually can't comprehend the scientific method (see: eu advocates, jvk, verkle, zephir, obama_socks now aka otto_szucks among other socks, etc)

https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (31) May 29, 2016
it's not so much to "interact" with the former as to advocate for something that is provable, IMHO
(IOW- the scientific method)


The scientific method does not concern itself with provable things. Hypothesis, for which there may not be immediate evidence is a necessary component of science. Given this, the only way to "refute" a hypothesis is to state WHY it is incompatible with present empirical knowledge. Ironically, this requires knowledge of science AND time to waste,.... which are usually in inverse proportion.

.... unless there is a refute, it's a valid concept to someone who is scientifically illiterate...


If someone is scientifically illiterate, then evidently they were not influenced by valid scientific ideas (at this science news site) either, so your concern is mute,..... and besides irrelevant, as each person is ultimately responsible for their own state of knowledge.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) May 29, 2016
.... as is evidenced by the cranks themselves.

if you allow the pseudoscience to propagate, it spreads and gains credibility


Engaging them gives them another reason to add more posts, and generally ends up doubling or tripling the number of posts in a thread.

Don't feed the cranks. Just click on Ignore. This is not a scientific journal.

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (31) May 29, 2016
there are people out there who actually can't comprehend the scientific method (see: eu advocates, jvk, verkle, zephir, obama_socks now aka otto_szucks among other socks


I think your subjective presumption that they espouse their pet crankology on account of a lack of understanding of the basic scientific method, is unfounded. A few on that list know some science and occasionally say something interesting, .... so lacking the relatively basic knowledge of "scientific method", seems unlikely. Your hundreds of calls for "evidence" has not been effective for this reason, IMO.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) May 29, 2016
.... it's absurd to complain about cranks when you can't possibly be effected by them unless you VOLUNTARILY read their posts.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (31) May 29, 2016
@Noumenon
We should not underestimate the risk of antiscientific attitudes.


Nor the risk of thought police. Science is littered with wrong ideas,.... but can only progress in an environment of free thought.

ursiny33
1 / 5 (10) May 29, 2016
Theoretical physicists, are smart people, they usually major as a mathematician, chemical engineering, and physics, there all smart in , alot of them did not major in structural engineering,or structural limits or they did not major in electrical engineering those would be minors in there intellectual capacities, they are smarter than those, with out any background in those fields or experience around those fields people outside that , with no experience in those fields,there hypotheses have zero mechanical electrical,or magnetic possibility.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (31) May 29, 2016
@Noumenon
Science is littered with wrong ideas,....

I challenge you to demonstrate that, here or in a paper.
That should be a piece of cake, seen that there are so many.


Phlogiston, vitalism, caloric, aether, static universe, phrenology, geocentric hypothesis,.... not to mention the road of scientific progress is littered with outdated theories.

You question this? How could it be otherwise?

KBK
1.1 / 5 (12) May 29, 2016
@KBK - profound comments: and meaningless in this context.

Perhaps you'd feel more at home elsewhere...


My comment is actually dead on.

When at the limit of science we are also naturally... encountering the limits of mind. And in those limits, it is mind that is required to change, so that the new science can arrive.

Mind must change first, otherwise new science cannot be seen or integrated.

When you lift a weight at the limit of your body's endurance and capacity, you struggle and it may take time, or it may break you, and you may never lift it.

Science, at the limit, has similar issues.

Thought is tied to the mind in realization, of self and the observation, as a pairing. Thought is mired in it's origins, one of emotion and hind-brain, before conscious thought emerges from those deeper murmurs.

Scientists & theoreticians should be required to take Jungian oriented psychology courses. (Freud sucks dead donkeys) Otherwise we are wasting our time.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (22) May 29, 2016
The scientific method does not concern itself with provable things
@nou
1- the scientific method is defined by "proof" (using the colloquial term) called evidence
2- the best science using the method is by validation (IOW- repeated proof)
3- to the typical scientific illiterate (or ignorant) evidence = proof
so your concern is mute,..... and besides irrelevant, as each person is ultimately responsible for their own state of knowledge
is it? the propagation of pseudoscience is largely due to the proliferation of pseudoscience on what would typically be considered reputable science sites and the users inability to differentiate (for various reasons) what is real science and what isn't

they also mostly don't comprehend the difference between dot-com, dot-org, or dot-edu... let alone the difference between peer reviewed and self-published opinion (see AGW, also Dr roy)

if it's made to look legit, they assume it *is*, thus the problem

watch the video

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (23) May 29, 2016
@nou cont'd
I think your subjective presumption that they espouse their pet crankology on account of a lack of understanding of the basic scientific method, is unfounded
1- it aint subjective if i can prove it
2- knowing the steps don't mean they understand it (see bschott - magical magnetic cancer killer)
3- if a person can quote the xtian bible, does that make them xtian?

regurgitation isn't the same as comprehension, nor is the occasional good guess the same as proof of being correct

you can "prove" someone is failing to understand or to comprehend the basics... sometimes it takes time, other times it's obvious

examples: just because plasma discharge *can* create damage to something dont mean it is responsible for the breakup of D/1993 F2

Just because plasma *can* create damage to earth dont mean it carved the big ditch

there are ways to tell if things like that happened (& it's called proof to a layman)

2Bctd
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (23) May 29, 2016
@Nou cont'd
...so lacking the relatively basic knowledge of "scientific method", seems unlikely
and a broken mechanical clock is also correct twice a day - but that don't mean it's always right, nor that it tells good time
Your hundreds of calls for "evidence" has not been effective for this reason, IMO
to the poster? absolutely not
... but you mistake my motivation/reasoning

i don't do it to change the idiots mind - that is like holding back the ocean with a sieve

i do it to:
1- present a basic & useful methodology (if there aint "proof", it aint real)

2- teach how to challenge a position for critical analysis (not be a "thought police", but establish that there are strict protocols for the labeling of something scientific vrs pseudoscience)

3- learn more about certain posters to either establish validity of a hypothesis/diagnosis - or - to learn about their thought process

i've made this point before - i still aint changed
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (23) May 29, 2016
one last point @nou
Nor the risk of thought police. Science is littered with wrong ideas,.... but can only progress in an environment of free thought
there is a big difference between being a "thought police" and requiring people to use a proven methodology and work within the strict guidelines of a system that has produced the advancement that we live with today

thought police is telling people they can't believe what they want to - and personally, i don't care what anyone *believes*

science takes the "belief" part out of the equation so that we can build upon the knowledge we gain
it took us from balloons, horses and bicycles to cars, airplanes and space exploration on other planets

accepting *all* beliefs as equal means prayer is equal to medicine and we will end up back in the dark ages

and that ain't just IMHO... we have historical precedent
Kron
4.4 / 5 (7) May 30, 2016
@ursiny33
Coming up with alternative models can be fun but I'd just like to point out to you that a neutron in free space is unstable and will decay into a proton electron and an electron antineutrino. Your hydrogen atom model doesn't work. A free neutron has a greater mass than a free proton.
epoxy
May 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ultron
3 / 5 (10) May 30, 2016
My humble opinion is that string theory and holographic universe theory is bull shit, just like the electric universe theory. It just has more complicated math and it has support from religious sect of string physicists who spreaded in academia despite obvious non falsifalibity of their theories.
epoxy
May 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) May 30, 2016
@Noumenon
Science is littered with wrong ideas,....

I challenge you to demonstrate that, here or in a paper. […]

Phlogiston, vitalism, caloric, aether, static universe, phrenology, geocentric hypothesis,.... not to mention the road of scientific progress is littered with outdated theories.
Lame. A list of disproven hypotheses and pseudoscience from the 19th century and further back.

You challenged me to demonstrate "wrong ideas" in science [hypothesis ARE ideas], and now you're complaining that they are "disproven hypotheses"?
Two of those are from the 20th century. Aether was at the basis of H.A. Lorentz theory predating Einstein's STR, and static-universe was a direct hypothesis of Einstein's implicit in the cosmological term of GR……
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) May 30, 2016
Of course there are recent failed as ideas/hypothesis/theories, just as there have always been in science,… as THAT's how science progresses….. steady state universe, Kaluza-Klein theory, Bohr atom, … twister theory, …E8 as a basis of QFT, ….supersymmetry, ….Wely unified theory,… Einstein's efforts at unification [spent more time on this than on any other subject].

These are ideas, not even hypotheses.


A hypothesis IS and "idea", as is a postulate, as are theories.

There comes a point where scientists must abandon a failed idea....


Wait,... you objected to me stating that there has been "wrong ideas" in science,... now you're claiming scientists must abandon failed ideas. Why would they have to if there was never any failed ideas?

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) May 30, 2016
religious cranks managed to sabotage [heliocentric model] acceptance until the renaissance.


Indeed, they were "thought police". They did not attempt to counter that hypothesis, but instead objected to it having even being made. This is the distinction that I'm making above. Science requires an environment of free-thought in order to progress,… which de facto means there are going to be "wrong ideas" as a consequence. This does NOT obstruct scientific progress.

CapStumpy, is akin to those "religious cranks",… in not attempting to counter given [crank-]hypothesis, but rather objecting to them even-being-made, simply on the basis of his own misapprehended thought of knowledge,….. i.e. that evidence should precede hypothesis.

ursiny33
1 / 5 (7) May 30, 2016
Iron in shell construction a positive layer of particles over a neutrons negatively shell will compress thru the force of magnetic attraction , to each other giving the proton a smaller radius in mass ,
ursiny33
1 / 5 (7) May 30, 2016
Magnetic compression between charges is a force
ursiny33
1 / 5 (7) May 30, 2016
Sorry nor iron but Krone ....in shell construction to answer Krone question on mass size between protons and neutrons
ursiny33
1 / 5 (8) May 30, 2016
Krone: Free neutrons and protons decay , this is true back into their quantum constructions of electrons and positrons and then into their individual quantum natural states ,in open quantum space except in a magnetic electron field vessel or in an electron magnetic induction environment as free neutrons and protons
ursiny33
1 / 5 (9) May 30, 2016
Krone neutrons and protons don't have their own induction environment sealing its construction like atoms do in their orbiting electrons manufacturing and induction environment around its construction for its structural stability
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) May 30, 2016
@Noumenon
Science is littered with wrong ideas,....

I challenge you to demonstrate that, here or in a paper. […]

Phlogiston, vitalism, caloric, aether, static universe, phrenology, geocentric hypothesis,....
Lame. A list of disproven hypotheses and pseudoscience from the 19th century and further back.

You challenged me to demonstrate "wrong ideas" in science [hypothesis ARE ideas], and now you're complaining that they are "disproven hypotheses"?

That's right. You are saying that "science is littered with wrong ideas", as if wrong ideas were not efficiently thrown out and replaced by correct or in any case viable ideas....


I never said nor implied "wrong ideas were not efficiently thrown out". You just made that up. I said despite wrong ideas science progresses. Here is the full statement......

"Science is littered with wrong ideas,.... but can only progress in an environment of free thought."

Duh.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) May 30, 2016
There comes a point where scientists must abandon a failed idea....

Wait,... you objected to me stating that there has been "wrong ideas" in science,... now you're claiming scientists must abandon failed ideas. Why would they have to if there was never any failed ideas?


The truth comes out in the end: the philosopher does not understand how science works


That's a vague accusation. How did you arrive at that ad hominem characterization? Another thing you just made up out of the blue?
ursiny33
1 / 5 (8) May 30, 2016
The idea is to get you think outside of your programed truths , that you believe are truths ,even if they are not , when Copernicus had his free ideas outside of the known belief system of knowledge , those anti idea forces were up in arms, and condemnation, thinking outside of the box has brought us knowledge, you must learn to let things go and move on if you can disprove mechanical electric physics ideas ,or ponder if there even that smallest possible truth in any of it , anger and expressed sustain for ideas has gotten man nowhere peace
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) May 30, 2016
You said "littered with". This implies a mess. This implies that it is not cleaned up.

That's your own interpretational baggage, not what I said. Please try to distinguish your own interpretational mess from my actual comments.

Here is another quote from me above,… "the road of scientific progress is littered with outdated theories.". This simply means that science leaves behind outdated ideas, as a matter of progress.

I have NOT said NOR implied that at any given time, main stream science is littered with wrong ideas so that science is an incoherent mess. I was speaking about "science" generally, which means the history of scientific progress.

Fact free thought driven by delusion and ignorance hampers the progress of science.


The more delusional and the more ignorant the less effect it has on the progress of science,... especially when such an idea does not even qualify 'as being wrong'.

nikola_milovic_378
May 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (29) May 30, 2016
religious cranks managed to sabotage [heliocentric model] acceptance until the renaissance.


"Indeed, they were "thought police". They did not attempt to counter that hypothesis, but instead objected to it having even being made. This is the distinction that I'm making above. Science requires an environment of free-thought in order to progress,… which de facto means there are going to be "wrong ideas" as a consequence. This does NOT obstruct scientific progress." - Noumenon
nikola_milovic_378
May 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ursiny33
1 / 5 (6) May 30, 2016
That's great since the hydrogen atom based constructions are just a by product of the quantum particle dimension of space , whose existence is not even dependent of those constructions for its existence even in the unknown
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (31) May 30, 2016
@Nonsensemenonsense
You should consult a dictionary. There is a lot of "interpretational baggage" in there.


Whenever on attempts to assume ownership of what someone else has stated by changing the wording to support their own interpretational characterization,.... it is evidence that they aim to establish a strawman to argue with.

Here is a link for your enlightenment....
https://www.youtu...kCPo7tC0
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (31) May 30, 2016
No, I did not mean refuse that goes in a garbage can,.... but obviously by analogy.

"the road of scientific progress is littered with outdated theories." - Noumenon ................ This simply means that science leaves behind [on the side of the road] outdated ideas, as a matter of progress [to advance further down the road].

"Science is littered with wrong ideas,.... but can only progress in an environment of free thought." - Noumenon, .................. the full quote and 1st use of "littered",... meaning science can only progress if there is free-thought, despite that as a consequence results, there are wrong ideas.

Who is the one trolling here? Your desire of insisting-upon your own faulty interpretation is suspicious.

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (31) May 30, 2016
"Science requires an environment of free-thought in order to progress,… which de facto means there are going to be "wrong ideas" as a consequence. This does NOT obstruct scientific progress." - Noumenon

You are the one trolling by insinuating that science needs a clean-up


I have not stated anything even remotely like that here. I have provided three more quotes from me to elucidate further my meaning,.... and yet you continue to INSIST upon your own interpretational characterization, despite my comment being clear from the very beginning.

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (31) May 30, 2016
Science is littered with wrong ideas,...

I challenge you to demonstrate that, here or in a paper. […]

Phlogiston, vitalism, caloric, aether, static universe, phrenology, geocentric hypothesis,....
Lame. A list of disproven hypotheses and pseudoscience from the 19th century and further back.

You challenged me to demonstrate "wrong ideas" in science [hypothesis ARE ideas],[...]

That's right. You are saying that "science is littered with wrong ideas", as if wrong ideas were not efficiently thrown out [..]


You cut my quote in half. Here is the FULL quote....

"Science is littered with wrong ideas,.... but can only progress in an environment of free thought." - Noumenon

IOW, Science can only progress in an environment of free thought, despite [implied by "but" above....] that freedom of thought will also result in wrong ideas as a consequence.

epoxy
May 31, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (33) May 31, 2016

there is a big difference between being a "thought police" and requiring people to use a proven methodology and work within the strict guidelines of a system ...


You're a bit naive if you believe that there are "strict guidelines" or procedures to follow in advancing scientific knowledge within the scientific method, so that everything is clear step by step. In addition it is common that evidence follows hypothesis not precedes it. I will give a few examples....

When Mitchell and Moyle first worked out the chemiosmotic process they were met with enormous skepticism. Only subsequently did the evidence support their ideas.

There was no way to theoretically derive the Schrodinger equation from known physics at the time he published it. In essence, he pulled it out of his ass.

When Max Planck published his solution to the black body radiation intensity/frequency formula, he had no theoretical physical justification for it.

del2
5 / 5 (14) May 31, 2016
When Max Planck published his solution to the black body radiation intensity/frequency formula, he had no theoretical physical justification for it.


No justification for it? How about that it worked?

That's an empirical justification, not a theoretical one.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (31) May 31, 2016
When Max Planck published his solution to the black body radiation intensity/frequency formula, he had no theoretical physical justification for it.


No justification for it? How about that it worked?


He had no physical justification for the hypothesis of quanta implicit in his purely mathematical solution. It is well known that he struggled to find such a justification, and that others did not take his quanta seriously [for that matter neither did Planck as a physical quanta of EM; he thought it was an effect of the emitter not the nature of EM itself] ....until Einstein showed that EM itself must be of quanta in resolving the photo-electric effect,.... not just the resonators in the cavity.

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (31) May 31, 2016
.... of course I did not say there was no "No justification for it",.... but instead there was no "theoretical physical justification" for it.

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (25) May 31, 2016
CapStumpy ...in not attempting to counter given [crank-]hypothesis...
@nou
so... by forwarding a link or evidence that i have disproving it, i then also have to explain it? why? the evidence speaks for itself?
simply on the basis of his own misapprehended thought of knowledge
which is based upon your interpretation of my posts... although it also is subjective and not based upon facts
(typical of a philo making a philo point - if it looks like it can explain a point, use it and claim it factual)

if i had no knowledge, how would i know that Lacis et al applied to the "not enough CO2" arguments of antig? or any other argument? I would post it in biology if i was ignorant... big logical fallacy fail there, bub...
... i.e. that evidence should precede hypothesis
No... but even a scientific hypothesis is based upon evidence (then tested)

pseudoscience misinterprets everything until there is only the belief
(See cd85 and bs, etc)
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (25) May 31, 2016
That's your own interpretational baggage, not what I said
@Nou
Phys is right. communication in science means being specific, clear, concise
... it's not like philo where being vague means you can be both right and wrong depending on how the individual interprets the point - and that is a *good* thing in philo

- in science it is a death sentence, really
you can't have an interpretive law of gravity

therefore when you communicate in philo for a science argument it means you are either:
1- intentionally being vague for the sake of attention
2- ignorant of the methodology of science
3- ???

given your abilities in certain areas, i would say you are familiar with science, however you are still clinging to philo thought process for the sake of argument or attention, IMHO

& if 1 and 2 don't apply, then you are intentionally posting for someone to follow / share your beliefs = religion (or the seeking of validation through sharing with like minded)
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (33) May 31, 2016
The "theoretical physical justification" is that it worked, perfectly. It does not matter that Planck did not feel comfortable with it. A mathematical model that uniquely describes reality is by definition theoretically and physically justified.


You don't appear to understand the point made nor the history or QM, in particular Planck's contribution.

It is one thing to find a mathematical equation that accounts for an empirical based graph,..... it is quite another to establish theoretically why (meaning the physical reason) why or what the equation is supposed to represent. Planck worked on this, unsuccessfully, only subsequently to finding an equation,.... and did not derive the equation from first principles given known physics. Recall that QM was new physics then.

Planck had even admitted that his quanta solution was one of "desperation" and not one from understanding the physics. If I have time to locate a quote I will post it.

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (32) May 31, 2016
objecting to them even-being-made, simply on the basis of his own misapprehended thought of knowledge,….. i.e. that evidence should precede hypothesis.


if i had no knowledge, how would i know that Lacis et al applied to the "not enough CO2" arguments of antig?


I didn't intend to question your knowledge of any specific subject, but rather "of knowledge" itself, as in the example given (which you cut out of your quote).... i.e. the assumption that "that evidence should precede hypothesis".

No, phys1 is not right, as he cut my quote he responded to in half, just as you did, which was required to understand the entire sentence. He added his own interpretation to characterize what I had said rather than accept is as given. There is no reason to change my words except to invent a strawman. Communication is also the responsibility of the reader. I made myself clear multiple times yet he insisted upon his own characterization. Not honest.

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (32) May 31, 2016
..... just as the coward know-nothing troll-rater hiding under his desk, is not honest. But, this is expected on a site run by intellectual degenerates.

ursiny33
1 / 5 (9) May 31, 2016
The expansion of space only doesn't confirm the single point theory of creation, its just a possible evidence of the reality, if there was no other mechanical possibilities, like multiple point creation over large distances, as a mechanical galaxy expansion model from clusters of galaxies tracking each other into deep space over a large arch in space from an earlier older hydrogen atom based construction,
ursiny33
1 / 5 (9) May 31, 2016
Visible evidence becomes fact in reality when you eliminate all other mechanical possibilities
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (17) May 31, 2016
I didn't intend to question your knowledge of any specific subject, but rather "of knowledge" itself
@Nou
and again, if i had no knowledge, then i wouldn't know what study applies to which argument to link it

i was being specific but it still applies (to your whole post)
(which you cut out of your quote)
space - also irrelevant. the answer i gave applies (as noted)
he cut my quote he responded to in half, just as you did
if the answer given explains the entirety of the question, as my post did, then there is no need to waste the space with your entire quote, is there?
seems a little narcissistic, IMHO, especially when the argument is invalid regardless of the whole quote vrs the edited for length quote
There is no reason to change my words except to invent a strawman
editing for length isn't changing your words when the answer addresses your point, as noted above
I made myself clear
and i disagree with your assessment
others do as well

so?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (19) May 31, 2016
Had to address this separate, Nou
Communication is also the responsibility of the reader.
Nope. it is the responsibility of all persons involved, starting first and foremost with the speaker (or writer, in this case)

now, we can ask questions to clarify (which i do at times)
we can make points as well (like i did above)
we can demonstrate how things are taken and how they're meaning something that perhaps the author doesn't mean (as you and Phys do above)

however, the responsibility of clear, concise communication starts with the speaker/author (and you should be asking or checking to insure the reader/listener understands)
Here is a hint: read the very first line of this link (but remove the word "Verbally")
http://sites.ieee...ncisely/

this is you in a nutshell, Nou... it happens a whole lot here on PO

and that should indicate something to you
BongThePuffin
May 31, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (18) May 31, 2016
last@Nou
your entire quote was
CapStumpy, is akin to those "religious cranks",… in not attempting to counter given [crank-]hypothesis, but rather objecting to them even-being-made, simply on the basis of his own misapprehended thought of knowledge,….. i.e. that evidence should precede hypothesis
1- read this simple graph

https://en.wikipe...cess.svg

2- read my answer above (again)

evidence always does precede a hypothesis (see graph), because you require evidence to generate a hypothesis in science

i post links because it's for those who seek answers

you consider me a crank because i don't narcissisticly expound on minutiae like you do but the pseudoscience crank doesn't care about reality

those who are seeking validation will not read them, nor will they care about my "attempting to counter given [crank-]hypothesis"

it would be easier to teach a rock to speak
ursiny33
1 / 5 (9) May 31, 2016
The article states an idea, by a certified thinker, if we only accepted ideas from certified thinkers we would not have had powered flight, in 1904
Garrote
3.5 / 5 (24) May 31, 2016
Certified thinker? lol I think your certification has long since expired, if it was ever in effect.
ursiny33
1 / 5 (7) May 31, 2016
This isn't a vendetta against Maxwell,Planck , and Einstein , it just a questioning of their model , in which nobody even has thought of a comparative model that's mechanically possible, those ideas have just as much right to be investigated and found mechanically impossible as another idea , even by the author of the articles ideas, to just accept the theoretical idea of black holes, based on math that doesn't take into account structural limits of constructed assemblies of charged particles, and exclude any other mechanical magnetic possibility as a quantum particle mass , is a dereliction of seeking knowledge no matter where it came from , you are just treating your model as a religion from your certified man gods of knowledge,
ursiny33
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2016
And that the ridicule and anger is because you don't have the magnetic and mechanical ability in thinking to offer any insights that a black hole could be anything else than what the smartest people think it is , and certainly quantum particle plasma magnetic compression mass is out of the the question and mechanical reality
ursiny33
1 / 5 (7) May 31, 2016
From someone who hasn't even conceived, that orbiting electrons on every atom produce a negatively charged induction environment around the nucleus to protect the structural stability of that collection of neutrons and protons of that element, that that's the mechanical purpose of those orbiting electrons, case closed
Mimath224
5 / 5 (5) May 31, 2016
@ursiny33 '...around the nucleus to protect the structural stability...' Protect? they might provide stability with opposite charges but the term 'protect' implies a deliberate act. And of course there natural elements that decay indicating that the electrons here cannot provide stability.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 01, 2016
@Noum
When Max Planck published his solution to the black body radiation intensity/frequency formula, he had no theoretical physical justification for it.
Actually, you've confused two things.

What he had was an experimental justification for it: it described black body radiation. And to this day it's called "Planck's Law." An empirically derived law requires no theoretical justification; it is physical. I don't know what "theoretical physical justification" means. It doesn't appear to mean anything.
ericpelser
1 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2016
Black holes, what has been really and experimentally proven about these objects? Theory physics is out reaching its grasp, its getting very thin out here. Back up the things you say, do understand the Barnum and Baitum Theory, A fool is born every second. This is hard Science is hard, work hard !!
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) Jun 01, 2016
I'll try to find more information if I have time, about what I mean about Planck. Just coming up with a formula that fits to a graph, ... the intensity/frequency relationship at each temperature,..... does not mean one understands the underlying physics. This was another step that Planck attempted to take subsequently to finding an equation that fit the graph. This is not "my opinion" but rather is the history of the subject. QM was new physics, and there could have not been anyway that Planck could have justified that equation on classical theoretical grounds [meaning physical explanation],.... he HAD to accept that energy is quanta,... in fact he did NOT accept that photons are quanta as explained above....

ericpelser
1 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
Sorry, about that I do realize that everyone is working hard on this, but, as humans do we really need, the Mattrix, the Mulitverse, it's really a jump. It's a strange universe and it should be, hey we don't know all the elements yet!. It's big out there, really big. So work on your numbers and theory's but don't, startle us with linked things you think are fact.
ericpelser
1 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
Hey Nouumenon, that's a long name,

thank you, I study physics many years, and things are getting a little out of or grasp, are we reaching to far. Mathematics Shure it's a sound footing but we made it . Is math stable and applied though out the universe ? We don't know, really. Because we are not out there, so, we must go out there to, see investigate everything.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) Jun 01, 2016
I don't know what "theoretical physical justification" means. It doesn't appear to mean anything.


Well it does anyway ....

What a theoretical physicist does is derive equations from knowledge of physics ,... thus a "theoretical physical justification" would imply that a given equation was justified by their knowledge of physics.

There were several physicists who attempted to do this for the black-body radiation problem,.... Wein, Rayleigh, Jeans, and Planck himself, all attempted and failed to DERIVE an equation from "first principles", meaning their knowledge of classical physics. We now know this HAD to fail as there is no way to derive QT from classical physics.

TBC.....
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) Jun 01, 2016
....

So, Planck then decided to work the other way; just force a formula into existence that matched the graph "out of desperation", and then later find a theoretical [classical in his mind] physics justification.

Therefore Planck had no theoretical [physics] justification for his quanta constant h, stating... [Planck-constant was] "a purely formal assumption ... actually I did not think much about it..."

The equation was good, but a proper physicists would not consider his job complete as there was no understanding of what the quanta meant ....indeed....

"My unavailing attempts to somehow reintegrate the action quantum into classical theory extended over several years and caused me much trouble." - Planck

Planck was no revolutionary, he did not realize that this was new physics.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) Jun 01, 2016
I didn't intend to question your knowledge of any specific subject, but rather "of knowledge" itself

@Nou
and again, if i had no knowledge, then i wouldn't know what study applies to which argument to link it


And again, I did not mean you had no knowledge of a particular subject. Please accept my apologies if that is what it seemed, and accepted my subsequent explanation as given rather than insisting upon your own reading.

If you provided a link or countered the cranks with facts, then this is precisely what I suggested above as being more effective than stating [incompletely] what the scientific method is .

As demonstrated with examples, science is not as clean cut and direct with strict guidelines as you suggested.... a hypothesis may not be preceded by evidence.

viko_mx
1 / 5 (13) Jun 01, 2016
The modern babilonian metaphysics is sand tower built on free speculations. But in the pagan system of Babylon the shamans and their mantras are in vogue.

If some people were more resourceful would find that the physical world is not fully knowable because of people physical and mental limits.The visible is for the men but invisible is for the Creator.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2016
@DS
Noumenon is right that Planck's derivation is heuristic.
The derivation was, and still is, justified only by the correct result.
Even to this day I consider quantum mechanics to be heuristic.
Sometimes the experimental data drives the theory; sometimes the theory drives the experiments. And this particular series of discoveries has both:

1. Planck comes up with Planck's Law based upon the results of the first fairly accurate black body spectra, done with the first cavity sources invented in 1898 and still used today. A series of experiments using better and better measuring techniques over the previous forty years or so had led up to this result. Planck published in October of 1900.

At this point, Planck began considering how such a law could arise, and eventually (after having rejected it for decades) changed his mind about Boltzmann's approach in his entropy laws and proposed that heat and light were emitted (but not absorbed or propagated) as quanta.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2016
[contd]
Boltzmann's method was the heuristic part, but Planck's abandonment of his previous rejection of this method was the key that led him to propose Planck's Constant; his law originally did not require it. This was the mark of Planck's genius; he was flexible enough to abandon his prior views when the evidence militated against them.

However, due to Young's dual-slit experiment which showed light was subject to interference, still no one questioned whether light was waves, and not, as Newton had called them, "corpuscles" (what we today call "photons," quanta of light).

2. In 1905, during his "miracle year," Einstein proposed that light in fact was quantized, in emission, during propagation, and in absorption, though he initially rejected Planck's Constant.

Still, it took nearly another decade before photons were proposed, and modern quantum theory (note, not quantum field theory; that was still in the future) became widely accepted.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2016
[contd]
Thus, the eventual acceptance of the quantum theory of light took nearly fifteen years to work out from the first really hard experimental results, and involved intertwining experimental and theoretical results. From a theoretical standpoint, it took nearly 60 years; Balfour and Kirchoff first proposed initial theoretical considerations that eventually led to Planck's Law in 1858 and 1859.

Planck and Einstein between them had basically invented quantum physics, and each won a Nobel Prize for their contributions.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (29) Jun 01, 2016
None of which counters the point made...

My original statement was as follows....

"[WHEN] Max Planck published his solution to the black body radiation intensity/frequency formula, he had no theoretical physical justification for it." - Noumenon

""My unavailing attempts to somehow reintegrate the action quantum into classical theory extended over several years and caused me much trouble." - Planck

End.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
@Phys1, I would therefore submit that physics is not and never has been either exclusively theoretical/heuristic, or exclusively empirical/experimental; instead it is a constantly intertwining combination of the two. This is its strength, and the solid foundation upon which it is built.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (28) Jun 01, 2016
A lot of chaffe.

@Phys1, I would therefore submit that physics is not and never has been either exclusively theoretical/heuristic, or exclusively empirical/experimental; instead it is a constantly intertwining combination of the two. This is its strength, and the solid foundation upon which it is built.


No one said otherwise,.... in fact my entire argument and reason for mentioning Planck was to point out to CS that physics does not precede in a strict procedure.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
Again, @Noum, I can see no apparent meaning in your phrase, "theoretical physical justification." You are confusing theoretical physics with experimental physics and failing to understand that they are different, but related. Experiment tests the theory, and unexpected experimental results generate new theory; but experiment is not the only source of theory, there are also purely theoretical considerations that lead to new theories. Those new theories are then tested experimentally. You can't separate them, but you also can't confuse them. And this is the essential flaw in your reasoning.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
A lot of chaffe...

No one said otherwise,.... in fact my entire argument and reason for mentioning Planck was to point out to CS that physics does not precede in a strict procedure.
But you keep using this meaningless phrase, "theoretical physical justification," which proves conclusively that you don't understand either the fact that theory and experiment are essentially different, or the fact that they are essentially related.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (28) Jun 01, 2016
But you keep using this meaningless phrase, "theoretical physical justification," which proves conclusively that you don't understand either the fact that theory and experiment are essentially different, or the fact that they are essentially related.


It's rather remarkable that you don't understand what "theoretical physical justification" means, even after it was explained to you. It's not a meaningless phrase. It's a meaningless phrase TO YOU. It simply means finding why, from then known physics, the quanta was necessary. See the Planck quote.

And why are you inventing the notion that I don't know that "theory and experiment are essentially different"?!! How the hell have you arrived at this absurdity from what I posted?!
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
It simply means finding why, from then known physics, the quanta was necessary.
First, the singular is "quantum;" "quanta" is plural.

Second, the quantum theory was not found "from then known physics;" Planck's Law was found "from then known physics." It took both more theorizing, and more experimentation, to discover Planck's Constant and the full quantum theory from it. The additional key experiment was the photoelectric effect; the additional key theory was the definition of Planck's Constant and its eventual identification with the energy of a photon.

You've made up another story that doesn't fit the facts, @Noum.

You always have to be right; you lack Planck's flexibility, to admit he was wrong and move on. This is why people call you a philosopher.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (29) Jun 01, 2016
I had mentioned that Planck approached the quanta as if it was on account of the resonators [meant oscillators], that is, he imposed this condition purely as a mathematical assumption and in opposition to classical physics [as shown in his own quote], ....and I also had already mentioned the photo-electric effect solution by Einstein justifying the quantum of energy,..... yesterday.

I posted just enough to make the point I wanted to make and no more.

You seem desperate to prove Noumenon does know this or that, and have posted much unnecessary chaff in order to manufacture arguments that never existed, and have made unfounded and absurd accusations. This is corrupt behavior.

the quantum theory was not found "from then known physics;

Where did I say this? I stated the opposite, that there was no theoretical justification for it,... which is why Planck imposed it as a condition,... "purely formal assumption" - Planck

Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (16) Jun 01, 2016
You seem desperate to prove Noumenon does know this or that,
No, @Noum, you're projecting again and it's very transparent. The technical questions are now over and you're back in philosopher mode. I don't care to interact on that basis, and I would think that would have become clear to anyone who was paying attention; you appear to be so wrapped up in "proving you're right" (whatever that means when you are making arguments like characterizing me as "desperate" without any evidence to back it up since you cannot read minds) that you've lost track of the technical argument again, as you always do.

The point is, your phraseology betrays your confusion about the difference, and the relationship, of theory and experiment in physics. It is this relationship that distinguishes physics from philosophy. There is no experimenting in philosophy any more; deconstruction obviates evidence, and divorces philosophy from reality. That was the point of the Sokal Affair.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2016
And that's assuming all the navel-gazing the Classical Greeks did hadn't contaminated philosophy permanently 'way back when. This is a very questionable assumption given solipsism (as in, claiming "that's how you see it" is a valid argument about reality, not the philosophical school called "Solipsism," which eventually resulted in rhetoric of the kinds exhibited in politics).

Experiment grounds physics in reality. Philosophy has no such controls and cross-checks on its validity.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (29) Jun 01, 2016
,.... that is, he imposed the quanta condition as a "purely formal assumption" [Planck's words] given the mathematical approach he was taking [statistical mechanics], and NOT on any theoretical [classical] physics grounds.

A theoretical physicist is to find theoretical physics justifications for their ideas. There was no way to do so with classical physics, as the oscillators, in classical physics could take on any amount of energy.

IOW, the "purely formal assumption" of quanta was one imposed on account of the approach and not from justified physics.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (29) Jun 01, 2016
your confusion about the difference, and the relationship, of theory and experiment in physics.


Unfounded characterization and ad hominem. Corrupt.

I asked you to justify this absurd charge from statements I have made and you have not done so. You only post loaded characterizations and invent unfounded accusations. I posted no philosophy in this thread but yet you manage to convolute the discussion as if I had. This is a favorite tactic of fundamentally corrupt people that post to impress know-nothings wiki-jockys.

You're on ignore.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 01, 2016
And to Planck's surprise his "purely formal assumption" turned out to be substantially correct and provable by experiment, specifically the photoelectric effect. Understanding this, however, took physicists a decade.

I'd be pretty reluctant to state what a theoretical physicist is "supposed" to do as if it were exclusive. (You can use a circumlocution, in this case simply pretending the "supposed" doesn't exist, to attempt to avoid "supposed," but that is the form of the idiom in American English and it is in this case an entirely accurate reading of your statement. I expect you'll lawyer about this, too.)
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
I asked you to justify this absurd charge from statements I have made and you have not done so.
You're lawyering again, @Noum. This isn't going to get you anywhere and it makes it obvious that you're not capable of keeping up with the formal arguments. You avoid them and concentrate on more lawyering and rhetoric.

This isn't ever going to work; the way to dismiss it is always obvious, simply identify the behavior and move on.

To your argument, showing it is false, here is your exact phrase that makes it obvious you don't know the difference and the relationship between theory and experiment in physics, and the difference between physics and philosophy:

theoretical physical justification
"Theoretical" means noumena, ideas in the mind; "physical" means phenomena, events in consensus reality. Your phrase equates to "imaginary real justification." As I said, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (29) Jun 01, 2016
What I meant by "theoretical physical justification" was 'theoretical justification from known physics', as was already explained to you the first time. I thought the context was obviously one of 'theoretical knowledge of physics'.

You would have been correct to point out that it was poorly worded, but not justified in your absurd deliberately insulting accusation of me 'not knowing the difference between theory and experiment', because, I had already by then elaborated on what I meant to McBride even before already answering you, when he questioned me....as follows...

"It is one thing to find a mathematical equation that accounts for an empirical based graph,..... it is quite another to establish theoretically why (meaning the physical reason) why or what the equation is supposed to represent."- Noumenon

.... thus knowing the difference between theory and experiment. Who doesn't?

It takes to much effort to write defensively on account of lawyers trolling phys.org,
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
your absurd deliberately insulting accusation
Reading minds again, @Noum?

This wasn't a slip of the tongue, it was representative of a basic misconception you have repeatedly demonstrated by attempting to confound physics and philosophy.

It's also more lawyering.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
It takes to much effort to write defensively on account of lawyers trolling phys.org,
Less effort than examining your assumptions and behavior, apparently.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (20) Jun 01, 2016
You're on ignore.


Hooyeei, that did not last long.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (31) Jun 01, 2016
your absurd deliberately insulting accusation
Reading minds again, @Noum?

This wasn't a slip of the tongue, it was representative of a basic misconception you have repeatedly demonstrated by attempting to confound physics and philosophy.

It's also more lawyering.


I posted no philosophy here, only physics.

Your motivations are clear, dishonesty established a characterization based on deliberate lack of effort in interpreting ones post in context, then ignoring multiple further elaboration.

Corrupt
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
... Just coming up with a formula that fits to a graph,

It was not a fit except for Planck's constant
Well, if by "it" you mean the quantum theory, then this is correct. However, if by "it" you mean Planck's Law, actually it was a formula to fit a graph, then this is incorrect. You should confirm you meant the first, and I think you did.

does not mean one understands the underlying physics.

It opened the door to quantum mechanic, thus to deeper understanding of the physics. This was because it was not a fit. It was a heuristic derivation. Even better, Planck derived from experiment that light must be quantised - regardless of his own convictions at the time.
It wasn't Planck's Law, but Planck's Constant that opened that door. And the heuristic derivation was of the Constant, not the Law. If this is what you meant, then you are correct, as above.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 01, 2016
wikipedia on "theory":
"Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. ... a body of knowledge ..."
wikipedia on "noumenon":
"a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of ordinary sense-perception."

Two entirely different concepts.
Actually a theory is a noumenon. A thing of, to quote you, "abstract or generalized thinking" is obviously "a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of ordinary sense-perception," since all thoughts are such. I wouldn't call a subset "entirely different."
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
I posted no philosophy here, only physics.

theoretical physical justification


It's transparent when you start disagreeing with what you yourself said.

This is growing tedious, and tendentious, as conversations with you always do.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (29) Jun 01, 2016
Actually a theory is a noumenon. A thing of, to quote you, "abstract or generalized thinking" is obviously "a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of ordinary sense-perception," since all thoughts are such. I wouldn't call a subset "entirely different."


Way Wrong. Noumenon means as contrasted from phenomenon. It means "as it exists in itself" apart from the conditions for acquiring knowledge. For example, "phenomenon" includes a component that is mind-dependent given the nature of acquiring knowledge,... i.e. the necessity of concepts and experimental conditions. We add conceptual form.

Noumenon in Kant's use is a limiting concept, to extract the above conditions. It's a way to justify an objective albeit unknowable reality independent of mind.

Please stop doing philosophy.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) Jun 01, 2016
... which is relevant to QM interpretation which I have discussed here.

I posted no philosophy here, only physics.

theoretical physical justification


It's transparent when you start disagreeing with what you yourself said.

This is growing tedious, and tendentious, as conversations with you always do.


You made it so. Theoretical justification just means justified by theory (known physics), and what was meant albeit with wording, was 'theoretical knowledge of physics' or 'theoretical physical knowledge'. It is not philosophy.

GR is theoretical knowledge of physics.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (29) Jun 01, 2016
A physical theory is a body of knowledge that is rooted in observation.


Well of course.

Classical physics was rooted in observations as well as QT. The problem of finding a theoretical justification for quanta obviously extended beyond the empirical observation of the intensity/frequency data at the time. Planck introduced quanta on account of his methodology [statistical mechanics] not on account of physics understanding. In fact he did not believe that energy was in general quantized.

I don't disagree with Wiki's definition of noumenon,... it's just that it is incomplete and vague. One should only reference Kant use.

Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
Noumenon means as contrasted from phenomenon.
Phenomenon means event(s) in consensus reality. Those events have separate existence from the conceptions or sensory images formed in your mind or brain connected with them, as evidenced by the fact you can die (or sleep) and they will continue to occur according to the rest of us.

This is exactly the sort of self-swallowing solipsistic argument that everyone calls you a philosopher for, @Noum.

If you don't "believe in" consensus reality there is nothing to discuss with you.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
It wasn't Planck's Law, but Planck's Constant that opened that door. And the heuristic derivation was of the Constant, not the Law. If this is what you meant, then you are correct, as above.
I fail to see your points.
OK, I will answer as best I can hoping to clear them up for you.

Planck showed that the radiation of a black body implied quantisation.
This is a gross oversimplification; it was not accomplished in a single step even for Planck, but at minimum in two steps:
1. Planck's Law
2. Planck's Constant

That was the first step towards quantum mechanics.
Which? Or was it both? Or did it also require other steps, like Einstein's photoelectric effect paper?

It does not matter what he or anyone else at the time believed.
I never said nor even implied it did.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (29) Jun 01, 2016
It wasn't Planck's Law, but Planck's Constant that opened that door. And the heuristic derivation was of the Constant, not the Law. If this is what you meant, then you are correct, as above.

I fail to see your points. Planck showed that the radiation of a black body implied quantisation.


He is splitting hairs more than he is making points as usual. There is no Planck's Law without Planck's constant.

Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 01, 2016
Theoretical justification just means justified by theory (known physics),
"Known physics" includes both theories and experimentally verified facts. As such, an empirical hypothesis is justified by "known physics" just as much as a hypothesis advanced purely on theoretical grounds (such as a theorem, which is wholly derived from mathematical considerations). Both will require experimental testing before they are accepted as theories. This shows that in fact, experiment is vital to physics. Without it, theoretical physics is just more philosophy. With it, it's physics, not philosophy.

You just don't seem to get this.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
There is no Planck's Law without Planck's constant.
The original formulation of Planck's Law was:

Bˠ(T) = (Cγ⁻⁵)/(e^(c/γT)) - 1)

There is no "Planck's Constant" there; it's part of C, an empirically derived fitting constant in the formula. Planck's Constant was not even dreamed of when Planck advanced it in 1900.

You're making stuff up again, @Noum.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
A physical theory is a body of knowledge that is rooted in observation... So we disagree on this, too.
Actually a physical theory is a body of knowledge that is tested by observation, not necessarily rooted in it.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) Jun 01, 2016
Phenomenon means event(s) in consensus reality. Those events have separate existence from the conceptions or sensory images formed in your mind or brain connected with them, as evidenced by the fact you can die (or sleep) and they will continue


You're philosophizing from your couch.

Phenomenon means as observed, as experienced, as known. Dead people can't observe nor know anything.

All that consensus of phenomena means is that those minds that form the consensus have all evolved with the same capacities to do so.

"There is no way to remove the observer, us, from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception — and hence the observations upon which our theories are based is not direct, but rather is shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our brains" - S. Hawking

What Hawking is saying here is that phenomenon necessarily has a mind dependent component.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (28) Jun 01, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Sorry to intrude upon your conversation with Noumenon, Phys1, but I observe that you are all essentially in agreement on the central point which the discussion started from: that the science/theorizing method/process proceeds in steps and sometimes in reverse order or in giant leap of insight when a totally new issue is being recognized and treated by many minds in various ways, from either orthodox paradigm, or personal postulations from either observational, philosophical, theoretical or mathematical analysis...or a concurrent mixture of all these in the mind of the scientist/thinker concerned.

So your comment above, and an earlier comment effectively agreed with that, so you and Noumenon are on the same page and I can't see why the continuing antagonistic tones and semantics (especially when context is being disregarded) is being allowed to obscure the fact that all are agreed on what Noumenon said to CS originally.

A very interesting discussion! :)
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) Jun 01, 2016
There is no Planck's Law without Planck's constant.
The original formulation of Planck's Law was:

Bˠ(T) = (Cγ⁻⁵)/(e^(c/γT)) - 1)

There is no "Planck's Constant" there; it's part of C, an empirically derived fitting constant in the formula. Planck's Constant was not even dreamed of when Planck advanced it in 1900.

You're making stuff up again, @Noum.


More hair splitting. Original? There is no Planck's Law without Planck's constant.
Sheik_Yerbuti
Jun 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Sheik_Yerbuti
Jun 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2016
What Hawking is saying here is that phenomenon necessarily has a mind dependent component.
I disagree with "necessarily." And I disagree that's what Hawking meant.

There is no Planck's Law without Planck's constant.
According to the historical record Planck disagreed with you.

You know, that pesky reality thing.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (29) Jun 01, 2016
I couldn't fail to disagree with you less. But you still get a "1" for being a git about it


I don't know who you are or whether you are even a person as you have never actually said anything,... so what does it matter to me that you agree or do not agree? What is a git? Is that less or more as egregious as your behaviour toward me?

What Hawking is saying here is that phenomenon necessarily has a mind dependent component.
I disagree with "necessarily." And I disagree that's what Hawking meant.


We will have to disagree. I think that is precisely what he was saying, even though not referencing Noumenon / phenomenon distinction.

There is no Planck's Law without Planck's constant.
According to the historical record Planck disagreed with you.

You know, that pesky reality thing.


Not an important distinction though,.... the quanta was there all along.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
Not an important distinction though
The distinction between reality and imagination is not an important distinction according to this statement by you.

Sorry, this is just more lawyering. Booooooorrrrrrrrrring.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (29) Jun 01, 2016
What is a git? Is that less or more as egregious as your behaviour toward me?


It's short for igit, which is short for idiot, which is short for a person who doesn't play with others. It's a British Isles thing.


Ok, thank you. Does that mean that I am an annoyance to the sock-drawer? I was considering not posting anymore at phys.org given all the bickering, ..... but this may make it worthwhile to continue,... maybe ramp-up my right-winger ideology and my philosophy of physics.

I couldn't fail to disagree with you less.


This is the nicest convoluted thing that has come out of your sock-drawer to me. Thank you.

RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (28) Jun 01, 2016
Hi Sheik_Yerbuti (or if I may translate for American-English speakers: "Shake_Your_Booty"?) :)
Sorry to intrude upon your conversation
Not "sorry", "regret". This is a hobby horse of mine. "Sorry" means "I would do something different the next time". "Regret" means "I would do the same thing, but regret the consequences". You're not sorry because you would do it again.
While I admire your attention to semantical correctness in general, in this instance it would have been better informed if you had paid more attention to context. The "sorry" was in context meant as an "apology in advance" for the 'act of intrusion' itself. I neither regretted nor was sorry for any consequence from my apologetic and well intentioned intrusion; especially if the consequence was positive and helped dispel some of the unnecessary antagonism and cross-purpose out-of-context semantical distractions from the main point on which they essentially do agree despite the semantics etc. :)
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (29) Jun 01, 2016
Not an important distinction though
The distinction between reality and imagination is not an important distinction according to this statement by you.


You added that interpretation. I already confirmed such a distinction is important above. I meant, in the present discussion wrt Phys1 point.

Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
You added that interpretation.
No I didn't. You're making stuff up again, @Noum. Boooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (26) Jun 01, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Mate, I was hoping that you would have outgrown that tactic by now. You showed signs recently that you were dropping that dismally embarrassing tactic which you have long unfairly employed in the past; which only ever led you to more embarrassing backdowns because your certainty of correctness/strawmanning others were not proof against YOU being wrong (or at least argumentative and trollish with your adhoms and your antagonistic tone).

None of that is part of the Scientific Method or the Scientific Discourse Etiquette. Please tone it down; or better yet, drop it altogether; as it has brought you nothing but loss of respect because you act like this even when patently proven in the wrong based on known science (remember our past encounters where that tactic was of no avail against the known science facts, despite your obviously unfounded accusations of me being incorrect, lying, a troll etc? The upshot was always that you were incorrect. Play nice. :)
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
I was hoping that you would have outgrown that tactic by now.
It's not a tactic. It's the only answer to solipsistic horsepucky. Identify it, dismiss it, and move on. Your problem is that it's the only kind of argument you make, so if you admit this might be valid you're left with nothing.

If I bother to address you, all I get back is more horsepucky, and I note that you have not yet made any reasonable response to the Virial Theorem.

Go count your toes.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2016
A physical theory is a body of knowledge that is rooted in observation... So we disagree on this, too.
Actually a physical theory is a body of knowledge that is tested by observation, not necessarily rooted in it.

Rooted as in without roots it would fall, like a tree without roots.
Rooted in it as in derived from it. Which is what we were discussing. If you had said "supported by observation" I wouldn't have disagreed with you.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2016
There is no Planck's Law without Planck's constant.
The original formulation of Planck's Law was:

Bˠ(T) = (Cγ⁻⁵)/(e^(c/γT)) - 1)

There is no "Planck's Constant" there; it's part of C, an empirically derived fitting constant in the formula. Planck's Constant was not even dreamed of when Planck advanced it in 1900.

Who cares ? h is also "an empirically derived fitting constant" and the same as C up to some constants known from other empirical fits. Essential is that the _shape_ of Planck's law is _not_ a fit.
Errr, no.

You know a lot about physics, but you don't bother to check how it was originally derived. It's easier a lot of times to understand what it means if you know where it came from, as well as how we do it today.

Also, Planck's Constant isn't derived solely from blackbody experiments any more. We have far more sophisticated ways of measuring it now. And C isn't the same as h.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (24) Jun 01, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

You are confusing me with somebody else. My reality-based physics/maths TOE (and all my posts here) are aimed at REMOVING philosophical 'point' concept/axiom from the comological theory mathematics/modeling! Only thus can the theory have any chance of AVOIDING the otherwise presently inescapable 'singulaties' which current mathematical constructs keep throwing up and so preventing proper reality-physics-consistent COMPLETION of the cosmological model/theory.

So you are even wrong about who is saying what here!

Mate, it's excruciatingly obvious you are still only a SHORT way along a very long 'learning curve' re cosmology physics/arguments. You didn't know the Virial Theorem based argument for hypothesized DM distribution. In past instances you didn't know about NON_Keplerian orbital regimes (you accused me of lying, until you read up and found out I was not). You never knew there were plasma flux tubes, plasmoids etc in/on sun!

Tone it down, mate. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2016
What matters is that discrete quanta of energy were implied to explain the observations. This radical step constitutes the conception, not yet the birth, of quantum mechanics, whether those involved in the conception were aware of it or not.
They weren't initially implied; they weren't to be conceived of for years yet when Planck's Law was conceived.

This is like claiming that the 23 (is it still 23?) free parameters of the SM are "implicit in" the SM, when in fact no one has yet derived them using any known theory of physics. I might accept "nascent in," but for a doubly-derived parameter to an equation that was chosen to fit experimental results? No, man. No way. Could we see Planck's Law as formulated in 1900 was incomplete? Sure we could. Can we see the SM is incomplete? Sure we can. That doesn't mean that quantum physics was somehow "implicit in" it, any more than whatever we come up with to explain those 23 free parameters of the SM will be "implicit in" the SM.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2016
@ Da Schneib-Skippy and @ Phys1-Skippy. It would be nice if the other peoples would argue the way you two to do. I learn a lot from that, thanks.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2016
I originally learned it from Asimov's "History of Physics," actually the predecessor which was the third volume of his "Understanding Physics" series, "The Electron, Proton, and Neutron," all of which were later combined with material from "The Neutrino" and released as a single volume. But Wikipedia has researched material, available at https://en.wikipe...#History and much of the material I cribbed was from section 6.2 and following.

As I said, Planck himself started talking about his constant about 1905 or so; by 1910, people were talking about quantizing light, but it took until 1924 or so before the first quantum theory really caught hold; that was Bose's theory, the beginnings of Bose-Einstein statistics which we use today to talk about quantized light. But you should really read the Wikipedia article to put it all in perspective; I learned some new stuff myself researching it. Enjoy!
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2016
@Ira, I value that. Thanks!
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2016
@Ira, I value that. Thanks!


Non thanks necessary. You guys both kept focused and worked to understand each other, that works. That's why I can not have any fun with you guys, I learn a lot. But you are to rational to have fun with so I just sit back and think about what you two was talking about. It was about the idea and not the "me".
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 01, 2016
Well, I hope you're having fun sitting back and thinking. ;)
Mimath224
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2016
@Da Schneib yes also at https://en.wikipe...constant '...Planck was able to calculate the value of h from experimental data on black-body radiation: his result, 6.55×10−34 J⋅s, is within 1.2%....
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2016
1.2% is not bad, considering the measuring technology for both temperature in the cavity and energy at various points on the spectrum that they had at the time. The original paper is available here: http://axion.phys...901.html
and the final values are at the bottom; Planck used erg-seconds, which accounts for the difference in the exponent.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (19) Jun 02, 2016
If you provided a link or countered the cranks with facts, then this is precisely what I suggested above as being more effective than stating [incompletely] what the scientific method is
@Nou
this is what i do most of the time
everyone loses patience... and i don't like when they're blatantly stupid
As demonstrated with examples, science is not as clean cut and direct with strict guidelines as you suggested.... a hypothesis may not be preceded by evidence
re-read the chart again...

in order to make a hypothesis you must first have some observation or knowledge that causes you to speculate, hypothesize and then test or experiment, which is evidence, verbalized, written or otherwise
Dead people can't observe nor know anything
and they're also not part of a consensus - (unless there is an election, that is - LOL)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (20) Jun 02, 2016
Not "sorry", "regret" ..."Regret" means "I would do the same thing, but regret the consequences"
@Sheik_Yerbuti
she has no regrets either - it is one of her favorite pastimes

in fact, it is an attention seeking device - see all further comments from that point and watch how she intentionally turns it into an attempt to force her specific brand of personal beliefs and morality
(like the thought police)
also read this WRT rc: http://outofthefo...mization

http://www.yourli...artid=65

if you follow her profile here on PO you will notice that she argues for "Scientific Discourse Etiquette" while refusing to provide the basic most important ingredient: evidence

i would show you her personal earthling club page, but i don't want you to cry (or hate me for sending you there - LOL)

Enjoy - and love the moniker
PEACE
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (23) Jun 02, 2016
in order to make a hypothesis you must first have some observation or knowledge that causes you to speculate, hypothesize and then test or experiment, which is evidence, verbalized, written or otherwise


Yes, of course. The point was that the point of a hypothesis, or a postulate, or a starting premise, is a point-of-departure that may not be entirely justified from evidence a-priori.

Dead people can't observe nor know anything


and they're also not part of a consensus


Which does not matter to the point made. I've heard the "consensus" argument before,.... it is only a consequence that we are constituted for acquiring knowledge via evolution in the same way. As I stated above, there is an objective reality,... it is just that the distinction made between phenomenon and noumenon is one of a conceptual layer which we supply as an a-priori necessary means of acquiring knowledge [see Hawking quote],... so that Noumenon is conceptually formless
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (23) Jun 02, 2016
... and this way of thinking (positivist of which Hawking has stated he is , as opposed to realist), seems implicit in QM and was the original Heisenberg and (eventually) Bohr (Copenhagen) point of view,.... that the underlying Realty is conceptually formless so that the act of observation adds the conceptual form; It is only a particle or a wave to the extent that the apparatus is designed to detect it that way (the allowed history in CHI), and there is no non-metaphysical way of saying it IS a particle or it IS a wave independent of experiment. The particular attributes don't exist apart from observation, they are created at observation. This is not "my crack pot" opinion only it is shared by many prominent physicists.

[I am not the one who first interjected philosophy in this thread]
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (23) Jun 02, 2016
....Another hint of this is the fact that it is possible to have predictive-knowledge without intuitive-understanding (where Kant was wrong), so rather than our a-priori concepts ensuring intuitive knowledge, in QM, they are exposed as an artificial synthesis.

EDIT; "the logically consistent history in CHI" .
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (15) Jun 02, 2016
The point was that the point of a hypothesis, or a postulate, or a starting premise, is a point-of-departure that may not be entirely justified from evidence a-priori
@Nou
then you should have clarified this earlier because i was specifically responding to the comment
CapStumpy, is akin to those "religious cranks",… in not attempting to counter given [crank-]hypothesis, but rather objecting to them even-being-made, simply on the basis of his own misapprehended thought of knowledge,….. i.e. that evidence should precede hypothesis
now whether you take it as a whole in context, or simply take the last 4 words, it means the same. "evidence doesn't precede a hypothesis"

... however the only way to make a hypothesis is to first have an observation (evidence) to extrapolate from and eventually test, thus, per my point (repeated) there must be evidence to formulate a hypothesis

that is not my "misapprehended thought of knowledge" - it is fact. 2Bcont'd
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016
@Noum, reconcile this:
It is only a particle or a wave to the extent that the apparatus is designed to detect it that way (the allowed history in CHI), and there is no non-metaphysical way of saying it IS a particle or it IS a wave independent of experiment.
with the fact that we see individual particle impacts on a CCD (or for that matter a phosphor screen), but the collection of impacts over time obeys a wave equation (interference).

The detected phenomenon is neither a particle nor a wave; these distinctions which seem so clear-cut to us in the classical physics that we see around us simply do not exist at the size and time scales that quantum interactions define. It is simply something different, that partakes of the characteristics of both.

You avoided this question in the Shroedinger's Cat thread.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (17) Jun 02, 2016
@Nou cont'd
so, then you finally agree to the point
Yes, of course
so that remains to explain the reasoning for the whole problem or argument

there are only a few possibilities:
1- communication problems
2- physical problems
3- natural problems
there were no internet outages, so 3 is out
i don't have a missing brain, and you don't either, unless we're not being told something - like tumors (this is 2)
that leaves (1)

why are we not able to communicate?
this goes to DaSchneib's comments and elsewhere... IMHO you are entering the science with the philo perspective, which can affect how you perceive what is written
OR
you're here to troll/fight

given your adamant attempts to "prove yourself" as mentioned above by DaS... i consider the former the likeliest possibility - it's hard to communicate when person A is literal and trained in science when person B is being metaphorical or subjective when /A/ requires technical specifics over subjective interpretations
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2016
@Noum Let me try this another way:

Our instruments can show us particles, that is, localized phenomena with a specific and very small uncertainty in position and time. (Note that position and time are not complementary under Heisenberg uncertainty.) We can see the events of individual interactions of these particles. So how can the particles not be "real," whatever we mean when we say "real?" We can directly detect them, with CCDs, phosphor screens, bubble chambers, cloud chambers, Geiger counters, etc.

When we add up these events, these interactions, these particles, we get phenomena that only are explainable by wave interactions, specifically interference. We can see the interference in the integration of the particle phenomena over time. So if we see interference, how can the waves not be "real?" We can directly detect them, using any of the above methods, integrated over time.

So are the particles "real," or are the waves "real," or both?
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2016
[contd]
You have claimed the waves "are not real." This is not consistent with the available evidence (i.e. interference). It's not reasonable to postulate negative particles (and I don't mean antimatter, that's just more particles and makes the same sort of traces in our instruments that matter does). There simply isn't any such thing that can cancel the existence of a particle or antiparticle without resulting in some other particles. The only thing that does this is waves.

Until you abandon your preconceived notions based on philosophy without any grounding in experimental data, you will not be able to explain this. That's why I keep pointing it out.

Why you keep avoiding dealing with this massive unavoidable paradox introduced by your solipsism and insistence that quantum reality must be the same as classical reality is entirely another question, and I'm not sure I agree with the Cap'n here.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (16) Jun 02, 2016
Why you keep avoiding dealing with this massive unavoidable paradox introduced by your solipsism and insistence that quantum reality must be the same as classical reality is entirely another question, and I'm not sure I agree with the Cap'n here
@DaSchneib
always open to new input...
by all means, feel free to expound or share! thanks

I just figured the best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time
so the best way to address large problems ....
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2016
Cap'n, my only disagreement is on whether it's simply misunderstanding or outright trolling to get attention no matter whether it's negative or positive. If I intended to disagree with your methods I'd address you directly, my friend: you would listen! ;)
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016
The 'particles' are very small, much smaller than the QM wave functions. The small things must be more real than the QM wave functions.
Actually I think I disagree here; I think particle uncertainty is position vs. momentum, and I think wave uncertainty is energy vs. time. And I note that both uncertainties seem to sum to Planck's Constant.

Let me put this another way: "particle" is defined more by position than momentum; as a result we tend in our measurement apparatus to emphasize position, and leave momentum to flap in the wind. If we insisted upon momentum measurements, we would get a far greater uncertainty in position than our current measurement techniques show. Similarly, when we measure waves we emphasize energy over time; as a result, we get a much more diffuse position for them due to the time uncertainty.

Given the uncertainty in particle position, I think that "smaller" might not actually agree with real results. What is your opinion?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (18) Jun 02, 2016
....Another hint of this is the fact that it is possible to have predictive-knowledge without intuitive-understanding (where Kant was wrong), so rather than our a-priori concepts ensuring intuitive knowledge, in QM, they are exposed as an artificial synthesis.

EDIT; "the logically consistent history in CHI" .
...

As kant had no knowledge of quantum mechanics, anything he had to say about 'the nature of knowledge' in regard to it, which is what youre continually trying to sell, is nonsense.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (19) Jun 02, 2016
"Kant originated the technique required to sell irrational notions to the men of a skeptical, cynical age who have formally rejected mysticism without grasping the rudiments of rationality. The technique is as follows: if you want to propagate an outrageously evil idea (based on traditionally accepted doctrines), your conclusion must be brazenly clear, but your proof unintelligible. Your proof must be so tangled a mess that it will paralyze a reader's critical faculty—a mess of evasions, equivocations, obfuscations, circumlocutions, non sequiturs, endless sentences leading nowhere, irrelevant side issues, clauses, sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses, a meticulously lengthy proving of the obvious, and big chunks of the arbitrary thrown in as self-evident, erudite references to sciences, to pseudo-sciences, to the never-to-be-sciences, to the untraceable and the unprovable—all of it resting on a zero: the absence of definitions. I offer in evidence the Critique of Pure Reason."
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (21) Jun 02, 2016
@Noum, reconcile this:
It is only a particle or a wave to the extent that the apparatus is designed to detect it that way (the allowed history in CHI), and there is no non-metaphysical way of saying it IS a particle or it IS a wave independent of experiment.
with the fact that we see individual particle impacts on a CCD (or for that matter a phosphor screen), but the collection of impacts over time obeys a wave equation (interference).

The detected phenomenon is neither a particle nor a wave; these distinctions which seem so clear-cut to us in the classical physics that we see around us simply do not exist at the size and time scales that quantum interactions define. It is simply something different, that partakes of the characteristics of both.


I fail to see how you disagree with me. You seem to have summerized what I posted above fairly well.....

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (21) Jun 02, 2016
The detected phenomenon is neither a particle nor a wave - DaSchneib


the underlying Realty is conceptually formless [...] It is only a particle or a wave to the extent that the apparatus is designed to detect it that way - Noumenon


these distinctions which seem so clear-cut to us in the classical physics that we see around us simply do not exist at the size and time scales that quantum interactions define- DaSchneib


The particular attributes don't exist apart from observation, they are created at observation. - Noumenon
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (25) Jun 02, 2016
@Noum reconcile this:
It is only a particle or a wave to the extent that the apparatus is designed to detect it that way [...] and there is no non-metaphysical way of saying it IS a particle or it IS a wave independent of experiment.

with the fact that we see individual particle impacts on a CCD (or for that matter a phosphor screen), but the collection of impacts over time obeys a wave equation (interference).


Did you not see "independent of experiment" in that post? Otherwise I don't understand the objection.

I will not respond to your next posts until these points are cleared up,... i.e. where is the disagreement given what I posted.

Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (19) Jun 02, 2016
however the only way to make a hypothesis is to first have an observation (evidence) to extrapolate from and eventually test, thus, per my point (repeated) there must be evidence to formulate a hypothesis


There must be a legitimate theoretical problem for which one would make a hypothesis ... so to this extent, yes, there would be empirical evidence for the given problem,... but not necessarily for the hypothesis.

I'm not sticking up for the water-surface and EU cranks,... I'm only saying that facts are more effective than telling people the scientific method,.... which you do a lot.

As kant had no knowledge of quantum mechanics


I did not say he did. Can you article an objection to something I posted or are you expecting me to debate the internet again?
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (25) Jun 02, 2016
Hi Noumenon. :)
...It is only a particle or a wave to the extent that the apparatus is designed to detect it that way...
Natural examples of 'detecting-apparatus-dependent' perception/conceptualization occurs in biophysical 'sensing/interpreting' system; wherein 'specialized apparatus' cannot 'output' any 'signal/response/interpretation' in a form other than that for which it naturally evolved to 'present'.

Examples:

1) A blow to the head OR severe internal inflammation/pressure on the optic nerve OR progressive deterioration of brain's visual sensory, can result in you 'seeing stars' or other illusory 'imagery'; even in pitch black conditions when the optics/nerves/brain not actually receiving any normal light signal 'visual cues' at all!

2) In extremis late stage of Hypothermia death process, the 'signals' from dying temperature-related nerve cells may be 'misinterpreted' as 'overheating', and the person may even try to discard clothing in response!

Just an FYI. :)
Otto_Szucks
1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2016
LOL

It's not anger, it's ridicule for your obvious attempts at trying to construct an argument by stringing unrelated concepts together.

It no workie like that. Get it?
- DaSchneibo

LOL
ursiny33 is just another one of Theghostofotto1923's sock puppets. Otto has done this kind of disconnected smatterings of gobbledegook off and on in many threads to get someone like you to act surprised that anyone could talk stupid shit in Physorg.
You fell for it...again....congratulations
LMAO (smirk)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2016
@Noum,

The detected phenomenon is neither a particle nor a wave - DaSchneib

the underlying Realty is conceptually formless [...] It is only a particle or a wave to the extent that the apparatus is designed to detect it that way - Noumenon
Just because it's neither a particle nor a wave doesn't mean it's "conceptually formless." In fact, it's not; we have math that can give it form, though we cannot imagine that form except in terms of things we already know: particles and waves. We therefore talk about how it's like a wave in this manner, and like a particle in that manner, but (unless we're playing logic games) we know that it's neither. It is its own thing, a quantum phenomenon, which we can never see or touch or even directly imagine.

"Conceptually formless" is where we part ways, you and I: to my mind, you give up and throw up your hands, whereas I try to figure out what the logic is that these things follow.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016
[contd]
The second point is, "particle" and "wave" aren't just a priori concepts we've randomly chosen to describe classical physics; they're fundamental descriptions of that physics, but those descriptions are incompatible with quantum reality. This in turn means that the instruments we use to probe that reality ultimately must report to us in wave-and-particle form because that's all we can see or imagine. That doesn't invalidate the quantum reality they report, though. It just means we have to compensate conceptually for their limitations.

That's a start; I'm too fuddled today to do better than that. I'll be back.
Otto_Szucks
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 02, 2016
Although I do not understand what would drive the second to interact with the former
@Techno
it's not so much to "interact" with the former as to advocate for something that is provable, IMHO
(IOW- the scientific method)
if you allow the pseudoscience to propagate, it spreads and gains credibility simply by location and the refusal of those who actually understand to refute it
(this is how many laymen or the scientifically illiterate will actually see it)

... so unless there is a refute, it's a valid concept to someone who is scientifically illiterate... and there are people out there who actually can't comprehend the scientific method (see: eu advocates, jvk, verkle, zephir, obama_socks now aka otto_szucks among other socks, etc)

https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE
- stumpfrump
You talk a good talk, but you still say nothing wrt your ACTUAL COMPREHENSION of science & what you have retained in memory, w/o resorting to Wiki. You are dishonest.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016
I have sound unpublished arguments but putting them here is not my idea of publishing. I am quite willing to share my arguments with you on a person to person basis.
Unfortunately I can't see a way for us to correspond without giving out more personally identifying information than I care to on this forum. I don't have a trash email account that I'd like to get spam from RC or Zephir on. If you know a way then pass it along and I'll check it out. I wouldn't recommend you put any PII on here either, though, so think it through first.

I think particle uncertainty is position vs. momentum, and I think wave uncertainty is energy vs. time. And I note that both uncertainties seem to sum to Planck's Constant.
That is all true but it describes the wave function, not the femtometer sized particle itself.
Hmmm, I think that the position/momentum pair is particle-like, not wave-like. It doesn't really make sense to talk about the "position" of a wave.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (25) Jun 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib, Noumenon, Phys1. :)

It's good to see discussion between you becoming more polite and constructive/informative by the day. Good stuff! :)

AN OBSERVATION: There is a whole qualitative difference between US 'knowing' our/things' instantaneous position/momentum, and the Universe ITSELF 'knowing' (or 'having'?) its own natural extant 'states' of BOTH position AND momentum of ALL its 'constituent parts at ALL scales/times.

Eg: A sailor on the open ocean hasn't the equipment/signpost 'cues' etc to 'know' what his velocity is with respect to landmarks 'beyond the ocean horizon' (which in the case of the universe may be infinitely far away)....BUT...just because a sailor 'cannot know' what his position/speed etc may be with respect to the ocean as a whole beyond visual horizon, it doesn't necessarily follow that in the extant probably INFINITE UNIVERSAL system there isn't some overall systemic 'absolute instantaneous position/momentum information' INHERENT to it? :)
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (25) Jun 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
I don't have a trash email account that I'd like to get spam from RC or Zephir on.
Mate, it's that kind of 'throwaway line' cheap shot that detracts from your otherwise good/proper respect for truth/persons. In case you missed it over all these years, I am scrupulously independent, objective, lone researcher who eschews all associations/connections with other commentators/groups/gangs etc because it would compromise my hard won, constantly demonstrated, impartiality, objectivity and independence. So please do not again 'include me' in your 'groupings' of 'internet others' of whatever kind. My record shows that I am one of the FEW here who has NEVER 'played 'games' with people or the site's ratings/communications facilities. Your 'concern' would be better aimed at those of your own "my friend" types who HAVE not only done all that and boasted about it, but ALSO stalked and harassed others over the internet. PLease be more discerning in future. Ta. :)
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2016
OK, a little less fuddled now.

@Noum:
these distinctions which seem so clear-cut to us in the classical physics that we see around us simply do not exist at the size and time scales that quantum interactions define- DaSchneib

The particular attributes don't exist apart from observation, they are created at observation. - Noumenon
And here again, we disagree. The position is not "created" at any time. Because quantum phenomena obey uncertainty, their positions in the absence of interaction with another quantum phenomenon are a range of probabilities; but at the point where they interact, they can be localized to whatever degree of precision is desired. The statement that position is "created at observation" is therefore incorrect.

This difference in our views is due to the fact that you do not accept the Born Rule as a fundamental description of quantum reality. Probability is not merely all we know, it is all we *can* know in the absence of interaction.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2016
it's that kind of 'throwaway line' cheap shot that detracts from your otherwise good/proper respect for truth/persons
@RC, respond to being pwnt on your horsepucky about "non-Keplerian orbits." Both by finding out that they are powered orbits, and to the Virial Theorem.

I have no intention of handing out my email address to a psycho.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (24) Jun 02, 2016
The detected phenomenon is neither a particle nor a wave - DaSchneib

the underlying Realty is conceptually formless [...] It is only a particle or a wave to the extent that the apparatus is designed to detect it that way - Noumenon

Just because it's neither a particle nor a wave doesn't mean it's "conceptually formless." In fact, it's not; we have math that can give it form, though we cannot imagine that form except in terms of things we already know: particles and waves.


Yes, this is what I said above by "We add conceptual form". The capital R in Reality was to reference reality as it exists independently of "we".

It is its own thing, a quantum phenomenon, which we can never see or touch or even directly imagine.


Yes, by "the underlying Realty" is meant "an objective albeit unknowable reality independent of mind",… and therefore which is the sense in which I mean "conceptually formless".

Quotations " " are from posts I made above.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (13) Jun 02, 2016
Let's just have the list of absolute crap @RC posted on the simulation thread, here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

The List:
Yellow curve going up, dotted curve going down.
Dotted curve goes up.
"Merely 'believing'", "emotional," "blind," "ego-tripping," "don't get it," and "bad habits."
"Ring" and "Gap."
"Spherical" spiral galaxies.
"Non-Keplerian" orbits.
Non-inverse square gravity.
M33 "super-massive" black hole.
"Spherical" central bulges in spiral galaxies.
Spiral galaxies are flat because they have central bulges.
Galactic "orbitals."
Spiral arms are "rings."
I never say you're right.
Just because you're right once you're always right.
Dotted curve doesn't go up.
Nucleus of M33 is 10kly wide.
Orbital velocity is the same as rotational velocity.
Orbital velocity and rotational velocity can be measured by "wavelengths."
The observed rotational velocity curve of a galaxy is calculated.
"disc mass region"
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016
Yes, this is what I said above by "We add conceptual form". The capital R in Reality was to reference reality as it exists independently of "we".
But this is true of everything, both quantum and classical physics. You're staring at your navel and calling it a black hole again. Your argument eats itself: you are arguing both that reality does not exist, and that there's some Reality that exists. Make up your ever lovin' mind. This is why I despise philosophy. You can argue any damn thing because it's not connected to reality and never was.

Yes, by "the underlying Realty" is meant "an objective albeit unknowable reality independent of mind",… and therefore which is the sense in which I mean "conceptually formless".
First, it's not "unknowable." We can describe it mathematically.

Second, it's not "objective" unless it's consensus reality which you already said you don't believe in, though in the next breath you said you did.
[contd]
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (24) Jun 02, 2016
"Conceptually formless" is where we part ways, you and I: to my mind, you give up and throw up your hands, whereas I try to figure out what the logic is that these things follow.


No, we are simply using different language. I still do not see where we disagree in fact. You will need to reread my posts and try to articulate this difference before I can respond further.

"Conceptually formless", referred to Reality as it exists independent from our knowledge. So, if the "underlying Reality" is neither a particle nor a wave [I statement I have made for years at PO and evidently you concur] then de facto, it is "conceptually-formless",... that is, WITHOUT THE "conceptual layer which we supply as an a-priori necessary means of acquiring knowledge [see Hawking quote]".

This is simply epistemic logic.

Our posts are overlapping which makes it even harder to maintain a rational discussion. I will wait until you address the most points.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2016
[contd]
Third, it's not "conceptually formless." It's described by mathematics.

Fourth, this is another self-swallowing argument, exemplified by "objective but unknowable." It can't be objective if it's unknowable, because no one can objectify what they cannot know.

Again, philosophy as you practice it, which is by lawyering and making arguments disconnected from consensus reality, is completely useless in analyzing physics. Yet again the Sokal Affair rears its ugly head.

On edit: you will need to examine your premises, which you have consistently refused to do because you insist you have to be right. I don't really care if you respond or not; your responses are generally devoid of meaning because you deny consensus reality and assert it in the same sentence. More lawyering and solipsism. This approach is totally useless in analyzing or discussing physics.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (25) Jun 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
it's that kind of 'throwaway line' cheap shot that detracts from your otherwise good/proper respect for truth/persons
@RC, respond to being pwnt on your horsepucky about "non-Keplerian orbits." Both by finding out that they are powered orbits, and to the Virial Theorem
Who "pwned" who? Have you not realized yet that gravitational effects in the galaxy disc distribution are NON_Keplerian even in the absense of any extraneous applied 'power' from e-m or kinetic impact/pressure forces etc? How can you still 'believe' you "pwned" anyone in that exchange (where you started out not even knowing NON-Keplerian orbital regimes/term even existed in the physics literature/lexicon)?

And you also didn't even KNOW about the virial theorem! And I already explained how it doesn't 'work' for DM 'clumping'.
I have no intention of handing out my email address....
Who asked you for it? Not me, mate! Don't want it; don't need it. So, thanks but no thanks. :)
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016
Have you not realized yet that gravitational effects in the galaxy disc distribution are NON_Keplerian even in the absense of any extraneous applied 'power' from e-m or kinetic impact/pressure forces etc?
Virial Theorem.

Your only answers are a bunch more logic chopping. This is why I don't trust you. This is why no one does.

Humans have evolved over millions of years to detect cheating, in fact it's a well developed mechanism in all social mammals. You are cheating and until you stop you'll continue to be detected. Grow up.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (23) Jun 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Have you not realized yet that gravitational effects in the galaxy disc distribution are NON_Keplerian even in the absense of any extraneous applied 'power' from e-m or kinetic impact/pressure forces etc?
Virial Theorem.
You posted that unadorned term as if you are exp-laining anything different from what I have explained for your benefit already. Consider: That virial theorem related dynamics is what produces the DISC of ORDINARY matter is exactly applicable; and resulting disc distribution is what produces NON_Keplerian orbits/motions within that disc. I already explained that to you.

The OTHER issue was that virial theorem dynamics was assumed to also explain NON_Baryonic DM (sometimes referred to by cosmologists as 'exotic' DM). I already pointed out how that virial theorem assumption/interpretation does not 'work' for that DM (its speedy/energetic constituents don't have any E-M/Collision energy-shedding means).

Read/Learn more, mate. :)
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (20) Jun 02, 2016
This difference in our views is due to the fact that you do not accept the Born Rule as a fundamental description of quantum reality.


Where did you get this information? This is false. I have never said that I don't accept the Born rule. I do in fact.

it's consensus reality which you already said you don't believe in


Where did I say that? I never said this. Where did you get this from? I said consensus only confirms that we are all constituted for observation the same given from evolution,... thus that it does not dispute the original point made.

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2016
Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

@RC never changes its strategy.

Draw your own conclusions.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (16) Jun 02, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are? I am good and made it to California with non trouble.

Cher, why you don't move over to the Scientists-Are-Suggesting-Something-About-The-Black-Holes article with me. I am not really very busy, everybody else went out to do some touristy sort of stuffs I don't care much for.

Da Schneib-Skippy and Noumemon-Skippy are kind of busy talking about some important things and probably don't want you distracting them with your "scientists and humans" stuffs. I got a couple of hours if you just looking for someone to fool around with and doing diligence with. If you don't want to do that, then maybe you should sit this one out and leave them to sort it out because you might interrupt their trains of thinking.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (20) Jun 02, 2016
you are arguing both that reality does not exist, and that there's some Reality that exists


I have argued no such thing. You are not putting an effort in, in reading my posts, and are beginning to make accusations and characterizations.

The basis of my argument is the effect-of the act of knowing [see Hawking quote],…. i.e. that we add the conceptual structure as a necessary condition for acquiring knowledge. Reality, as it exists independent of our knowledge-of-it, is Objectively Real as stated above,…. As is our knowledge-of-it, phenomenal reality. What is this difference then? Answer, conceptual-form,… it is not a particle nor a wave, but only one or the other to the extent that the experimental arrangement is designed to detect is as such or allows for such an conceptual inference/ mathematical expression.

I will have to end this for now unless I see that you have unplugged your blender.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016
@Noum
I have never said that I don't accept the Born rule. I do in fact.
OK, then tell us what it means. For starters.

Yes I'm backing you into a corner, when you claim reality exists and doesn't exist in the same sentence I see little choice.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (25) Jun 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib.
..absolute crap @RC posted..
Yellow curve going up, dotted curve going down.
Dotted curve goes up.
"Merely 'believing'", "emotional," "blind," "ego-tripping," "don't get it," and "bad habits."
"Ring" and "Gap."
"Spherical" spiral galaxies.
"Non-Keplerian" orbits.
Non-inverse square gravity.
M33 "super-massive" black hole.
"Spherical" central bulges in spiral galaxies.
Spiral galaxies are flat because they have central bulges.
Galactic "orbitals."
Spiral arms are "rings."
I never say you're right.
Just because you're right once you're always right.
Dotted curve doesn't go up.
Nucleus of M33 is 10kly wide.
Orbital velocity is the same as rotational velocity.
Orbital velocity and rotational velocity can be measured by "wavelengths."
The observed rotational velocity curve of a galaxy is calculated.
"disc mass region"
You were given the context/known science explanations. You made assumptive/interpretational errors, but attribute them to me. WTF? :)
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (20) Jun 02, 2016
I have never said that I don't accept the Born rule. I do in fact.


OK, then tell us what it means. For starters.


How will me telling you what it means, answer the question about where you got the information that I don't accept the Born rule?

It is an probability interpretation of the wavefunction in the Schrodinger equation.... |ψ|². We have discussed this many times in various threads, so how is it possible that you think I don't accept this?

when you claim reality exists and doesn't exist in the same sentence


This is purely your own misapprehension, as I have said no such thing.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2016
@Ira, whereabouts are you?

If you are in San Francisco go to the Fisherman's Wharf Aquarium of the Bay and the Steinhart Aquarium, and be sure to check out the rest of the stuffs in Golden Gate Park. Eat at the Cliffhouse and get a window seat.

If in Monterey, definitely see the Monterey Bay Aquarium and eat at The Whaling Station, and be sure to take a hike at Point Lobos.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (25) Jun 02, 2016
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)

Ok, I'll give it one more go at persuading you to see reason and stop your 'noise': Here is a very pertinent remark made by Phys1 in reply to Da Schneib:
I have sound unpublished arguments but putting them here is not my idea of publishing. I am quite willing to share my arguments with you on a person to person basis.
Now CapS, do you understand how that same REASON is even MORE applicable when it comes to MY understandable and necessary RETICENCE to post much DETAILED explanations BEFORE I DO publish my ToE work COMPLETE?

Please say you now give me at least as much consideration as you would give to Phys1 for refrain from posting certain original/novel scientific detail on the net at this time. :)

As for providing evidence for what I HAVE posted, please refer to relevant exchanges with Da Schneib in recent times: You will find I provided KNOWN SCIENCE evidence/explanations; and Da Schneib had to finally (bravely) admit he erred, not me. :)
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016
It is an probability interpretation of the wavefunction in the Schrodinger equation...
Nope.

when you claim reality exists and doesn't exist in the same sentence
This is purely your own misapprehension, as I have said no such thing.

an objective albeit unknowable reality


Lawyering again, typical @Noum. Sorry, I see little point in this.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (20) Jun 02, 2016
It is [a] probability interpretation of the wavefunction in the Schrodinger equation.... | ψ | ²

Nope.


"If we are given a wave function ψ for a single structureless particle in position space, this reduces to saying that the probability density function p(x,y,z) for a measurement of the position at time t0 will be given by p(x,y,z) = | ψ(x,y,z,t0)| ² " – Wiki Born Rule

Stop being ridiculous.

-I have not said that I don't accept the Born rule.

-I have not claimed reality exists and doesn't exist.

-I have not said that I don't believe in consensus reality.

You're degenerating again.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016
The Born Rule says that superposition is a real state; that is, if you see an interaction, the outcomes are determined probabilistically, not deterministically. To state it another way, between interactions, the state of a propagating particle need not be a classical state but can be a quantum state, and the probabilities inherent in such a state cannot be reduced to a definite outcome until an interaction that reduces the uncertainty occurs.

Accepting the Born Rule means that you accept that particles need not have a definite state on parameters complementary under uncertainty when they are not interacting.

This is simply and straightforwardly demonstrated in the three-polarizers experiment.

I have not said that I don't believe in consensus reality.

an objective albeit unknowable reality

Stop lawyering, @Noum.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (24) Jun 02, 2016
Why are you telling me this? I just told you what the Born Rule is and then you said "nope" and proceeded to say the same thing, just with more words. Who are you trying to fool?

I am the one who explained Hilbert Space to you which you did not know of, so of course I know what the Born Rule is.

The question that was posed, is where did you get the notion that I did not accept the Born Rule?

I have not said that I don't believe in consensus reality.

an objective albeit unknowable reality


What is the specific point of quoting these two statements? What is your point here? What are you attempting you imply by this?

You are degenerating into accusations again, and have claimed at least three statements I have never uttered nor implied nor believe.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (26) Jun 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
My sentiments exactly. I have kept reminding you that you always do the same thing when you are sensing defeat in a scientific argument: you start asserting "I'm right, you're wrong"; you're "making stuff up"; you're "lying"...and fashion strawmen/false attributions which you then 'offer' as 'proof' that you are "right" and your interlocutor "wrong" and needs to "learn physics"...etc. Then when you are finally prioved in error, you make a last ditch 'in denial' effort to mischaracterize your opponent/their arguments, calling them "insane" or "troll" etc, and use that to try and 'exit the exchange' without admitting your error.

That repetitive pattern of behavior qualifies for your posted definition of insanity. BUT, I DO give you credit for sometimes bravely admitting error, EVENTUALLY.
RC never changes its strategy
..of posting known science, politely. :)
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016
I just told you what the Born Rule is and then you said "nope" and proceeded to say the same thing, just with more words.
No, and the fact you claim it's "the same thing" is exactly the problem.

You're lawyering again, @Noum.

I have not said that I don't believe in consensus reality.
an objective albeit unknowable reality
What is the specific point of quoting these two statements?
They're logically irreconcilable and they're both your own statements.

You're lawyering again, @Noum.

It's more important to you that you "prove you're right" than that you actually be right. You continue to refuse to examine your premises and this is the clearest possible demonstration of your fundamental dishonesty. The Cap'n thinks you misunderstand; I disagree and think you dissimulate. You are currently proving I'm correct.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016
My sentiments exactly.
Standard @RC logic: if accused of something accuse the accuser of the same thing.

Transparent to a twelve-year-old and obviously dishonest. Totally ignorant of human dishonesty detection instincts and immature.

Why no one trusts you.

Just so you know, @RC, this is the same technique used by the Bush administration to justify attacking Iraq for something a Saudi living in Afghanistan did.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 02, 2016
@Ira, whereabouts are you?


We are in Southern California. Mrs-Ira and Little-Ira has always wanted to see Disney's Land, and her sister and her kid too. And Hollywood and Malibu Beach. I'll go one day to the Disney's Land, but I am not a big fan of those kinds of things.

I want to see the Museum Ships and have for a long time. They have the most Museum Ships in an area than just about anywhere else.

HMS Queen Mary Long Beach
ST-695 Angels Gate (Army Tug) San Pedro
USS Iowa (Battleship) San Pedro
SS Lane Victory (Victory Ship) San Pedro
USS Midway (Aircraft Carrier) San Diego
B-39 (Soviet Submarine) San Diego
USS Dolphin (Submarine) San Diego
HMS Star of India (Sailing Ship) San Diego

And a few others too but I am running out of letters spaces. Plus I brought my radios with me and plan to spend a few days working remote and portable from a couple places.

Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016
@Ira, ahhh, outside my stomping grounds. Enjoy! Your visits sound like fun.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (26) Jun 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
My sentiments exactly.
Standard @RC logic: if accused of something accuse the accuser of the same thing.

Transparent to a twelve-year-old and obviously dishonest. Totally ignorant of human dishonesty detection instincts and immature.

Why no one trusts you
See! You just did it again! You made the accusation without proper justification (except for your obviously self-serving mischaracterization and in-denial motivation). Then when I point out that your accusation/msicharacterization etc is FLAWED because it was the accuser who fit that definition much better than I ever could, you resort to continuing your obviously childish 'in denial' attempt at painting me as the one not to "trust" in all this. How you can do this when the record is so plainly on my side, is what makes one wonder at the ability of the human mind to function even with that level of cognitive dissonance which must be coursing through your psyche even as you type. Amazing! :)
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (20) Jun 02, 2016
-I have not said that I don't believe in consensus reality.
-an objective albeit unknowable reality

What is the specific point of quoting these two statements?

They're logically irreconcilable and they're both your own statements.


The originals before your blender....

A) "Noumenon in Kant's use is a limiting concept, to extract the above conditions. It's a way to justify an objective albeit unknowable reality independent of mind."

And…

B) "All that consensus of phenomena means is that those minds that form the consensus have all evolved with the same capacities to do so."

In A, by "objective albeit unknowable" I clearly referenced "Noumenon", which implies "independent of mind". In B, "consensus"-reality requires agreement amongst minds, thus NOT "independent of mind".

There is no logical incompatibility here my boy. This is why you're not qualified to make your subjective-characterizations of me.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016
You made the accusation without proper justification
Your own actions are the justification.

Grow up, @RC. You're not fooling anyone.

And your immature attempts to avoid discussing the Virial Theorem continue to be transparent. At least have the maturity to admit you screwed up.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016
I clearly referenced "Noumenon", which implies "independent of mind".
Ummm, your definition is not the definition in the dictionary. Sorry, Kant doesn't get to override the definition in the dictionary and neither do you.

This is exactly navel-gazing self-denying solipsistic narcissistic lawyering philosophy that has no place on a physics site.

"Noumenon" was last seen defined as that which cannot be defined by the senses, i.e. that of the imagination or mind. Here you're attempting to redefine it as that which is *not* of the mind.

Typical navel-gazing self-denying solipsistic narcissistic lawyering philosopy again. C'mon, @Noum, let's get back to at least physics, if not loop quantum gravity.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (21) Jun 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Your own actions are the justification.

Grow up, @RC. You're not fooling anyone.

And your immature attempts to avoid discussing the Virial Theorem continue to be transparent. At least have the maturity to admit you screwed up
It was YOU didn't know about plasmoids in sun; Non-Keplerian orbits; Virial theorem.

Seriously, mate, it would do you good if you paid more attention to YOUR "own actions". My record proves me correct on known science, logics, polite discourse. While your own record leaves much to be desired in those areas. You are obviously still catching up with all the scientific/cosmological issues/fundamentals, yet you start in as if you are an accomplished 'expert', and more often than not then finish by demonstrating/proving you are no such thing. Which is what must make all your (recorded) unfounded and hasty assertions/accusations etc even more galling to any reasonable, impartial, objective observer of our past/present exchanges. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2016
@RC, Virial Theorem vs. non-Keplerian orbits.

Bye now.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (20) Jun 02, 2016
It's more important to you that you "prove you're right" than that you actually be right.


Most of my time here is spent defending myself against unfounded accusations and deliberate misrepressentations, and against those who post subjective-characterizations rather than articulated counter points in good faith. I have just proven several examples above.

So what motivates your degenerative behavior here?

"Noumenon" was last seen defined as that which cannot be defined by the senses, i.e. that of the imagination or mind. Here you're attempting to redefine it as that which is *not* of the mind.


You don't know what you are talking about, my boy. Noumenon is directly linked to Kant's philosophy and has no relation to you uninformed understanding.....

https://en.wikipe...Noumenon

RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (21) Jun 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
@RC, Virial Theorem vs. non-Keplerian orbits.

Bye now.
Yes, I explained that to you earlier above. Why post that unadorned restatement of the obvious already explained to you? Are you under the misapprehension that you are telling me (or anyone reading who is already acquainted with the known relevant science understandings) anything I/they don't know and understand already? Bye now to you too. :)
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (20) Jun 02, 2016
Noumenon; "Much of modern philosophy has generally been skeptical of the possibility of knowledge independent of the senses, and Immanuel Kant gave this point of view its canonical expression: that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable through human sensation. In Kantian philosophy, the unknowable noumenon is often linked to the unknowable "thing-in-itself" - Wiki or any informed resource.

If it is not knowable even in principal, then obviously it is not of the mind,... the opposite in fact as "phenomena" is of the mind, by contrasted definition.

Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016
Most of my time here is spent defending myself against unfounded accusations
Yes, that is precisely the problem. May I make a suggestion? There are a lot less accusations than you think there are, and it's a waste of your valuable time to bother with them even if I'm wrong. If you ignore them they will dwindle. You're a smart person; let's talk about smart stuff and not bother with playground politics. Like, for example, physics, and loop quantum gravity, and that sort of thing, not about who insulted your niece's third husband's grandkids or who piddled in the pool or whether Kant said this or that, or that sort of thing.

Best advice I've given on this forum in a while, I kid you not.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (20) Jun 02, 2016
Why should I let you misrepresent me and post rude characterizations? If you took your own advise your would not play these games for me to respond to. Why should I be expected to discuss physics here at Phys.Org after being attacked like this? Am I to think you are serious?

If you said I piddled in the pool, then I would certainly ignore it,.... but if we are discussing an interesting topic of which I did not start, and I receive this behavior that I am compelled to defend my statements.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (20) Jun 02, 2016
There are many posters that I would readily ignore, but I know you know enough physics to produce a potentially interesting discussion,.... then all of a suddened I'm in defense mode for some reason. Next time lets just say.... "we will just have to disagree on this point" and move on.

RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (26) Jun 02, 2016
Hi Noumenon. :)
"Much of modern philosophy has generally been skeptical of the possibility of knowledge independent of the senses, and Immanuel Kant gave this point of view its canonical expression: that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable through human sensation. In Kantian philosophy, the unknowable noumenon is often linked to the unknowable "thing-in-itself" - Wiki or any informed resource.
That is partly why I posted that earlier FYI regarding biophysical sensory interpretational system manifestation of 'detecting apparatus dependent' perception/interpretation 'outputs' states (ie, world constructs).

However, though ancestors' world construct depended 'exclusively' (as Kant recognized) on human sense-dependence data processing, we NOW have the Scientific Method involving a FURTHER set of 'arms length' tools for data acquisition/analysis, c/w reality check procedures (physical/logical/mathematical), for 'objective' simulation/modeling. :)
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016
misrepresent me
They're your own words, @Noum, and I really don't know what more to say.

Let me ask you this about your definition of the Born Rule: if the waves do not exist, how can the Born Rule be correct? Again, what's waving? How can something not-real have real effects?
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016
Next time lets just say.... "we will just have to disagree on this point" and move on.
No, I wouldn't be here if I didn't want to chew it over.

I might agree with your argument and change my mind.

You might.

But there's a time to stop chewing.

OTOH that's not the problem here. The problem is not when you stop, it's when you start: too early.

Really, I have no percentage in insulting anyone to start a fight. I just don't care enough.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (22) Jun 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :) In your respoinse to Noumenon you also said:
I have no percentage in insulting anyone to start a fight. I just don't care enough.
Maybe that's your problem? You should take care on the internet, especially on a science news/discussion forum, to avoid careless remarks/tactics which insult and demean not only your interlocutor, but also the site, its members/rules, and even the spirit of courtesy and respect in science and humanity in general. There are YOUNG and impressionable readers/members here who may 'take their cue' from YOU and your comments/insults....and so set themselves on a 'nasty' path which they may think is 'acceptable' given your own careless remarks/tactics. That is the only reason I try to get everyone to cool it and stay polite and on-science and eschew personal agendas/tactics. It improves everything: the experience, the discourse, the insights and the reputation/metrics of the members/readers/site/science.

You're improving! :)
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (24) Jun 02, 2016
....we NOW have the Scientific Method involving a FURTHER set of 'arms length' tools for data acquisition/analysis, c/w reality check procedures (physical/logical/mathematical), for 'objective' simulation/modeling. :)


This does not change the conditions as pointed out by me and quoted from Hawking, as those scientific apparatus being "merely" an extension of our senses, are still designed by mind and results interpreted and synthesized by mind, and so does not escape the Noumenal / Phenomenal distinction.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 02, 2016
Let me ask you this about your definition of the Born Rule: if the waves do not exist, how can the Born Rule be correct? Again, what's waving? How can something not-real have real effects?


I don't know. Somehow the wavefunction description captures "an objective something", the quantum system state, and the Schrodinger equation deterministically represents its evolution,... at least until its time to perform a measurement.

I think that if one regarded the wavefunction as not being a physical thing, but rather only as description of the extent of knowledge of the state, then the Born rule makes more sense,.... whereas...

If, as with Schrodinger's original conception and frustration with M. Born, the wavefunction was taken as a physical thing,.... then indeed, why the Born rule?

The question is more compelling this other way, no?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2016
Let me ask you this about your definition of the Born Rule: if the waves do not exist, how can the Born Rule be correct? Again, what's waving? How can something not-real have real effects?
I don't know.
Damn, dude, now I'm getting somewhere. Hey, guess what? Neither do I!

But I have an opinion. It's shaped by all the facts I know, and that opinion is, there's something real happening there. In other words, I accept that the Born Rule is an essential description of quantum reality: superposition is a real state, but it is incompatible with interaction.

Somehow the wavefunction description captures "an objective something", the quantum system state, and the Schrodinger equation deterministically represents its evolution,... at least until its time to perform a measurement.
I don't think the measurement is important; I think it's the quantum interaction that is required in order for there to be a measurement in the first place that is important.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2016
[contd]
I think that if one regarded the wavefunction as not being a physical thing, but rather only as description of the extent of knowledge of the state, then the Born rule makes more sense,....
The problem is that we can detect the state, by creating an ensemble, and when we do the state reliably decays over the fractions determined from the Born Rule. This is pretty good evidence of what state the particles are in.

whereas... If, as with Schrodinger's original conception and frustration with M. Born, the wavefunction was taken as a physical thing,.... then indeed, why the Born rule?
Bah, we're off into la-la land again. The state is that it is in superposition as described by the Born Rule. We cannot know more. It is not a classical state, it is a quantum state. Accept it and move on.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2016
[contd]
And at this point I will point out that we can actually detect whether a particle is in this superposition state, or has interacted. It's very simple.

If it has interacted, it will not show interference. And this is experimentally proven in many experiments, including Bell tests like the Aspect experiment, and also in quantum optics in, for example, the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser. Not to mention Young's dual slit experiment.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (24) Jun 03, 2016
If it has interacted, it will not show interference. And this is experimentally proven in many experiments, including Bell tests like the Aspect experiment, and also in quantum optics in, for example, the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser. Not to mention Young's dual slit experiment.


But the quantum system does interact with the apparatus in those experiments and yet interference can be inferred if there is no "which way" information while say, going each possible way through the apparatus through beam splitters. Does it not "interact" with the beam splitters then?

Also, raw quantum interaction in appropriate conditions (produced naturally as in parametric down conversion for example) causes entanglement of multiple entities (two photons exit crystal with combined energy of a single photon entering) . Again is not the crystal a detecting devise that "should have" interacted with the photons, so that the two photons "shouldn't be" entangled?


Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2016
If it has interacted, it will not show interference. And this is experimentally proven in many experiments...
But the quantum system does interact with the apparatus in those experiments and yet interference can be inferred if there is no "which way" information while say, going each possible way through the apparatus through beam splitters. Does it not "interact" with the beam splitters then?
I didn't say that all interactions result in resolution of uncertainty.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (24) Jun 03, 2016
"While delayed choice experiments have confirmed the seeming ability of measurements made on photons in the present to alter events occurring in the past, this requires a non-standard view of QM. If a photon in flight is interpreted as being in a so-called "superposition of states," i.e. if it is interpreted as something that has the potentiality to manifest as a particle or wave, but during its time in flight is neither, then there is no time paradox. This is the standard view, and recent experiments have supported it" - Wiki

We both seem to agree that the "underlying reality" is neither a particle nor a wave until detection or inference.

In the delayed choice experiment, the quantum "underlying reality" seems to feel-out the entire apparatus ,... if we regard the experimental apparatus as itself a quantum system, how is this feeling-out accomplished without "interacting" if that is what prevents interference effects?

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (24) Jun 03, 2016
I didn't say that all interactions result in resolution of uncertainty.


WRT the premise that raw quantum interaction resolves away interference terms, .... each component of the apparatus,... not just the detection screen or photo-multipliers, but also the beam splitters and duel slits,.... are massively complex from the perspective of the quantum scale.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (24) Jun 03, 2016
I accept that the Born Rule is an essential description of quantum reality: superposition is a real state, but it is incompatible with interaction. [........] And at this point I will point out that we can actually detect whether a particle is in this superposition state, or has interacted. It's very simple. If it has interacted, it will not show interference


I assume we agree that on account of decoherence with the environment or apparatus the quantum state will lose it's interference terms and supposedly this occurs rapidly. This is derivable deterministically via the Schrodinger equation. Where would the Born rule fit in then, and why do actual experiments performed seem to be discontinuously or incompatibly described as a collapse of the wave function when it's state evolution is deterministic?

I will be out for a while....
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (25) Jun 03, 2016
We both seem to agree that the "underlying reality" is neither a particle nor a wave until detection or inference, which is the rationale interpretation as pointed out in the Wiki quote.

If so,.... this is what I mean by the "underlying reality is conceptually formless" and that detection or inference is the point at which we add that conceptual form, either as a particle or inferred to have behaved as a wave. It's the essential difference between the underlying-reality "as it exists in itself" and "as it is known".

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2016
We both seem to agree that the "underlying reality" is neither a particle nor a wave until detection or inference.
If you like, you can define superposition as "neither a particle nor a wave" but I think it's more consistent to say that the particle hasn't chosen a path until the coincidence information has been processed on the idler photon to show the which-way information has been erased.

In the delayed choice experiment, the quantum "underlying reality" seems to feel-out the entire apparatus ,... if we regard the experimental apparatus as itself a quantum system, how is this feeling-out accomplished without "interacting" if that is what prevents interference effects?
You're still stuck on interactions that do not resolve the uncertainty in position. Not all interactions can do so; only if the idler doesn't get erased is the position uncertainty resolved.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2016
I didn't say that all interactions result in resolution of uncertainty.
WRT the premise that raw quantum interaction resolves away interference terms,
You're claiming I said that all interactions resolve the uncertainty again. I didn't.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2016
Before I reply to the rest, I have to stop and point out that I made a mistake; my example of "detecting if a particle has interacted" was wrong. A particle in a superposition of states in one conjugate parameter could interact in another and not disturb the superposition. For example a particle that has already had its polarization in some axis, call it x, could interact in such a way that its polarization was checked in that axis again without disturbing the superposition of its polarization in any other axis. This would be like, in real terms, putting it through a polarizer aligned at zero, then another polarizer aligned at zero.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2016
The PhysicsForms are moderated and you can email another user.
Cool, when I type your user name here into start a conversation, are you the first or second username I see?
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (17) Jun 03, 2016
I'm only saying that facts are more effective than telling people the scientific method...
@Nou
you've never gotten tired of continually repeating the exact same argument?

it's simple: learning the basics of the method are one of the most effective tools to learning how to think critically and learn to differentiate between what is evidence (or more factual than opinion) and what isn't

if my goal is to help folk learn how to differentiate between a con and reality, then this is the best place to start, isn't it?

.

.

w/o resorting to Wiki.
@Ot_Sz/o_s et al
please pull up a record of how many times i've referenced wiki, then compare it to the other references

my record will stand that (to date) for every wiki link i've posted, i've posted 7.365 study links - do the math
You are dishonest
this coming from a sock of a sock who is seeking attention for their religious fanaticism?

i consider it an honour to be labeled as such from a known troll
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (17) Jun 03, 2016
Most of my time here is spent defending myself against unfounded accusations and deliberate misrepressentations
@Nou
like i said above: this is because you approach science with a Philo perspective

science tries hard to remove the subjectivity (bias) for a reason

if it were just me saying it, it might be "unfounded" - but you have a growing list of educated people making the exact same claim: think about that

three or more folk making the same claim means the problem likely lies with you, not everyone else

(unless we're talking about trolls/socks being idiots like: o_s, bs, cd, etc)
Schneib, et al. aint trolls

.

.

Let's just have the list of absolute crap @RC posted
@DaSchneib
that's gonna be an excessively long list... perhaps you should start a thread on the joint to reference and track it? LOL

.

Hi Ca...
@rc
didn't continue
TL;DR
trolling for attention
stop interrupting the smart folk
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2016
I assume we agree that on account of decoherence with the environment or apparatus the quantum state will lose it's interference terms and supposedly this occurs rapidly.
That depends on the nature of the interaction(s) and the particular parameters that are of interest; there may or may not be decoherence depending on these factors.

Where would the Born rule fit in then,
Same way it always does: if a parameter is in superposition, then if an interaction occurs that necessarily by its nature and the nature of the parameter resolves the superposition to a definite value, then the Born Rule gives the definite value; if not, then the parameter remains in superposition and is described by the wavefunction. I suppose in the definite value case you could say that the wavefunction hasn't "collapsed," it's just not giving a time-varying value but a continuous value. In the superposition case, you get the standard wavefunction.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2016
[contd]
and why do actual experiments performed seem to be discontinuously or incompatibly described as a collapse of the wave function when it's state evolution is deterministic?
Because we cannot say what the state of the wavefunction is at any given point until it is resolved. While the parameter of interest is in superposition, because of uncertainty we cannot know what the value of the wavefunction is (because we cannot know what state it began in).

Look at it this way: a parameter goes into superposition due to its complementary parameter being resolved to a definite value; but when it goes into superposition, it does so at an arbitrary, random value, which then evolves according to the wavefunction.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2016
[contd]
We therefore cannot know what value it started with, so we cannot know what value it has at any point until an interaction that resolves it occurs. Since resolution occurs at a random value of the wavefunction, the output is a random value (over the possible values, with a probability associated with each value) as well.

Try that on for size. I think it's the basis for the CHI approach. We can retrodict the state of the wavefunction at previous points in the particle's history once resolution/interaction/collapse/whatever has occurred, but until then we cannot know the particle's state in that parameter.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2016
We both seem to agree that the "underlying reality" is neither a particle nor a wave until detection or inference, which is the rationale interpretation as pointed out in the Wiki quote.
Mmmm, I think I disagree.

From the standpoint of a particle, it has multiple parameters; some will be in superposition, some will have definite values. If an interaction occurs, then some parameters may be resolved and if they are then their complements will enter the superposition state (what that means depends on the parameter).

A parameter in superposition is in a wave-like state; a parameter with a definite value is in a particle-like state.

I don't think it makes any sense to talk about a particle "being in superposition;" I think it only makes sense to talk about a *parameter of that particle* "being in superposition."
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2016
[contd]
Because every particle has multiple parameters, I don't think there is any question of particles disappearing into some unresolvable state; they continue to exist with some parameters having definite values and others being in superposition. In any case, they continue to propagate and the parameters that are in a definite value state continue in that state.

In addition, I disagree that a parameter is neither in a particle-like nor a wave-like state; it is either in a particle-like state and has a definite value, or it is in a wave-like state and is in superposition.

Therefore, I question exactly what you mean by "underlying reality."

If so,.... this is what I mean by the "underlying reality is conceptually formless" and that detection or inference is the point at which we add that conceptual form, either as a particle or inferred to have behaved as a wave.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2016
[contd]
But the totality of the underlying reality is not conceptually formless; a) some parameters are in definite states, most likely, due to prior interactions that resolved them, and b) even in a wave-like state, parameters have probabilities associated with their possible values, which evolve according to the deterministic wavefunction. In neither case are they conceptually formless; either they have a definite value or they have a range of values with different probabilities for different possible values.

It's the essential difference between the underlying-reality "as it exists in itself" and "as it is known".
The point of Bell's Theorem is that there is no underlying reality as it exists in itself that has a definite value for a parameter that is in superposition; that is, there is no locally real value that is hidden by superposition.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2016
[contd]
Superposition is all of reality that exists for a parameter that is in superposition; i.e. a collection of probabilities for the different values that parameter might turn out to have if an interaction that resolves that parameter occurs, i.e. the wavefunction.

It is footless to speculate *while the particle is in flight* what the value might be, and successful tests of Bell's Theorem say that in fact the parameter in superposition *does not have a value.* But Consistent Histories says that, once the superposition has been resolved to a definite value, then we can look back and see what the probabilities were at any given time in the history, and have a definite evolution of the wavefunction proceeding from the time when the complement of the superposed parameter was resolved, throwing the parameter of interest into superposition.

Now whether all of that makes sense or not is about at the limit of my capabilities; we will no doubt see.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (15) Jun 03, 2016
Here is the entire text book: http://www-dft.ts...tine.pdf
@Phys1
not sure i agree with the statements - but THANKS for the book link

always willing to read another book... though i prefer paper over electronic formats
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2016
Hmmm, I think that the position/momentum pair is particle-like, not wave-like. It doesn't really make sense to talk about the "position" of a wave.
A wave packet has a position, in time and space.
But that position is uncertain, and the length of the wave packet is arbitrary; the shorter a wave packet is chosen (i.e. the smaller the constant of integration), the less accurate the measure of the wavelength/frequency/energy/momentum is, and the longer a wave packet, the less accurate the measure of the position. This is inherent in the wave packet approach, and representative of uncertainty.

Waves have momentum in special relativity, not on Galilei relativity.
Sure, but that's a tautology in the wave packet approach.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2016
[contd]
The Noether theorem tells us that classical fields have all the mechanical properties ascribed to particles.
Actually, I'd say it more like, Noether's Theorem tells us that continuous symmetries have corresponding conservation laws. I'd like to see how you interpret that in terms of classical fields and mechanical properties. You left out some steps in the reasoning there, and as a result I can't follow it. I have a couple guesses, but I'd rather see you work it out before I moot them.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2016
Heisenberg uncertainty is a typical wave property, see https://en.wikipe...rinciple .
Actually, I'd say that is not always true. Because uncertainty is certain (heh, inadvertent pun) on at least one of two complementary parameters, and possible on both, I would say that uncertainty *can be* a typical wave property, but there is always the possibility that one of the complementary pair is certain, in which case the other is in superposition and is indeterminate. In this case, the one that is certain is not in a wavelike state.

As a result I would say that it is more correct to say that superposition is a typical wave property, or even better, is a representation of a parameter that is in a wavelike state.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2016
A propos of all this, now we can talk about Hilbert spaces, and particles.

A "particle" in quantum reality is an entity with multiple characteristics, call them parameters, some of which are members of Heisenberg uncertain complementary pairs, and some of which are not. The ones that are not all have definite values; the ones that are have at least one parameter in superposition, and perhaps both.

When we talk about a Hilbert space, what we are doing is representing the entire particle, by representing all the different parameters as dimensions of a space of n dimensions, where n is the number of different characteristics/parameters the particle intrinsically has (or at least some subset of them that we've arbitrarily chosen).
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2016
[contd]
The dimensions of the Hilbert space have two different possible types: one type has only definite values and is not necessarily associated with another dimension; the other type has the possibility to have either definite or superposed values, and is associated with another dimension that also has this possibility. Put these dimensions (or at least those you choose in your representation of the particle) together, and you have your mathematical representation of the particle. The values of the different parameters of the particle are therefore represented as positions on their corresponding dimensions in the Hilbert space.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2016
[contd]
This is why @Noum said understanding Hilbert spaces is essential to understanding quantum mechanics as it is generally practiced in the physics community; I disagreed with him because I believe that it is possible to understand merely the parameters of the particle and how they relate to one another to gain about as much understanding as a layman (i.e. not a professional physicist) is going to really ever need.

Getting back to particles, and winding this up, we now see a particle as a definite entity, with a very restricted set of degrees of freedom, rather than the extremely large number that a collection of such particles must have. Furthermore, when we combine particles into a mass, we see that not only must we look at each particle's individual states on all its parameters, but these states may also relate to the states of other particles in the mass.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2016
[contd]
Thus we must use permutations and combinations, meaning that when we try to add two particles, we must define a new Hilbert space that contains not only the two original spaces, but also permutations and combinations of the parameters that interact between the two particles, and every time we add one more we must also add the applicable permutations and combinations with the previous ones. Permutations and combinations involve using factorials, which very quickly ascend to astronomical values, and since particles are very small it takes a lot of them to make a classical object. So now we have an ultra-astronomical number (if you will forgive the coining of a term) of permutations and combinations plus an astronomical number of degrees of freedom (the individual Hilbert space dimensions for each particle).
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2016
[contd]
This is the picture of classical reality that we derive from the laws we know about quantum reality. It is an unmanageably complex and basically incomputable number of degrees of freedom. What we've managed to figure out is that the basically arbitrary rules of classical physics that we've derived empirically actually follow from the very definite and restricted rules of quantum physics.

The connection is through the Fluctuation Theorem, and I would recommend as much study of it as one can handle in order to get a clear idea of how quantum and classical reality relate to one another.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2016
Because uncertainty is certain (heh, inadvertent pun) on at least one of two complementary parameters
I made a simplification for clarity; actually an entire range of parameters can be complementary. For example, if we discuss spin on a particular axis, there is an entire continuous range of axes that we could choose, and if we measure spin (or, more accurately, spin is determined) on one such axis, it is indeterminate on *all* the others. It might also be indeterminate on all axes, if a spin-determining interaction does not exist in the past of the particle.

That should make this more clear.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2016
In mathematical terms, the two most common uncertainty relations are:
(ΔE)(Δt) ≥ ħ/2
and
(Δx)(Δp) ≥ ħ/2
and my understanding is that the position/wavenumber and frequency/time uncertainties are straightforwardly developed from them, as follows: I'd have to do some math using:
ω = E/ħ
and
k = p/ħ
to convert energy into angular frequency, and momentum into wavenumber; time and position would remain the same. Those expressions could then be substituted into the two uncertainty formulae unambiguously, and the inequality with ħ/2 would remain the same. If this is correct, then in fact it is physically the same thing to state that uncertainties in wavenumber and position or momentum and position, or frequency and time or energy and time, multiply to be greater than or equal to ħ/2.

Given that they are equivalent, I'm not sure how that shows such point particles cannot exist in RT. Can you explain more fully, please?
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (26) Jun 03, 2016
Forum.

Me:
Here is a very pertinent remark made by Phys1 in reply to Da Schneib:
I have sound unpublished arguments but putting them here is not my idea of publishing.....
Now CapS, do you understand how that same REASON is even MORE applicable when it comes to MY understandable and necessary RETICENCE to post much DETAILED explanations BEFORE I DO publish my ToE work COMPLETE?

Please say you now give me at least as much consideration as you would give to Phys1 for refrain from posting certain original/novel scientific detail on the net at this time. :)

As for providing evidence for what I HAVE posted, please refer to relevant exchanges with Da Schneib in recent times: You will find I provided KNOWN SCIENCE evidence/explanations; and Da Schneib had to finally (bravely) admit he erred.... :)
CapS:
@rc
didn't continue TL;DR
trolling for attention
stop interrupting the smart folk
See? This is how CapS "follows the evidence/logics": by 'not seeing' it. Doh!
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (19) Jun 03, 2016
@TGO
That seems like an accurate enough summary of Kant. Not the similarity with modern cranks, who are amateurs but use the same approach. Who are you quoting? Yourself?
I wish. That's Ayn Rand.

When I put something in quotes it is an excerpt that you can drop into Google to find source(s) and context.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 03, 2016
There wasn't room in that post, so I will put the definitions of the variables in this one:
Where,
E is energy,
t is time,
x is position,
p is momentum,
Δ indicates the uncertainty in the variable it is prepended to,
ω is angular frequency,
k is wavenumber, and
ħ = h/2π is the reduction of the Planck constant, h.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 03, 2016
One additional note, @Phys1 referred to frequency; this is actually angular frequency as he's using it, measured in radians per second, not ordinary frequency measured in cycles per second or Hertz (Hz). They convert by:

ω = 2πf
Where,
f is ordinary frequency in Hz.

Wavenumber is simply the reciprocal of wavelength, measured in reciprocal units of length such as "per-meters," thus:

k = 1/λ
Where,
λ is wavelength in meters.

Wavenumber and angular frequency are commonly used in physics instead of wavelength and ordinary frequency used in EE. They turn out to simplify the equations, and are equivalent as shown here.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2016
So, @Phys1, doing the math, I think that the uncertainty relations for wavenumber/position and frequency/time would come out to:
(Δω)(Δx) ≥ 1/2
and
(Δk)(Δt) ≥ 1/2
The factor of ħ cancels by being divided out of each side of the inequality. Is this correct? And is the missing factor of ħ what motivated you to think that the uncertainty must be much larger?

For lurkerz: note how that ħ cancels out and how much simpler those two equations are without it. This is a good example of the reasons physicists use k and ω, rather than f and λ as EEs do. No sense fooling with extra factors if you don't have to.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2016
And just for fun, I will now recast the uncertainty relations in terms of ordinary frequency and wavelength:

2π(Δf)(Δx) ≥ 1/2
Refactoring,
(Δf)(Δx) ≥ 1/4π

and

(Δ(1/λ)(Δt) ≥ 1/2
Therefore,
(Δt)/(Δλ) ≥ 1/2

Enjoy.
Otto_Szucks
1 / 5 (12) Jun 03, 2016
I'm only saying that facts are more effective than telling people the scientific method...
if my goal is to help folk learn how to differentiate between a con and reality, then this is the best place to start, isn't it?

.

.

w/o resorting to Wiki.
@Ot_Sz/o_s et al
please pull up a record of how many times i've referenced wiki, then compare it to the other references

my record will stand that (to date) for every wiki link i've posted, i've posted 7.365 study links - do the math
You are dishonest
this coming from a sock of a sock who is seeking attention for their religious fanaticism?

i consider it an honour to be labeled as such from a known troll
- Rumpy
And that troll is YOU. Your links to "studies" and to Wiki are not PROOF of your personal knowledge of science, and your inability to conduct a full and ongoing discussion wrt the science topic of the article removes any credibility you may think you have as contributor. You are dishonest.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (17) Jun 04, 2016
sorry for the interruption yall...
This is how CapS ...
So, ya want to pick a fight, rc?
ok... going to post one time only to you here

lets "follows the evidence/logics"
where is the evidence for your ToE?
*none*
regardless of your refusal to post anything, there is absolutely no reason to ASSume you have written anything of note b/c there is no history of anything of note

this also demonstrates your inability to comprehend basic copyright law - something easily accessible to anyone on the net
*
as for evidence you have posted
*none*
arguing, claiming or making a statement is not the same thing as linking, referencing or producing evidence, which you don't do (like o_s/o_Szucks)

as for the rest of your bullsh*t
- you demonstrated yourself, in your own words, that you are a paranoid narcissistic deranged pseudoscience moron with literacy problems here:
http://phys.org/n...les.html

FOAD, sam the crank
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (24) Jun 04, 2016
WTF? CapS, have you so little sense of self-awareness left to you that you can't even see the irony dripping from every 'false' accusation and 'losers' challenge you direct at me? How many times does one have to rub your nose into the evidence/logic before you admit instead of 'not seeing' it and pretending no one else has noticed it the first (and many other times) it has been posted to you; while YOU RESPOND with...
TL: DR etc
How stupid must you be to believe no-one has noticed the total lies/hypocrisy in your personal accusations and the total lack of comprehension in the science (both 'known' and 'speculated'; both 'mainstream' and 'alternative')? The only 'worthwhile contribution' you've made to here, to PO/science/humanity, is as 'unwitting experimental subject' in my longstanding/diverse Internet Experiments exposing twerps and trolls. This highlights your utter delusional insensibility. You are a 'cautionary tale' of 'irrelevance and malice'. Shut your noise.
my2cts
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 04, 2016
Given that they are equivalent, I'm not sure how that shows such point particles cannot exist in RT. Can you explain more fully, please?

Thanks for challenging my opinions. I stated that I question that point particles are possible in RT. A pp is a singularity. I don't like singularities in physics. If it has a finite size, then it will have to have a finite "speed of sound" in its volume, so it can not be perfectly rigid. In Galilei invariance this speed can be infinite, but not in SR. So a rigid particle, of which the pp is the mathematical limit, is not possible in SR.
my2cts aka Phys1
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2016
Given that they are equivalent, I'm not sure how that shows such point particles cannot exist in RT. Can you explain more fully, please?
Thanks for challenging my opinions.
:)

I stated that I question that point particles are possible in RT. A pp is a singularity. I don't like singularities in physics. If it has a finite size, then it will have to have a finite "speed of sound" in its volume, so it can not be perfectly rigid. In Galilei invariance this speed can be infinite, but not in SR. So a rigid particle, of which the pp is the mathematical limit, is not possible in SR.
my2cts aka Phys1
Interesting, but I have to point out that since x/p uncertainty affects particles I think traditional point particles were out of the question anyway. I note that string physics seems to address some of your points; I don't know how you see that.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (24) Jun 04, 2016
[..] I don't think there is any question of particles disappearing into some unresolvable state; […]. In any case, they continue to propagate and the parameters that are in a definite value state continue in that state.


I don't think this is correct. I believe a definite state will evolve away,… the spike in the wavefunction description will spread. In fact, once a measurement is perform and the wavefunction is "resolved" to a particular state,… the experimentalist would need to quickly remeasure if he wants to see that same state again.

Incidentally, the wavefunction is not an object of superposed parameter-values; one must apply a mathematical Operator to the wavefunction to extract the [conceptual] values. The "values" are not things unto themselves with a separate existence,.. they are defined by the particular experimental conditions. They are the basis [axis] of Hilbert Space that are supplied by the experimenter, mind.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (24) Jun 04, 2016
I disagree that a parameter is neither in a particle-like nor a wave-like state; it is either in a particle-like state and has a definite value, or it is in a wave-like state and is in superposition.

I question exactly what you mean by "underlying reality."


The point of "underlying reality" was to question your assertion of equating "measurement" and quantum "interaction"….

If one considers raw quantum interaction than one must speak "metaphysically" and reference the "underlying reality", precisely because there is no QM wavefunction Description of the experimental apparatus.

Otherwise, if one only references the wavefunction Description of the quantum system under investigation, then there must be "collapse" upon a "measurement", and for this reason it is essentially different from "raw interaction".

Of course, I agree that the QM wavefunction Description is either spread or spiked for both or one conjugate, or in superposition.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (24) Jun 04, 2016
.... even had one a complete mathematical wavefunction description of the quantum system and macroscopic apparatus, so that one could say that decoherence, as of the result of the Schrodinger evolution, results in loss of the off-diagonal terms responsible for quantum interference effects,.... one still would not be able to account for one parameter value vs some other.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2016
In any case, they continue to propagate and the parameters that are in a definite value state continue in that state.
I don't think this is correct. I believe a definite state will evolve away,…
Upon interaction, if its complement is determined, it will; without that, it will not.

Demonstration: two polarizers, oriented the same, along the light beam's axis. 50% of the photons go through the first polarizer; 100% of those go through the second. The state did not evolve away.

the spike in the wavefunction description will spread. In fact, once a measurement is perform and the wavefunction is "resolved" to a particular state,… the experimentalist would need to quickly remeasure if he wants to see that same state again.
Are you saying that if the second polarizer is far enough away, the photons will all be lost between the polarizers?
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2016
[contd]
That's not due to some quantum effect, it's due to beam spread (classical beams spread too), which is inevitable in a 3D+time universe. If we use a laser, and compensate for beam spread with a larger polarizer and detector, we could put the second polarizer much farther away. How far would depend upon the matter in and near the path, so this matter is a second obstacle, but that is simply interaction with the matter, and also is not some quantum effect (classical things can interact as well).

I can't tell if this is what you had in mind. Let's do a thought experiment: suppose you could make a tube that gets enough wider to account for beam spread, and exclude all other matter from it, and it never went near any masses that could gravitationally disrupt the beam, and suppose your second polarizer were whatever the width of the tube was at its location, and you had a detector behind it of the same size. Would you get the same result?
[contd]
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (27) Jun 04, 2016
But the totality of the underlying reality is not conceptually formless; a) some parameters are in definite states, most likely, due to prior interactions that resolved them, and b) even in a wave-like state, parameters have probabilities associated with their possible values, which evolve according to the deterministic wavefunction. In neither case are they [not] conceptually formless; either they have a definite value or they have a range of values with different probabilities for different possible values.


A) They don't stay in definite states for long, they will evolve away soon after being resolved by a measurement.

B) But those values do not exist in the wavefunction itself. One must apply an Operator to the wavefunction to extract an expectation value. Each Operator is associated with a possible-observable, which of course depends on a realizable [macroscopic] experimental apparatus.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (27) Jun 04, 2016
It's the essential difference between the underlying-reality "as it exists in itself" and "as it is known".

The point of Bell's Theorem is that there is no underlying reality as it exists in itself that has a definite value for a parameter that is in superposition; that is, there is no locally real value that is hidden by superposition.


I do not mean by "underlying reality" any hidden variables. I explained further subsequently to this post.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (27) Jun 04, 2016
This is why @Noum said understanding Hilbert spaces is essential to understanding quantum mechanics as it is generally practiced in the physics community; I disagreed with him because I believe that it is possible to understand merely the parameters of the particle and how they relate to one another to gain about as much understanding as a layman (i.e. not a professional physicist) is going to really ever need.


I don't disagree with this,... it is just that Hilbert Space encompasses everything from the conceptual values found by projection postulate [or inner product], to the superpostion wavefunction evolving in this space, to Fourier transform from one representational space [i.e. position] to another [momentum], each of which will have its own basis.

Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2016
[contd]
Incidentally, the wavefunction is not an object of superposed parameter-values; one must apply a mathematical Operator to the wavefunction to extract the [conceptual] values.
I don't think you correctly understood what I intended to say.

The result of solving the wavefunction for a given value of a given parameter of a given particle at a given location at a given time without an interaction is a probability amplitude. Square this amplitude and you get the probability for that parameter of that particle at that location at that time to have that value *if it interacted and the interaction was through that parameter*.

If the parameter is discrete, then you will get a list of values, and their probabilities will add up to 1 (assuming the list is complete). Parameters of this type are said to be "quantized." Spin, charge, and particle count are examples of this type of parameter.

[contd]
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (27) Jun 04, 2016
In any case, they continue to propagate and the parameters that are in a definite value state continue in that state.

I don't think this is correct. I believe a definite state will evolve away,… the spike in the wavefunction description will spread. […] the experimentalist would need to quickly remeasure if he wants to see that same state again.


Upon interaction, if its complement is determined, it will; without that, it will not.

Demonstration: two polarizers, oriented the same, along the light beam's axis. 50% of the photons go through the first polarizer; 100% of those go through the second. The state did not evolve away.


That is correct, however I objected to this; "definite value state continue in that state",… with the measurement having collapsed the wavefunction, it will just start evolving again from there, according to the Schrodinger equation, and will begin to spread.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2016
[contd]
If the parameter is continuous, then you will get a probability distribution across the range of the parameter values. Good examples of parameters like this include position, momentum, energy, and time.

In either case, for each possible value of the parameter, you get a probability. But that is the probability of getting that value *if an interaction that would allow you to infer the value at that point occurred*. If no interaction occurs there, then the value remains in superposition. That superposition may stay constant, or it may fluctuate over time (for example, the probability distribution of neutrino flavors changes as the neutrinos propagate). The point is, *once an interaction from which you can infer the value has occurred*, the probability of that parameter having that value is 1, and the probability of all other values is 0. This is what is meant by "collapse of the wavefunction."

I'm going to stay away from operators; they're not necessary here.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2016
[contd]
The "values" are not things unto themselves with a separate existence,..
Never said they were. The parameters, however, generally are; position, spin, and other quantum parameters have real physical existence, even if they are in a superposition.

they are defined by the particular experimental conditions.
I don't agree that the parameters of a particle are defined by an experiment. This is what I meant when I said things don't just vaporize into nonexistence when an interaction occurs that resolves their complement; they take on probability distributions, that will result in definite values if a later interaction occurs that allows you to infer the value. But the probability distribution is still there, whether it ever gets resolved or not.

They are the basis [axis] of Hilbert Space that are supplied by the experimenter, mind.
Reality does not occur only within experiments. It doesn't stop when we stop looking.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2016
I question exactly what you mean by "underlying reality."
The point of "underlying reality" was to question your assertion of equating "measurement" and quantum "interaction"….
I did not equate them. I said all measurements are interactions; I did not say all interactions are measurements.

If one considers raw quantum interaction than one must speak "metaphysically" and reference the "underlying reality", precisely because there is no QM wavefunction Description of the experimental apparatus.
I disagree; there is always a quantum interaction when we make a measurement; otherwise we could not make a measurement. It is neither here nor there whether we can reasonably expect to make a complete quantum description of the entire measuring apparatus.
[contd]
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (27) Jun 04, 2016
Assumed context for my posts today is the question of the distinction between "quantum-interaction" and measurement….

The "values" are not things unto themselves with a separate existence,.. they are defined by the particular experimental conditions.

Never said they were. The parameters, however, generally are; position, spin, and other quantum parameters have real physical existence, even if they are in a superposition.


They have phenomenally-real existence only to the extent that an experimental apparatus can define them! So the quantum Operators are important for my point here.

....
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2016
[contd]
Otherwise, if one only references the wavefunction Description of the quantum system under investigation, then there must be "collapse" upon a "measurement", and for this reason it is essentially different from "raw interaction".
I don't know what a "raw interaction" means. You appear to be claiming that there is some sort of difference between an interaction that happens inside an experiment and one that happens outside it.

What happens to photons as they pass through the chromosphere and corona has nothing to do with your spectroscope. Yet your spectroscope detects the results and from them we infer the nature of the chromosphere and corona. It's even more ridiculous to claim the photons you weren't looking at did something different than the ones you were. That's what "reality" means.
[contd]
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (27) Jun 04, 2016
The "values" are not things unto themselves with a separate existence,.. they are defined by the particular experimental conditions. They are the basis [inner product of] of Hilbert Space that are supplied by the experimenter, mind.

Reality does not occur only within experiments. …


Reality "as known" does. If you are arguing about the "underlying reality" i.e. as apart from experiment, so that "quantum-interaction" is equivalent to "measurement" or at least not essentially different, then this distinction matters to the given argument.

We are overlapping responses again,…. I may have more time tomorrow….
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2016
[contd]
Of course, I agree that the QM wavefunction Description is either spread or spiked for both or one conjugate, or in superposition.
I will point out that this is incompatible with the apparent special pleading about "raw interactions" as opposed to interactions that occur inside an experiment.

An interaction is an interaction. All measurements are interactions; not all interactions are measurements, but they have the same effect either way.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2016
.... even had one a complete mathematical wavefunction description of the quantum system and macroscopic apparatus, so that one could say that decoherence, as of the result of the Schrodinger evolution, results in loss of the off-diagonal terms responsible for quantum interference effects,.... one still would not be able to account for one parameter value vs some other.
What "one parameter value?" If we are talking about quantum interference effects in particle experiments like the dual slit experiment, we are not talking about "one parameter value," we are talking about an ensemble of values for one parameter.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2016
But the totality of the underlying reality is not conceptually formless; a) some parameters are in definite states, most likely, due to prior interactions that resolved them, and b) even in a wave-like state, parameters have probabilities associated with their possible values, which evolve according to the deterministic wavefunction. In neither case are they [not] conceptually formless; either they have a definite value or they have a range of values with different probabilities for different possible values.


A) They don't stay in definite states for long, they will evolve away soon after being resolved by a measurement.
Why? I asked that and didn't get an answer; I checked the rest of your posts so far. Please go back and answer my question:

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2016
[contd]
Let's do a thought experiment: suppose you could make a tube that gets enough wider to account for beam spread, and exclude all other matter from it, and it never went near any masses that could gravitationally disrupt the beam, and suppose your second polarizer were whatever the width of the tube was at its location, and you had a detector behind it of the same size. Would you get the same result?

B) But those values do not exist in the wavefunction itself. One must apply an Operator to the wavefunction to extract an expectation value. Each Operator is associated with a possible-observable, which of course depends on a realizable [macroscopic] experimental apparatus.
Asked and answered. Please see above.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2016
Demonstration: two polarizers, oriented the same, along the light beam's axis. 50% of the photons go through the first polarizer; 100% of those go through the second. The state did not evolve away.
That is correct, however I objected to this; "definite value state continue in that state",… with the measurement having collapsed the wavefunction, it will just start evolving again from there, according to the Schrodinger equation, and will begin to spread.
Here it is again, that same question. Why do they spread? And how do you reconcile that with the two parallel polarizers? Obviously the spin has not changed between them.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2016
Assumed context for my posts today is the question of the distinction between "quantum-interaction" and measurement….
Measurement is a subset of quantum interactions.

They have phenomenally-real existence only to the extent that an experimental apparatus can define them! So the quantum Operators are important for my point here.
I reassert my point about the spectroscopic experiment on the photons from the Sun which you also have not replied to.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2016
Reality does not occur only within experiments. …


Reality "as known" does. And yet again I reassert my point about the solar spectrum.

If you are arguing about the "underlying reality" i.e. as apart from experiment, so that "quantum-interaction" is equivalent to "measurement" or at least not essentially different, then this distinction matters to the given argument.
I already addressed interactions and measurements. Please see above.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (26) Jun 04, 2016
Hi guys. A very interesting, informative (refreshingly polite) discussion. Kudos and thanks, from (I dare to presume) many grateful impartial PO readers!

An observation: Your discussion seems (to me at least) to have boiled down to the complementary factors of what we can 'know' and what we can 'infer' about 'unique parameters', irrespective of whether we can 'interrogate reality' or not.

@Da Schneib: Your solar-corona and tube-polarizer(s) arguments are quite illustrative of your point,.

@Noumenon: Your own attempt to differentiate between, 'natural interactions' (unobserved instantaneous states/values which have only a probability spread over continuing natural evolution), and 'contrived interactions' (measured states/values within some bounded-possibilities experimental construct designed to specifically output definite yes/no/range states/values measured), is also quite illustrative.

Inferable/Knowable 'reality': former 'unbounded', latter 'bounded', states/values? :)
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2016
So let's get right down to the heart of it, because it looks like there are a limited number of issues here:

1. If I measure the spin of a photon on axis x over here, and later I measure it over there, do you agree that it has the same spin on the same axis unless there was an interaction between over here and over there?
2. Do you agree it had that spin all the time between over here and over there?
3. Do you agree it still has that spin after the second measurement and will until it interacts?

I believe that you disagree with one of these three points. I can't nail down which one(s) until you answer the questions I have already asked. Here's why:
* You said you believe states "evolve away" due to the wavefunction.
* You said you don't think a parameter in a definite state will remain in that state even if there are no interactions.
I am prepared to provide quotes from your above statements to prove you said both of these things.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2016
Now, beyond this, there is also what happens to the photon's spin state in x if we measure the photon's spin state in x, then measure it again later in y. But we haven't even gotten there yet; we're still only talking about measuring it in x. We can talk about that after you answer my questions.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (22) Jun 04, 2016
Hi guys.
Hi and how you are too Cher? I am fine and having a blast.

An observation:
They are doing just dandy Cher. They don't need to try to keep track of what they talking and be distracted by objectionable observations.

Your discussion seems (to me at least) to have boiled down to the complementary factors of what we can 'know' and what we can 'infer' about 'unique parameters', irrespective of whether we can 'interrogate reality' or not.
Well we are glad that's how it seems to you, but don't interupt them while they are thinking.

Inferable/Knowable 'reality': former 'unbounded', latter 'bounded', states/values? :)
Let the scientists and humans alone now Skippy. I don't think they really want your ponderings and stuffs getting in the way of their conversation. When was the last time anybody asked you for your help?
nikola_milovic_378
Jun 05, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Jun 05, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (27) Jun 05, 2016
I believe that you disagree with one of these three points. I can't nail down which one(s) until you answer the questions I have already asked. Here's why:
[A] You said you believe states "evolve away" due to the wavefunction.
[B] You said you don't think a parameter in a definite state will remain in that state even if there are no interactions.


Yes, I did not answer the question posed because I was referring to quantum wavefunction descriptions as evolved by the Schrodinger equation, and not Maxwell's description. There is no wavefunction description for the photon as used in the Schrodinger equation, so it's "evolution away" does not apply there. The distinction between Measurement/Interaction does not require getting into QFT (QED) either.

[A]/[B] Yes, the wavefunction will evolve due to the Schrodinger equation, [in cases where that description allows it to,… i.e. if there are boundary conditions where it remains in a single stationary state, then no].
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2016
Sorry @nikola, jebus doesn't grok quantum logic, at least not in the Babble. If the Babble ever talked about quantum logic I might be more impressed with it.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2016
@Noum, I see this as avoiding the question and I see that as fundamentally dishonest and logic chopping. This is usually where we come to insults and other off-topic matters. I hope you don't intend to "go there" in this so far rational discussion.

Note that we haven't even gotten to the discussion about superposed states; we're simply talking about conservation laws, and we disagree here. I believe that it is footless to talk about states that do not obey conservation laws in the face of disagreements about states that do.

I also believe that only philosophy can talk about conserved quantities as if they were not conserved, and I think both physics theory and experiment confirm that conserved quantities are conserved.

Finally i believe that this is the heart of the difference between physics and philosophy, and so far I believe that by avoiding answering these questions you are avoiding acknowledging this essential difference.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (26) Jun 05, 2016
@Noum, I see this as avoiding the question and I see that as fundamentally dishonest and logic chopping.


There is no wavefunction description for the photon that is subject to the Schrodinger equation, for which I was referencing all along. This is not logic-chopping this is a fact. I was speaking about the evolution of the wavefunction according to the Schrodinger equation, which precludes me from speaking of photon polarization.

Reality does not occur only within experiments

I have confirmed above that there is an objective reality independent of experiments/mind, however not "as known". Physical science is merely this,… linking one observable to another using a mathematical description that allows for prediction. Science does not concern itself with Reality apart from experiments nor with reality that cannot be subject to description. [except for the realist who is engaging in philosophy of physics, interpretation of description or experiment].

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (26) Jun 05, 2016
It is my belief that quantum-interaction is distinct from measurement for the above stated reasons. I will repeat them if you would like, however lets define some things….

-"Raw Quantum Interaction"; Whatever physical interaction goes on at the quantum level, irrespective of any "mind dependent measurement" as described next, and irrespective of any theoretical [mathematical] description. This phrase is useful to a Realist, and not me, except to argue the above point, ….as it is only meaningful to me to speak of descriptions and the results of experiment.

-"Measurement"; A macroscopic apparatus designed by mind for the purpose of posing questions of quantum systems. Philosophically, the apparatus is also subject to QM, Schrodinger equation, Dirac Equation, QFT,.. etc. I say "Philosophically", because without a wavefunction description, it is not subject to QM. This is the point of the Schrodinger Cat experiment.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2016
Reality does not occur only within experiments

I have confirmed above that there is an objective reality independent of experiments/mind, however not "as known".
I think you are confusing "not known" with "not knowable." And I think you are doing so because you are doing philosophy not physics.

Physical science is merely this,… linking one observable to another using a mathematical description that allows for prediction.
While true I think this is aside from the point.

Science does not concern itself with Reality apart from experiments nor with reality that cannot be subject to description. [except for the realist who is engaging in philosophy of physics, interpretation of description or experiment].
I disagree. I think science concerns itself with all that is knowable whether it is known or not. I think my solar spectrum example addresses this explicitly and the fact you will not answer it places you in philosophy not physics.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2016
@Noum, I see this as avoiding the question and I see that as fundamentally dishonest and logic chopping.
There is no wavefunction description for the photon that is subject to the Schrodinger equation, for which I was referencing all along. This is not logic-chopping this is a fact. I was speaking about the evolution of the wavefunction according to the Schrodinger equation, which precludes me from speaking of photon polarization.
But the wavefunction only yields probabilities, and the wavefunction describes all particles. I think you are simply wrong here.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (27) Jun 05, 2016
Reality does not occur only within experiments


I have confirmed above that there is an objective reality independent of experiments/mind, however not "as known".

I think you are confusing "not known" with "not knowable." And I think you are doing so because you are doing philosophy not physics.


No. I recognize that reality is knowable in principal, but as stated above, there must result a mind dependent component,… which makes the distinction between "Raw Quantum Interaction" and "mind-dependent measurement" a epistemic one. See the Hawking quote once again. I am referencing physics here, … which also means the conditions for knowing and the conditions for doing experiments.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2016
@Noum, I see this as avoiding the question and I see that as fundamentally dishonest and logic chopping.
There is no wavefunction description for the photon that is subject to the Schrodinger equation, for which I was referencing all along.
I'm sorry but this is not even wrong. The Schroedinger function does not describe particles. It describes parameters of particles and how they change as the particle propagates.

I was speaking about the evolution of the wavefunction according to the Schrodinger equation, which precludes me from speaking of photon polarization.
You have just claimed that conserved properties are not described by quantum mechanics. Like I said, not even wrong.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2016
-"Raw Quantum Interaction"; Whatever physical interaction goes on at the quantum level, irrespective of any "mind dependent measurement" as described next, and irrespective of any theoretical [mathematical] description. This phrase is useful to a Realist, and not me, except to argue the above point, ….as it is only meaningful to me to speak of descriptions and the results of experiment.
These "raw quantum interactions" occur both in measurements and outside of them. This is proven by experiment and observation. I refer again to my solar spectrum example.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2016
-"Measurement"; A macroscopic apparatus designed by mind for the purpose of posing questions of quantum systems. Philosophically, the apparatus is also subject to QM, Schrodinger equation, Dirac Equation, QFT,.. etc. I say "Philosophically", because without a wavefunction description, it is not subject to QM. This is the point of the Schrodinger Cat experiment.
It doesn't matter to the interaction whether the interaction was due to a measurement or not.

No. I recognize that reality is knowable in principal, but as stated above, there must result a mind dependent component,…
I disagree and assert that this is philosophy not physics. An interaction is what it is; it's the same whether it's inside or outside an experiment, or we could not reliably draw any conclusion.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (25) Jun 05, 2016
@Noum, I see this as avoiding the question and I see that as fundamentally dishonest and logic chopping.


There is no wavefunction description for the photon that is subject to the Schrodinger equation, for which I was referencing all along. This is not logic-chopping this is a fact. I was speaking about the evolution of the wavefunction according to the Schrodinger equation, which precludes me from speaking of photon polarization.


But the wavefunction only yields probabilities, and the wavefunction describes all particles. I think you are simply wrong here.


No, the wavefunction as used in the Schrodinger equation does not describe the photon. You must enter into QED and creation and annihilation events to speak about the photon from theory, otherwise you are speaking about Maxwell's description.

Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2016
But the wavefunction only yields probabilities, and the wavefunction describes all particles. I think you are simply wrong here.


No, the wavefunction as used in the Schrodinger equation does not describe the photon.
This is again not even wrong.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (27) Jun 05, 2016
-"Measurement"; A macroscopic apparatus designed by mind for the purpose of posing questions of quantum systems. Philosophically, the apparatus is also subject to QM, Schrodinger equation, Dirac Equation, QFT,.. etc. I say "Philosophically", because without a wavefunction description, it is not subject to QM. This is the point of the Schrodinger Cat experiment.


It doesn't matter to the interaction whether the interaction was due to a measurement or not.


Are you speaking philosophically here? It matters to performing experiments and relating these results to theory. If there is NO mathematical wavefunction description of the apparatus such that you can not subject it to the Schrodinger equation, then what "interactions" are you referring to? How can you quantifiably describe them? YOU are speaking philosophically here, by even referring to quantum-interactions that have no theoretical description.

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (25) Jun 05, 2016
.. reality is knowable in principal, but [..] there must result a mind dependent componen

I disagree and assert that this is philosophy not physics. An interaction is what it is; it's the same whether it's inside or outside an experiment,..


The definition of metaphysics, is in referencing things "outside an experiment". Science is de faco based on experiment only.....

Physical science is merely this,… linking one observable to another using a mathematical description that allows for prediction.


the wavefunction as used in the Schrodinger equation does not describe the photon


This is again not even wrong.

Sorry, it is a fact.

"the normal concept of a Schrödinger probability wave function cannot be applied to photons" - https://en.wikipe...i/Photon

One must approach this via 2nd quantification,... QFT (Q.E.D.).

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (25) Jun 05, 2016
I was speaking about the evolution of the wavefunction according to the Schrodinger equation, which precludes me from speaking of photon polarization.


You have just claimed that conserved properties are not described by quantum mechanics. Like I said, not even wrong.


I have done no such thing, as I have not even referenced conserved quantities for the point made.

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (25) Jun 05, 2016
Quote correction...

But the wavefunction only yields probabilities, and the wavefunction describes all particles. I think you are simply wrong here.


No, the wavefunction as used in the Schrodinger equation does not describe the photon.

This is again not even wrong.


Sorry, it is a fact.

"the normal concept of a Schrödinger probability wave function cannot be applied to photons" - https://en.wikipe...i/Photon

One must approach this via 2nd quantification,... QFT (Q.E.D.).

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (25) Jun 05, 2016
One can speak philosophically and loosely, as YOU are actually doing here, by proclaiming that quantum-interactions occur "whether it's inside or outside an experiment", but by doing so you are avoiding, by use of metaphysics, the distinction between measurement and interaction from theoretical physics grounds [Schrodinger wavefunction description] and experimental grounds [wavefunction collapse to an actual result; measurement problem].

There must be a distinction, imo, because,.... the Schrodinger Cat example, von Neumann's "cut", decoherence does not solve the measurement problem nor collapse the wavefunction, no wavefunction description available for the macroscopic apparatus in any case, Hawking quote, d'Espagnat veild reality principal,... CI [CHI],.... positivism preferred over realism tending to metaphysics...

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2016
I note that you still have not answered my questions and are attempting to change the subject.
nikola_milovic_378
Jun 05, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Jun 05, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2016
Hmmmm: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.1874
Title "Solutions of the Maxwell equations and photon wave functions"
Annals of Physics, Volume 325, pp 607-663, 2010
Fully peer reviewed and published in the scholarly literature, in fact in a very distinguished publication (Einstein's original 1905 paper on SRT was published in the same journal).

@Noum, While you're technically correct in that the wavefunction of a photon uses a different form than the Schroedinger equation, it looks like no one doubts that there has to be a wavefunction for the photon.

I therefore disagree with your claim that photons don't have a wavefunction and your implicit claim that that somehow invalidates my arguments. And in fact as I said, you're not even wrong.

The probability density function is derived beginning on page 45. We're still talking about the same stuff, from the point of view of the arguments I've presented here.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2016
Incidentally, the idea of a wavefunction for the photon is not new; it's been seriously addressed since at least 1996: http://www.cft.ed...CQO7.pdf

That author says that he thinks the reasons it was never developed were historical, and had to do with the way that Dirac proceeded when formulating QED. A quick google on "wavefunction of a photon" will yield quite a few results in the scholarly literature. There are some hints that most physicists felt that Maxwell's equations were all they needed. It's also worthy of note that the behavior of single photons has only recently become of interest due to applications in quantum computing and quantum cryptography.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2016
Oh and BTW it's also worthy of note that the quantum optics experiments that deal with particles in superposition apply equally well to electron experiments; Young's dual slit experiment, for example, works with electrons, as anyone who's read much Feynman knows.

I note that you are drawing a distinction between quantum behavior of photons and that of the elementary particles that appears not to actually exist. That's not gonna work any better than denying a photon wavefunction did.

Moving right along, you also failed to respond when I asserted that the wavefunction does not deal with particles, it deals with parameters of particles.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2016
It doesn't matter to the interaction whether the interaction was due to a measurement or not.
Are you speaking philosophically here?
Nope. An interaction is an interaction; whether there is some human watching for it and turning it into a measurement via some apparatus is immaterial to whether it's an interaction or not.

It matters to performing experiments and relating these results to theory.
Are you saying you can't have an experiment without doing some measurements? I'd probably agree with that.

If there is NO mathematical wavefunction description of the apparatus such that you can not subject it to the Schrodinger equation, then what "interactions" are you referring to?
"Is not" is not the same thing as "cannot be."

How can you quantifiably describe them?
By their results, which have physical consequences. Which may or may not be measured.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2016
[contd]
YOU are speaking philosophically here, by even referring to quantum-interactions that have no theoretical description.
No, I'm not. For a simple example, step out into the sunlight. You get warmer. Is this an "experiment?"

I was speaking about the evolution of the wavefunction according to the Schrodinger equation, which precludes me from speaking of photon polarization.
You have just claimed that conserved properties are not described by quantum mechanics. Like I said, not even wrong.
I have done no such thing, as I have not even referenced conserved quantities for the point made.
Angular momentum in quantum mechanics is composed of two components, SAM (S) and OAM (L). These are not individually conserved, but they *are* jointly conserved as total angular momentum (J): J = L + S. Polarization is due to spin.

I say again, not even wrong.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2016
One can speak philosophically and loosely, as YOU are actually doing here, by proclaiming that quantum-interactions occur "whether it's inside or outside an experiment", but by doing so you are avoiding, by use of metaphysics, the distinction between measurement and interaction from theoretical physics grounds [Schrodinger wavefunction description] and experimental grounds [wavefunction collapse to an actual result; measurement problem].
Incorrect.

Astrophysics is the perfect example. Many things happen that are not observed; however, everything that is obeys the laws of physics. The sources of the photons that astrophysicists analyze are not inside their experiments; they come from distant objects, some so distant that we will never visit them, and so distant in time that we can never go back and be there at the time. This does not make astrophysics "metaphysical."

[contd]
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (24) Jun 05, 2016
Title "Solutions of the Maxwell equations and photon wave functions"
[...]

@Noum, While you're technically correct in that the wavefunction of a photon uses a different form than the Schroedinger equation, it looks like no one doubts that there has to be a wavefunction for the photon.

I therefore disagree with your claim that photons don't have a wavefunction [...]


Here is what I said.... "I was referring to quantum wavefunction descriptions as evolved by the Schrodinger equation, and not Maxwell's description. There is no wavefunction description for the photon as used in the Schrodinger equation" - Noumenon

This statement is factually true.

IOW, I was not speaking about photon wavefunction interpretation of the Maxwell equations,... but rather the wavefunction in the Schrodinger equation. There is also QED as I mentioned above. So what?

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2016
[contd]
The fact that the photons they were analyzing have conserved quantities like polarization and frequency is not a question of metaphysics. The entire point of astrophysics is that these photons preserve some of their characteristics over millions and billions of years of propagation through the cosmos. And they did all that propagating outside of any experimenting. A paltry few of them managed to make it to the telescope, and even fewer into the astrophysicist's spectroscope. Yet from these few we are able to infer the chemical compositions and motions of their sources. This is absolutely not metaphysics.

Let's go back to my example of stepping out into the sunlight. You appear to be claiming that since the exact interaction of each photon with some atom of your clothing or body was not observed, it's "metaphysical." I say this is nonsense.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2016
[contd]
Interactions happen all the time, and when they do, they alter physical characteristics (i.e. parameters) of the interacting particles. Some particles self-interact; for example, neutrons decay into protons, electrons, and electron antineutrinos. They do this whether someone is measuring them or not.

Your claim that I was philosophizing is therefore rejected categorically.

There must be a distinction, imo, because,.... the Schrodinger Cat example,
Schroedinger's cat is not quantum physics. It is a dialectical tool for explaining quantum physics to those who do not know it. It also does not depend on your claim of a difference between measurement and interaction. And you still have failed yet again to note that all measurements are interactions, but not all interactions are measurements.

von Neumann's "cut",
Not even going to bother looking this up. Illustrate it and relate it to your arguments, please.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2016
[contd]
decoherence does not solve the measurement problem nor collapse the wavefunction,
Decoherence is the process by which through many weak interactions a parameter of a particle is changed from its prior state to a new state, either a definite state or a superposed one (with different probabilities if it was already in a superposed state). There is no "measurement problem." "Collapse of the wavefunction" is what happens when a superposed state is resolved to a definite state as a result of an interaction.

no wavefunction description available for the macroscopic apparatus in any case,
So? One could be formulated, if we had the computational power. It's not necessary for this discussion in any case since the interaction is a sufficient description for the purposes of this conversation.

I'm not going to bother with a bunch of quotes that have already been discussed and rejected. That's just spam. I'm moving on. 2 for pretending astrophysics is philosophy.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2016
Title "Solutions of the Maxwell equations and photon wave functions"...

@Noum, While you're technically correct in that the wavefunction of a photon uses a different form than the Schroedinger equation, it looks like no one doubts that there has to be a wavefunction for the photon.

I therefore disagree with your claim that photons don't have a wavefunction.
Here is what I said.... "I was referring to quantum wavefunction descriptions as evolved by the Schrodinger equation, and not Maxwell's description. There is no wavefunction description for the photon as used in the Schrodinger equation" - Noumenon

This statement is factually true.
It's also irrelevant to the point, which is that photons have probability distributions too. Now you're starting to lawyer again. 2 for lawyering.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2016
Incidentally, photons are experimentally proven to have probability distributions by Malus' Law, but in the context of this conversation it's more elegant to show that they have a wavefunction, albeit not the Schroedinger wave function.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2016
Circling back around, I think it's really important that you answer my questions in order to continue, @Noum. Do you need me to repeat them?
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (26) Jun 05, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Your discussion seems (to me at least) to have boiled down to the complementary factors of what we can 'know' and what we can 'infer' about 'unique parameters', irrespective of whether we can 'interrogate reality' or not.
Well we are glad that's how it seems to you, but don't interupt them while they are thinking.
Inferable/Knowable 'reality': former 'unbounded', latter 'bounded', states/values? :)
Let the scientists and humans alone now Skippy. I don't think they really want your ponderings and stuffs getting in the way of their conversation. When was the last time anybody asked you for your help?
It's called on-topic 'third-party feedback', Ira; so they can better gauge what understanding their discussion may be conveying to readers of their conceptual/scientific discussion to that point. They don't 'need' to ask for it, Ira; it's given freely, without bias. Whereas your post, Ira, was personal off-topic useless noise. Shut it, mate. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (18) Jun 05, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
@ Really-Skippy. Hi and how you are too Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

It's called on-topic 'third-party feedback', Ira; so they can better gauge what understanding their discussion may be conveying to readers of their conceptual/scientific discussion to that point
Well if you say so. It looked to me like they were doing just fine before you started feeding back to them.

They don't 'need' to ask for it, Ira; it's given freely, without bias.
Choot, you did not need to tell anybody that. But that is not the question I asked. I asked when was the last time anybody ever asked you for help explaining anything?

Whereas your post, Ira, was personal off-topic useless noise.
You postum a lot of off topic noise too.

Shut it, mate. :)
Well I tell you two things. 1) You just guaranteed I won't. 2) If it weren't for me and Captain-Skippy you would be really lonely here, we are the only two willing to have much to do with you.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (25) Jun 05, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
It's called on-topic 'third-party feedback', Ira..
Well if you say so. It looked to me like they were doing just fine before you started feeding back to them.
You earlier/eslewhere admitted your 'considered opinion' is that of a 'bot-voting idiot' who doesn't understanding the science discussion in-depth. Doh!
They don't 'need' to ask for it, Ira; it's given freely, without bias.
I asked when was the last time anybody ever asked you for help explaining anything?
I help people even when not asked. It's called being generous. Try it (but leave your 'inner idiot' at home).
Whereas your post, Ira, was personal off-topic useless noise.
You postum a lot of off topic noise too.
In your idiot-bot 'considered opinion'? Doh!
Shut it, mate. :)
..If it weren't for me and Captain-Skippy..
...there'd be a lot less 'idiot-noise' around here. No loss. And since you're on vacation, why don't you give your 'inner idiot' onels
Mimath224
5 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2016
@RealityCheck&Uncle Ira. I have to admit I have wanted to join the Da Schneib & Noumenon conversation (names in alphabetical order just in case someone should ask, ha!) but I have refrained from doing so and here is my reason. Normally there is freedom to intervene but because both were being quite specific with each other I viewed D&N as though they were two candidates on stage. The other reason is that by doing this, a layman such as I might be less confused by 'watching' their progress and thus a better opportunity to learn something (always good for a layperson). I do have some issues with both but because I'm not a practicing scientist such issues can wait for another day. So I agree with Uncle Ira on this point.
AS FOR THE MAIN ARTICLE, I still need to read more on this because one of the problems I have with LQG is that 'spin states and 'foams' seem to rely on a hypersphere which I would have thought has near infinite curvature at the quantum level.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (26) Jun 05, 2016
Hi Mimath224. :)
I have to admit I have wanted to join the Da Schneib & Noumenon conversation..
I didn't, and nor do I want to, "join their discussion" either, mate. I clearly stated (in my response to Ira) that I was giving one-off 'third party feedback' to assist in them gauging what their discussion was conveying to me/readers at that stage. That was it. :)
The other reason is that by doing this, a layman such as I might be less confused by 'watching' their progress and thus a better opportunity to learn something (always good for a layperson).
The discussion gets better if cross-purpose misunderstandings/confusions are minimized by 'third party feedback' to help them identify respective points/arguments needing clarification etc.
..'spin states and 'foams' seem to rely on a hypersphere which I would have thought has near infinite curvature at the quantum level.
Yes. It's the current conventional-maths 'singularities' problem. New maths required! Cheers. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (21) Jun 05, 2016
I didn't, and nor do I want to, "join their discussion"
then STFU
I was giving one-off 'third party feedback' to assist in them gauging what their discussion was conveying
which, by definition, is attempting to join the discussion because you want to insure both parties are aware of you and your misunderstanding

are you really that big of an idiot?

this is a public site, so having people reading their comments is inevitable - even you should understand that one

so there is no need for your "feedback"

what you were attempting is to interject yourself for attention so you can make continued false claims elsewhere about how you tried to [insert BS claim here]

STFU and let the smart folk speak
maybe you'll actually learn something
(snicker - yeah right)
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (27) Jun 06, 2016
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)

It should be obvious to you that IF I wanted to join THEIR conversation (not the general thread conversation) I would have addressed an ARGUMENT to them about their points/claims etc. I did NOT do that, so I have NOT engaged them in conversation, but merely observed as THIRD PARTY FEEDBACK to them what THEIR conversation was conveying to those (including myself) reading their respective arguments/positions.

It was up to THEM how they took/used that feedback/observation, NOT YOU or IRA.

It was all made clear from the start. But Ira and you make off-topic NOISE posts while I made on-topic science posts to assist THEIR mutual understandings about what THEY are saying to EACH OTHER. Now shut your IRRELEVANT 'personal' off-topic noise, CapS. Thanks. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (20) Jun 06, 2016
It was up to THEM how they took/used that feedback/observation
and they're mostly just ignoring you as a typical nonsensical pseudoscience crank

and BTW - nothing you do is obvious to anyone but you, mostly because of your delusional state
Now shut your IRRELEVANT 'personal' off-topic noise
it's not irrelevant or OT
it is a "clearly stated one-off 'third party feedback' to assist in you gauging what the discussion was conveying to me/readers at that stage"

so again, STFU and let the smart folk talk

or just FOAD...

either choice works for me

RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (25) Jun 06, 2016
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)

Mate, how can you even function at all with that level of confirmation biased 'reading' and personal prejudicial malice dripping from your irrelevant NOISE posts? Can't you read? I never asked for or expected any replies from them: it was a third party observation as described; it was not a discussion participation post.

At least I was on-topic and had regard to their discussion. You and Ira did/had NONE of that in your posts. All you have posted is personal irrelevant noise and malicious personal trolling.

So, mate; have you reported yourself and Ira for being off-topic, trolling and harassing a PO member, yet? It's what you've been doing. You haven't reported yourselves? What a surprise! Hypocrite and troll. No wonder you are an Internet Irrelevance of great renown,

CapS. How long will it take to get through that insensible cognitive dissonance, CapS?

Please shut your irrelevant noise; you and Ira only bring off-topic noise/malice. Shut it. :)
nikola_milovic_378
Jun 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Jun 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Jun 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (26) Jun 06, 2016
The sources of the photons that astrophysicists analyze are not inside their experiments; they come from distant objects


You don't appear to understand the point made. I don't have time at the moment to systematically address every point, but for now, I will just point out.... that I was referring to how we obtain knowledge initially, not that we subsequently use that knowledge....

i.e.... We know about photons only because of careful quantifiable experiments , and only then, subsequently, does one use that knowledge to make inferences about systems generally,... photons coming from the sun or astrophysical sources.

Therefore, the necessary foundation of scientific knowledge, at least fundamental physics , is experiment, and whatever a-priori conditions this entails.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (26) Jun 06, 2016
... in the process of obtaining knowledge, referencing things "outside an experiment" is de facto metaphysics. That's what metaphysics means.

I have not said that phenomenal-reality (as defined above), does not exist such that we can't make inferences of non-experimental observations using knowledge gained from experiments. I will not respond to questions that assume this.

I have said that the a-priori conditions for doing experiments including epistemic (see Hawking quote) and synthesizing understanding using concepts, does render our knowledge mind dependent. This should be obvious. What dows this mean?

Without a quantifiable wavefunction description of the apparatus, .... "measurement" is essentially different from "interaction". Even with such a description (though never exists), ....decoherence implies loss of quantum behavior, while the issue is to form knowledge of quantum behavior.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (26) Jun 06, 2016
... since experimentally and quantifiably observing decoherence occur in mesoscopic objects is actually only of relatively recent progress, I will not reference this, nor decoherence, and indeed it does not solve the measurement problem.

This "measurement problem" is universally understood to be unresolved completely. It is only in interpretation that one claims it does not exist [in actual single experiment the wavefunction collapses],... MWI,... In CHI, it is avoided by interpretation in establishing conditions for logically consistent histories,... but is compatible or equivalent to the original espistemic interpretational arguements of CI.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (26) Jun 06, 2016
We are not debating whether photons are wave-packets, and I need to stick to wavefunction as used in the Schrodinger equation , rather than someone's interpretational derivation of photons in the non-QM Maxwell equations. If you still need to make a similar point , I would suggest the Stern-Gerlach experiment. But, lets focus on the measurement/interaction distinction.

More time later to properly read through,.....

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (26) Jun 06, 2016
Lets try to leave the "characterizations" out of this, unless it's related to a point. For example, you stated that I'm "not even wrong" yet had to subsequently acknowledged that I was right wrt the wavefunction of the photon. I'm sure this fact surprised you. My reasoning for making this distinction is on account of the point i'm trying to convey which is about QM & wavefunction as evolved in the Schrodinger equation, and not Maxwell or derivations from classical physics.

Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2016
You don't appear to understand the point made. I don't have time at the moment to systematically address every point, but for now, I will just point out.... that I was referring to how we obtain knowledge initially, not that we subsequently use that knowledge....
I don't see a clear dividing line here. Also, I note that the one and only way we obtain knowledge is by interactions. In my astrophysics example, we obtain knowledge of prior interactions photons have had by detecting photons. The fact that we can obtain this information is due to the conservation laws, and their corresponding symmetries. Superpositions indicate parameters that are not constrained by these symmetries and conservation laws; it is worthy of note that we generally do not attempt to obtain information from parameters in superposition in astrophysics.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2016
[contd]
i.e.... We know about photons only because of careful quantifiable experiments , and only then, subsequently, does one use that knowledge to make inferences about systems generally,... photons coming from the sun or astrophysical sources.
I see you as attempting to differentiate experiments that use photons from carefully controlled sources from experiments that use photons from uncontrolled sources and appearing to claim that these photons are different. It is exactly the fact that we expect these photons, if identical as far as we can measure, to have acquired their characteristics from similar physical interactions that allows us to make inferences about the interactions at their sources, such as the motion of the emitter and its chemical composition. I don't think we get "different photons" from these distant uncontrolled sources than we get from carefully controlled sources in the lab. And you appear to be saying you do.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2016
[contd]
Therefore, the necessary foundation of scientific knowledge, at least fundamental physics , is experiment, and whatever a-priori conditions this entails.
Symmetry of results over space indicates conservation of momentum. Symmetry of results over time indicates conservation of energy. Symmetry of results over rotation indicates conservation of angular momentum. These are basic physical facts. These are the physical facts that allow us to draw inferences about distant events. I see no difference in these physical facts beween "in an experiment" and "in reality." I therefore assert that your attempt to distinguish them from one another is philosophy, not physics.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (26) Jun 06, 2016
I see you as attempting to differentiate experiments that use photons from carefully controlled sources from experiments that use photons from uncontrolled sources and appearing to claim that these photons are different


You're not understanding me. I'm not at all saying what you just claimed. The photons as observed are the same everywhere. Before one can observe a photon and make inferences about photons about systems in general, one has to know what a photon is. This requires controlled experimentation. One can not make inferences about how the sun releases energy without first understanding nuclear physics, QED, etc. This requires theoretical confirmation by controlled experiment. Once predictive knowledge is had, only then one can make inferences about the sun.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (26) Jun 06, 2016
What are you referring to by "interaction",... "how It 'really' is, wink" in contrast to its Description? That is metaphysics. How it is observed experimentally corresponds with (by verification of theory) , and is nothing more than how it is described,

Therefore if there is no such description, as there is not for macroscopic apparatus in quantum experiment, then there is something essential missing .

Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2016
... in the process of obtaining knowledge, referencing things "outside an experiment" is de facto metaphysics. That's what metaphysics means.
We deal with things outside an experiment all the time. In fact we deal with things from outside experiments in experiments all the time. Physics describes how things behave, not how things in experiments behave. It would be useless if that were all it could do.

I have not said that phenomenal-reality (as defined above), does not exist such that we can't make inferences of non-experimental observations using knowledge gained from experiments. I will not respond to questions that assume this.
Make up your mind. These two statements are in tension.

If you're going to pick and choose which questions you answer, it's obvious that you're hiding something. I'm sorry but I don't see a lot of point in trying to figure out what you're trying to say when you won't answer questions about it.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2016
Before one can observe a photon and make inferences about photons about systems in general, one has to know what a photon is.
This is incorrect. One merely needs to know how a photon behaves. What a photon actually is turns out to be irrelevant. It's philosophy. How it behaves is physics.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2016
What are you referring to by "interaction",...
I am referring to the only means by which a photon can be detected: it interacts with something.

"how It 'really' is, wink" in contrast to its Description?
How it interacts with things is all we can ever know. This isn't philosophy, it's physical fact.

That is metaphysics.
No, talking about what photons "really are" is metaphysics.

How it is observed experimentally corresponds with (by verification of theory) , and is nothing more than how it is described,
It is described only by how it is detected. There is no other description possible because that is all we can observe.

Therefore if there is no such description, as there is not for macroscopic apparatus in quantum experiment, then there is something essential missing .
Every scientific paper discusses the apparatus.

You're still on philosophy.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2016
Lets try to leave the "characterizations" out of this, unless it's related to a point. For example, you stated that I'm "not even wrong" yet had to subsequently acknowledged that I was right wrt the wavefunction of the photon.
No, you weren't; you claimed there is no wavefunction for a photon and I showed that in fact, there is. More importantly to the argument, you attempted to reject the possibility that there is a probability distribution for photons, and I proved that wrong two different ways. I still say you were not even wrong.

I'm sure this fact surprised you.
Not really. I've known about it since before 2000. What surprised me was that you didn't know about photon wavefunctions.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2016
My reasoning for making this distinction is on account of the point i'm trying to convey which is about QM & wavefunction as evolved in the Schrodinger equation, and not Maxwell or derivations from classical physics.
The problems are, first, the conversation was about superposition and probability distributions, not the wavefunction, second, photons explicitly show probability distributions just like matter particles, see Malus' Law, and third, you were factually incorrect in stating photons do not have a wavefunction.

So in three of your statements, we find more lawyering (attempting to redirect the conversation from superposition and probability distributions to the wavefunction), failing to acknowledge physical fact (photon probability distribution via Malus' Law), and failing to acknowledge theoretical fact (photon wavefunctions exist).

What's your point, and how do you expect to make it using failed arguments like these?
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2016
Circling all the way back around to the beginning, the simple statement of my argument here is that parameters of quantum particles that are in a superposed state are in a real state, despite the fact that when the particles interact in a manner that determines that state it is necessarily is resolved into a definite state. There is hard experimental proof that this is so, and that it's so for all particles, whether matter (electrons, protons, etc.) or energy (photons, etc.).

Particles in quantum physics have real existence, but their parameters can and sometimes do enter a state that is essentially different from any state that classical objects can be in: superposition. If we simply accept that this is so, then paradoxes like the "measurement problem" disappear; they were philosophical in the first place, and based upon the nature of the math we used to describe them:
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2016
[contd]
This math is the wave equation, and it is obvious what its problem is: it can describe the superposed states in terms of probabilities, but it cannot describe interactions that resolve those superposed states. What else can we say about a mathematical treatment that can describe propagating particles but can only describe interactions of those particles (a manifest physical fact) as probabilities?

Obviously what nature is telling us here is that
a) superposed states exist,
b) our mathematical theories can describe these superposed states, or describe non-superposed states, but cannot describe the transition from one to the other,
and
c) our description is therefore of a basic incompatibility between classical and quantum physics, and our perception that there is "something wrong" is due to this incompatibility, not to flaws in our theories.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2016
[contd]
It is also very important to remember that superposition is not the only difference between classical and quantum physics; entanglement is another. So superposition is not a unique property of quantum physics that is not describable in classical terms; there is at least one other property that is not. But we are discussing superposition, not entanglement; and I have purposefully avoided talking about entanglement. AFAICT there is no point in discussing entanglement if we cannot agree on superposition.

To wind this up, I will point out that you have failed to present any evidence that successfully challenges my view that superposition is a real state of quantum reality. And this is what the original argument was about.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2016
And to tie a knot in it, the action principle is the basis of all physics; and action requires inter-action (notice the common root in those two words? There's a reason for it). If the wavefunction cannot describe this interaction, then it is obviously incomplete; that's OK, it's still useful, but trying to claim that quantum reality doesn't exist (or even can't be understood) based on this is footless (except in philosophy which permits navel-gazing speculation which is self-denying). The reason is that without inter-action, the action principle is meaningless: there is nothing for the action to act upon.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2016
Oh and while we're on the subject, it is worth noting that Maxwell's equations are represented in QED directly in the Dirac equation by the use of three-by-three matrices that are needed to incorporate them. So claiming that Maxwell's equations are not represented in QFT is also not even wrong; in fact, they are explicitly represented.

Given that the photon wavefunction is also derived from Maxwell's equations, it is reasonable to expect that the two wavefunctions will have to give a consistent description of reality that is beyond the direct reach of either alone. They're derived from the same roots, after all.
AGreatWhopper
3.2 / 5 (26) Jun 06, 2016
Noumenon 1.7 /5 (11) Jun 03, 2016
We both seem to agree that the "underlying reality" is neither a particle nor a wave until detection or inference, which is the rationale interpretation as pointed out in the Wiki quote.


Now that's feckless. Maybe you can see with that why you're a joke to one and all. You're as useful as a lawyer at a lynching. But I agree with you in one of your defenses, that you're trying to do physics, not Kant. You sure aren't doing Kant.

The noumenon, or for those not using Kant for Dummies, "das Ding an sich", is unknowable. What part of "unknowable" do you not get? That doesn't mean, "really, really small and all quantumy", it means, unknowable. We carry a raft of assumptions even at the quantum level. A theory is a theory and no one has a god-like point of view. That's Kant. I don't know what you're playing at.
AGreatWhopper
3.2 / 5 (27) Jun 06, 2016
Noumenon1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 02, 2016
... and this way of thinking (positivist of which Hawking has stated he is , as opposed to realist), seems implicit in QM and was the original Heisenberg and (eventually) Bohr (Copenhagen) point of view,....


That is so cocked up. Hawking is the last great exponent of naive realism. There are political concerns. He's the Lucasian Chair at Cambridge and they can't abide accepting the Oxford linguistic analysis tradition. He's talking a different game since the turn of the century, but that's because even he realizes that his legacy is at stake. He'll be a minor footnote in history if he goes down as a naive realist. I think he realizes it's his to lose, and it turns on that "completely non-physics and too philosophical" point.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 07, 2016
Your an idiot know-nothing, and have not read my posts above with any comprehension, and do not know what I think. Which is why you post only characterizations. I have no reason to believe you have ever read Kant, much less understand physics.

In fact, I take a similar view that Heisenberg/Bohr did,.... Bohr being in essence the natural successor to Kant [as stated by A. Pais as well], in that he realized the concepts used at the macroscopic scale are exposed as an artificial synthesis for intuitive understanding. I can reference many prominent physicist for my opinions.

Hawking has stated he was a positivist,... but I guess you know better than him?

I don't debate troll-raters, of which phys.org is infected. It is just not worth my time here with this quality of posters and trolls.

End.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (26) Jun 07, 2016
The noumenon, or for those not using Kant for Dummies, "das Ding an sich", is unknowable. What part of "unknowable" do you not get?


I stated it was unknowable above and have defined what Noumenon means,... in addition to pointing out it must be "conceptually formless",.... in addition to that it is the act of observation (necessarily at the macro-scale) that adds conceptual form for our understanding. Even with donzens of screen-names, you are incompetent and fundamentally dishonest, and have not said anything about physics nor Kant that was not already posted.

As far as I can tell you're a 14 boy playing with screen names.

I'm trying to lead Schneib there step by step, but it is not working. Maybe Ira will instruct you to piss-off? Phys.org will not receive anymore clicks from me until it disbles comment ratings.

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (28) Jun 07, 2016
There is no wavefunction description for the photon that is subject to the Schrodinger equation


But the wavefunction only yields probabilities, and the wavefunction describes all particles.


No, the wavefunction as used in the Schrodinger equation does not describe the photon. You must enter into QED and creation and annihilation events


This is again not even wrong.


[Schneib eventually admits Noumenon is "technically right" but then invents another argument that never existed.]

I'm sure this fact surprised you.


Not really. I've known about it since before 2000.

Really? There is no way to have a rational dialogue that is resolvable with this type of behavior....
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2016
Sorry, @Noum, you're changing the subject again. That tells me that you're out of arguments and have fallen back into old ways. I'd say that's pretty good evidence this is over and you've got nothing else left.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (28) Jun 07, 2016
What surprised me was that you didn't know about photon wavefunctions.


Who says? You just made that up. As I said, it requires QED as photons don't subsist. Maxwell equations are classical not quantum, despite someones interpretational derivation. I was referencing the deterministic Schrodinger equation description for a reason, then you added a non-Schrodinger equation example.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (28) Jun 07, 2016
Sorry, @Noum, you're changing the subject again. That tells me that you're out of arguments and have fallen back into old ways. I'd say that's pretty good evidence this is over and you've got nothing else left.


You have lied repeatedly, added non-existent arguements as chaff, added random off topic chaff, added your own subjective characterizations about me of what I know or don't know,...added unfounded accusationary posts, and on and on.

Yes, we are done,... mainly because of the trolls here, not necessarily you. I just have not had time to articulate this measurement/interaction debate and bring you "there" step by step, as with a leash on a dog that hasn't taken a dump in three days. Perhaps another time when Phys.Org disables comment ratings.

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2016
If you've got some argument that's about whether superposed states can exist or not, make it. Otherwise we're done here and I'm out. I'm not going to play rhetorical solipsistic philosophy games with you any more.

Last chance; I'll close this window and move on from this thread if your next post isn't about whether superposed states can exist.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2016
And moving right along from acceptance of the Born Rule as a description of quantum reality, we also see that if this is so, there is no "measurement problem." When an interaction occurs, if that interaction causes a parameter in superposition to be resolved, then that parameter takes on a definite (as opposed to superposed) value. Wave equations (whether Schroedinger or otherwise) do not describe this; that is a limitation in wave equations, not a limitation of reality.

To say this another way, whether this is equivalent to "collapse of the wavefunction" is a philosophical point; interactions manifestly occur in reality, and we can see them, so if wave equations cannot describe them, that is a characteristic of wave equations, not a characteristic of reality. The "measurement problem" is also, by this evidence, shown to be a philosophical problem, not a deficiency in physics-- or reality.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2016
A view of the wavefunction emerges from this in which it is a description of- and only of- the superposed state of a parameter of a particle. When the state stops being in superposition- that is, when an interaction that resolves that state occurs- the wave equation stops applying to that parameter. It then applies to all parameters conjugate under uncertainty with the original parameter. Thus interactions make a fundamental change in the states of particles, which is exactly what we expect classically: a ball hits (i.e. interacts with) some other object and changes velocity. It is only the incorrect insistence that the wave equation describes interactions that leads to this supposed paradox. In reality, there is no paradox; an interaction occurs and states change. This, along with conservation laws and the Fluctuation Theorem, connects quantum reality with classical reality and allows the latter to be derived from the former.
nikola_milovic_378
Jun 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Jun 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2016
To put this in fully classical terms, speaking of "the collapse of the wavefunction" due to an interaction is like speaking of "the collapse of the Galilean motion function" because a baseball stops when it hits the catcher's mitt.

And with that I'm outta here. And @Noum, you're back on ignore because you can't distinguish telling you you're wrong from insulting you.
nikola_milovic_378
Jun 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (27) Jun 07, 2016
whether this is equivalent to "collapse of the wavefunction" is a philosophical point;


Well, no its not a philosophical point, it is a mathematical one. It is a statement of the incompatibility of a deterministic description and evolution of a wavefunction, with the experimental result of obtaining only one eigenvalue solution and the subsequent state of the wavefunction description. The measurement problem relects this mathematical/ experimental incompatibility,.... only its resolution is interpretational / philosophical.

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 07, 2016
interactions manifestly occur in reality, and we can see them, so if wave equations cannot describe them, that is a characteristic of wave equations, not a characteristic of reality.


Scientific-knowledge is represented in the validated mathematical formulation only,... thus any talk apart from this is metaphysics.

So, it is invalid to refer to reality as not being represented in the mathematical formulation, unless you are willing to 1) state that the theory is wrong, or 2) take the next small step, which has been my argument, and accept that the conceptual form is defined by the experimental apparatus,... i.e. that the wavefunction is not actually a superposition-of-parameter-values as you appear to insist upon.

To extract the, what I call, conceptual-values, one must solve an eigenvalue problem to find the energy states (Hamiltonian operator), then apply an an expectation value operator appropriate for the given experimental arrangement.
AlbertPierrepointOBE
2.9 / 5 (27) Jun 07, 2016
I've had the honor of knowing Marjorie Greene for a number of years and I can tell you she would agree with AGW's statements, blow cigar smoke in your face, and tell you to go fuck off.
AlbertPierrepointOBE
2.9 / 5 (27) Jun 07, 2016
Noumenon 1.7 /5 (12) Jun 03, 2016

I will be out for a while....


You really need to do more of that. Must be a pretty rare event that you announce it. Pretty deluded that you think anyone cares. OK, there were some high fives, but, not like you meant.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2016
OK, @Noum, you've re-upped and that's what was necessary to continue the conversation; off ignore again, and I'll make some answers later. Right now I have real life tasks that are more important than this.

On edit: As a general comment, I'd appreciate it if others could at least give @Noum the credit deserved for backing off of the personal/solipsistic/philosophical crud and sticking to the logical and physics arguments. Just cool it. I don't need that kind of help. It just makes @Noum feel defensive; and that's not what this is about.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (27) Jun 07, 2016
Someone attempted to log into my email account. This is the 2nd time this has occurred soon after interacting with troll AGreatWhopper and his dozen screen names. Only phys.org employees would have this email account. I have informed my account provided what I suspect.

It is clear that Phys.Org employees attempt to chase away anyone with conservative or libertarian leanings. This is intellectual corruption of the worse kind.

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 07, 2016
@DaSchneib,.. you keep referring to these "interaction" as if "in reality" apart from scientific knowledge, which can only mean 'scientific mathematical description',... and then you accuse me of doing philosophy.

Also, you can not validly refer to "interaction" before one knows what an "interaction" is quantitatively,... which I mean by theoretical description. I'm speaking about how quantum knowledge was obtained in the first place, and you're putting the cart before the horse.

AlbertPierrepointOBE
2.9 / 5 (27) Jun 07, 2016
ReallyCheek 1.7 /5 (19) Jun 01, 2016
Hi Sheik_Yerbuti (or if I may translate for American-English speakers: "Shake_Your_Booty"?) :)

Sorry to intrude upon your conversation


Not "sorry", "regret". This is a hobby horse of mine. "Sorry" means "I would do something different the next time". "Regret" means "I would do the same thing, but regret the consequences". You're not sorry because you would do it again.


While I admire your attention to semantical correctness in general, in this instance it would have been better informed if you had paid more attention to context. The "sorry" was in context meant as an "apology in advance" for the 'act of intrusion' itself. I neither regretted nor was sorry for any consequence


Oh. You were just lying then.
AGreatWhopper
3 / 5 (28) Jun 07, 2016
As far as I can tell you're a 14 boy playing with screen names.


If you believe that then you must be pretty humiliated that such a character could cut you a new one on the subject of Kant.
AGreatWhopper
2.9 / 5 (27) Jun 07, 2016
Noumenon1 / 5 (2) 55 minutes ago
Someone attempted to log into my email account. This is the 2nd time this has occurred soon after interacting with troll AGreatWhopper and his dozen screen names. Only phys.org employees would have this email account. I have informed my account provided what I suspect.


This is why it's useless to argue with cranks. You definitively put down their points and then they turn the table over and cause a distraction so they don't have to admit they've been bettered. What a bunch of paranoid nonsense! SFB, yeah, the site is biased...towards YOU, you complete git. After looking at IP addresses, I can tell you what they think of your "suspicions".

You're a joke. You get your central points totally cocked up, you try to distract everyone when you're proven wrong and start yelling conspiracy to the moderators. Show of hands, now. ANYONE that doesn't regard noum as a complete joke?
AGreatWhopper
2.9 / 5 (27) Jun 07, 2016
Noumenon3 / 5 (2) 3 hours ago
Yes, we are done,... mainly because of the trolls here, not necessarily you. I just have not had time to articulate this measurement/interaction debate and bring you "there" step by step, as with a leash on a dog that hasn't taken a dump in three days. Perhaps another time when Phys.Org disables comment ratings.


He can't open his mouth without lying. Two hours he was "done" and here's the POS spewing again. The give-away is the way he accuses everyone else of his behavior. He really needed more physical punishment as a child. You can see how he's projected his parents' pandering ways onto the world and expects it. He wants to spew with impunity. Can't stand the average reader saying, "What a load of tosh!" "That's abuse". We're all supposed to molly-coddle him.

Bugger off, or talk to your MILF about it.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 07, 2016
As far as I can tell you're a 14 boy playing with screen names.


If you believe that then you must be pretty humiliated that such a character could cut you a new one on the subject of Kant.


You have never articulated a counter point nor even said anything substantive about Kant here,... mich less correct me or even understood me here,... you just repeat these subjective characterization as above. As I said, I have no reason to suspect you have even read Kant or QM, from reading your posts.

I will not respond to you again on account of your obviously adolescent mind.

"crank"? You think this only on account of your incompetence at comprehension as I've never advocated for any alternative theory except mainstream nor interpretation that does not have prominent physicists who agree with historical significance. You're just another nobody-troll posting characterizations instead of substance.

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 07, 2016

I've had the honor of knowing Marjorie Greene for a number of years and I can tell you she would agree with AGW's statements, blow cigar smoke in your face, and tell you to go fuck off.


One would think with all the screen names you control that you would say something of substance at least with one of them, instead of posting merely your vacuous and subjective characterizations, and undemonstrated claims of knowing better.

Again, you have not even shown once that you understand anything except trolling,... why not use your "NOM" screen name anymore?

I'm sure Ira will be along any moment to scold you for interjecting nothingness into this thread.

nikola_milovic_378
Jun 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 07, 2016
interactions manifestly occur in reality, and we can see them, so if wave equations cannot describe them, that is a characteristic of wave equations, not a characteristic of reality.


I want to respond to this in a different way, because in this sentence as opposed to the one before it, you said "if", as in hypothetical. Yes if the mathematical theory (which represents our knowledge) can not describe these "interactions" then that is a break down theory? If this what you meant, yes of course I agree.

However, there must be such a wavefunction description for there to be any knowledge of these "interaction",.... and I have asked you how they are quantitatively described......

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 07, 2016
....

Again, there is no such wavefunction description for the apparatus except as conceptually macro-scopic and classically intuitive, ....so again referencing Schrodinger cat and von Nuemann's cut,.... measurement must be essentially different than unsubstantiated (no wavefunction description) "interactions" in the apparatus,.... and indeed decoherence does not solve this issue as it relies upon only the deterministic Schrodinger equation,... and not indeterminism and abrupt change to the wavefunction as actually found in experiment.

Schrodinger cat,... the observer must always exist outside the quantum wavefunction description.

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 07, 2016
.....John von Neumann took this idea further in his landmark text book,.... and like you (and I agree) says we can "assume" that all macro-scopic objects are subject to QM theoretically at least. However, concludes that since the observer must always exist outside the system in terms of quantifiable description,... the essential difference between mind-dependent-measurement and 'raw quantum interaction' is in consciousness. I would have preferred to say in concepts that are themselves unphysical.

I have posted a summery of Neumann's cut In This Thread.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 07, 2016
Quantum mechanics is fundamentally non-intuitive, while macroscopic objects, the experimental apparatus, as described in classical physics are intuitive,.... this means that these concepts break-down at the QM scale,.... there is a necessary incompatibility between the quantum realm and the conditions for observation to be possible in the validity of concepts used.

See Hawking quote and my definition of Noumenon once again.

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 07, 2016
@DaSchneib,.. you keep referring to these "interaction" as if "in reality" apart from scientific knowledge, which can only mean 'scientific mathematical description',... and then you accuse me of doing philosophy.
When a photon activates a rod or cone in your retina and that generates a nerve signal to your brain, that's not philosophy. It's a physical fact. And it's an interaction. It's not part of any experiment. Are you claiming there's some sort of difference between what you see and what's seen in experiment? Because that appears to be what you're claiming here.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 07, 2016
there must be such a wavefunction description for there to be any knowledge of these "interaction",.... and I have asked you how they are quantitatively described......
I agree there must be a description. I do not agree that the wavefunction must provide it.

And in fact there is a description; it's described in classical physics, when an object is acted upon by a force. There is also a QM description; it's called "scattering."
Sheik_Yerbuti
Jun 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (27) Jun 07, 2016
How to reconcile the incompatibility between the deterministic evolution of the state-vector, by which I mean wavefunction, and the indeterministic state-reduction, by which I mean "collapse" of the wavefunction upon an actual measurement or interaction with a macroscopic apparatus?

It appears that one can only layer an interpretation on top theory ,... either metaphysical or epistemic,... because assuming that "interactions" (by which we mean decoherence with the apparatus) , even if describable in terms of a wavefunction, will not work to resolve this issue...

"A dynamical collapse of the wave function would require nonlinear and non-unitary terms in the Schrödinger equation [...] Since nonlinear terms in the Schrödinger equation lead to observable deviations from conventional quantum theory, they should at present be disregarded for similar reasons as hidden variables." - Heinz-Dieter Zeh, the discoverer of decoherence
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (27) Jun 07, 2016
there must be such a wavefunction description for there to be any knowledge of these "interaction",.... and I have asked you how they are quantitatively described......
I agree there must be a description. I do not agree that the wavefunction must provide it.

And in fact there is a description; it's described in classical physics, when an object is acted upon by a force. There is also a QM description; it's called "scattering."


Then if that were the case [to account for wavefunction collapse and the incompatibility noted] it would already be represented in the dynamics of the Schrodinger equation! The standard Schrodinger has no such dynamics. See my above post.

Also, there is no way to account for quantum behaviour from classical physics.

Now, there are presumably objective-collapse theories, but as far as I know they are not developed even to the extent of being useful to interpretation much less actual use.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (27) Jun 07, 2016
@DaSchneib,.. you keep referring to these "interaction" as if "in reality" apart from scientific knowledge, which can only mean 'scientific mathematical description',... and then you accuse me of doing philosophy.
When a photon activates a rod or cone in your retina and that generates a nerve signal to your brain, that's not philosophy. It's a physical fact. And it's an interaction. It's not part of any experiment. Are you claiming there's some sort of difference between what you see and what's seen in experiment? Because that appears to be what you're claiming here.


Yes, in experiments we formulate a theory of predictive knowledge, while what we see we describe or infer an explanation with that theory.

No one forms knowledge about photons from looking at the sun. It requires careful experiment and theoretical analysis and quantitative description. I'm referring here to obtaining that knowledge not in later using it.

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2016
How to reconcile the incompatibility between the deterministic evolution of the state-vector, by which I mean wavefunction, and the indeterministic state-reduction, by which I mean "collapse" of the wavefunction upon an actual measurement or interaction with a macroscopic apparatus?
It's not only interaction with a macroscopic apparatus. This supposed "wavefunction collapse" also happens when a particle interacts with another particle outside any experiment.

A great example involves the kerfuffle over BICEP2 results last year. What happened was that CMBR photons unexpectedly interacted with dust in the Milky Way and got polarized; the scientists believed that they had chosen a direction in which this was not happening, and interpreted the polarization as primordial. When later data from the Planck satellite came in, this was shown to be incorrect.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2016
[contd]
Now, polarization is determined by spin angular momentum, and spin angular momentum is a quantum parameter that is represented by the wavefunction (in this case, the photon wavefunction, not the Schroedinger wavefunction).

Is the entire Milky Way galaxy involved in the BICEP2 experiment? Did the photons' wavefunctions "collapse" when they hit the dust? Or only when they hit the detector? When they were emitted from the surface of last scattering (the source of the CMBR)? Did they "evolve" to add polarization in flight?

How about not at all? How about there is no such thing as "wavefunction collapse," it's interaction that determines what happens when there is an interaction, like I've been saying all along? Can we do that?

C'mon, now, @Noum, this is getting ridiculous (and this argument, fittingly, is a reductio ad absurdum).
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2016
No one forms knowledge about photons from looking at the sun.
As a matter of fact, we do indeed form knowledge about photons from looking at the Sun. Minimal information gathered, no experiments required:
1. They transfer energy.
2. They transfer information about the location of the Sun.
3. They travel in straight lines.
4. They transfer information about the intensity of the Sun.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2016
So let's ask a question here: how does the wavefunction describe when two particles interact and some of their parameters change? Say, a photon interacts with an electron and the electron changes its momentum (e-γ scattering of a free electron), or absorbs the photon and moves to a different orbital (atomic absorption of a photon)? Say, a neutron is propagating along and decays into a proton, an electron, and an electron antineutrino? Does the wavefunction describe that? Or do we get new wavefunctions?

See, if the wavefunction does describe that, then there is no measurement problem, it's just a matter of an interaction occuring. And if the wavefunction doesn't describe that, then there is no measurement problem, it's just that the wavefunction is incomplete.

I don't see any other ways to approach this, at least not while maintaining contact with reality.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2016
there must be such a wavefunction description for there to be any knowledge of these "interaction",.... and I have asked you how they are quantitatively described......
I agree there must be a description. I do not agree that the wavefunction must provide it.

And in fact there is a description; it's described in classical physics, when an object is acted upon by a force. There is also a QM description; it's called "scattering."


Then if that were the case [to account for wavefunction collapse and the incompatibility noted] it would already be represented in the dynamics of the Schrodinger equation! The standard Schrodinger has no such dynamics. See my above post.
OK, then that answers that, the wave equation is incomplete: it cannot represent what happens when particles interact either with themselves or with other particles.

We done here?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2016
BTW, @Noum, you're getting disapproval from others, but I'm giving you 5s because you're arguing honestly. I don't care if you're right or not; you're avoiding all that BS, and that's good enough for me. Illegitimi non carborundum.
KBK
1 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2016
The whole wave particle discussion is besides the point. The paradox (I dislike 'duality') is this: electrons are very small objects, much smaller than an atom, but their dynamics are described accurately, although in a statistical sense, by waves that are the size of an atom or larger.


Aye!

And there's the rub....

Then we get to the assumption part. A system of some sort, in integration. Is the electron an object, but only in conjunctive effect?
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (22) Jun 08, 2016
Hi AGreatWhopper. :)
Hi Sheik_Yerbuti (or if I may translate for American-English speakers: "Shake_Your_Booty"?) :)
Sorry to intrude upon your conversation
Not "sorry", "regret". This is a hobby horse of mine. "Sorry" means "I would do something different the next time". "Regret" means "I would do the same thing, but regret the consequences". You're not sorry because you would do it again.
While I admire your attention to semantical correctness in general, in this instance it would have been better informed if you had paid more attention to context. The "sorry" was in context meant as an "apology in advance" for the 'act of intrusion' itself. I neither regretted nor was sorry for any consequence
Oh. You were just lying then.
You just made A Great Whopping Troll of yourself, AGW. The explanation was clear: I was politely apologizing in advance for intruding, not for the third party feedback and its hopefully positive effect on their discussion. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (18) Jun 09, 2016
Only phys.org employees would have this email account
@Nou
not necessarily
(hopefully you were smart enough to use an anonymous e-mail like g-mail along with your anti-virus and firewall)

a sufficiently motivated person can freely pick up the tools off various learn-to-hack sites (well known to TOR users or places like reddit & 4chan) that could find far more faster than appealing to PO
it would be easier than hacking PO as well

i tried to explain this to benji once

.

.

I'd appreciate it if others could ...you're getting disapproval from others
@DaSchneib
so you know - i'm hands off (mostly)

considering certain prior exchanges in our history, and until i can be sure of his intent, as well as content, i will wait - sorry

but i will also be fair - unlike certain others

for the record - there are some posters i tend to uprate even when i disagree with them simply because they make me think

nou isn't one of those
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 09, 2016

No one forms knowledge about photons from looking at the sun. It requires careful experiment and theoretical analysis and quantitative description. .....

I am not so sure. Huygens drew a lot of conclusions using sunlight. He noticed light moves through a vacuum and sound does not, just using eyes and ears.


Did Huygens have a quantitative understanding of the photon as emerged from Planck, Einstein, da Broglie, back-body spectrum/ photo-electric effect, etc? ( I recall he even rejected Newton's particle conception of light). No? Then what is the point of your response?

Our understanding of physics is represented by theory which is validated by careful experiment and analysis. Therefore in making my argument I am justified in speaking about theory and experiment only, and not referring to light entering the eye which only needlessly complicates and refering to unquantified "interaction".

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (27) Jun 09, 2016
there must be such a wavefunction description for there to be any knowledge of these "interaction",.... and I have asked you how they are quantitatively described......
I agree there must be a description. I do not agree that the wavefunction must provide it.

There is also a QM description; it's called "scattering."


Then if that were the case [to account for wavefunction collapse and the incompatibility noted] it would already be represented in the dynamics of the Schrodinger equation! The standard Schrodinger has no such dynamics.
OK, then that answers that, the wave equation is incomplete: it cannot represent what happens when particles interact....


Yes, it's called decoherence and entanglement. And there are no (local) hidden variables, so is as complete as it can be. Scattering is an application of theory, not an element of theory.

We done here?


We were done some time ago.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2016
OK, then that answers that, the wave equation is incomplete: it cannot represent what happens when particles interact.... Yes, it's called decoherence and entanglement. Decoherence is what happens when a particle interacts with other particles in its environment. This can be gradual, like an electron in a bubble chamber gradually losing velocity as it interacts in the EM force with molecules in the fluid in the chamber and generates bubbles, or abrupt like if it collides directly with one. This is what "interaction" means. "Scattering" is the mathematical description of these processes, or the observation of these processes in an experiment or in nature outside of any experiment.

[contd]
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2016
[contd]
Entanglement with parameters of the environmental particles happens sometimes as a result of these interactions. If it does then if the parameters of the original particle that were entangled are affected then the original particle is "decohered," i.e. de-entangled, in those parameters, if I may mangle the language so far as that.

These processes, whether abrupt or gradual, are what I have been referring to here as "interactions." You have repeatedly demonstrated that you did not understand that, so it looks like you have changed your opinion here.

Given that these interactions involve the state(s) of the parameter(s) of the original particle abruptly (in at least some cases) making a transition from a superposed state to a definite state, and given that this seems to be the point at which the wavefunction cannot describe what is happening, I conclude that the wavefunction cannot describe interactions.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2016
[contd]
If this is incorrect then you have misrepresented the wavefunction.

So my next question is, do you indeed (as you appear to) claim that the wavefunction cannot model interactions of this type? Is it indeed incomplete, or have you just misrepresented it?

And there are no (local) hidden variables, so is as complete as it can be.
I don't agree that interaction requires hidden variables as you imply here. I also don't agree that the wavefunction is a complete description of reality, i.e. "as complete as it can be," if it cannot describe interactions since they obviously occur both in the lab and in nature.

Scattering is an application of theory, not an element of theory.
Scattering is an observed fact; the mathematical description of scattering is an application of theory. Which do you mean? And if the wavefunction cannot describe interactions, how can it describe scattering, if that's what you meant?
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2016
[contd]
We done here?
We were done some time ago.
Oh, no, I don't think so. You have not answered a single one of my questions so far, as far as I can see, except to appear to make statements that appear to claim that wavefunctions cannot describe interactions. Whether you will clarify this point remains to be seen.

*You* may be done. Or you may think you are.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2016
I'd appreciate it if others could ...you're getting disapproval from others
@DaSchneib
so you know - i'm hands off (mostly)
I figured you were but I'm glad to have it confirmed.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2016
Bah, stupid post editor screwed the first post up. It should have been:

OK, then that answers that, the wave equation is incomplete: it cannot represent what happens when particles interact....
Yes, it's called decoherence and entanglement.
Decoherence is what happens when a particle interacts with other particles in its environment. This can be gradual, like an electron in a bubble chamber gradually losing velocity as it interacts in the EM force with molecules in the fluid in the chamber and generates bubbles, or abrupt like if it collides directly with one. This is what "interaction" means. "Scattering" is the mathematical description of these processes, or the observation of these processes in an experiment or in nature outside of any experiment.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2016

No one forms knowledge about photons from looking at the sun. It requires careful experiment and theoretical analysis and quantitative description. .....

I am not so sure. Huygens drew a lot of conclusions using sunlight. He noticed light moves through a vacuum and sound does not, just using eyes and ears.


Did Huygens have a quantitative understanding of the photon as emerged from Planck, Einstein, da Broglie, back-body spectrum/ photo-electric effect, etc? ( I recall he even rejected Newton's particle conception of light). No? Then what is the point of your response?
I don't see why he had to. You claimed "no one forms knowledge about photons from looking at the sun." @Phys1 and I both showed that it's possible to form quite a bit of knowledge about photons from looking at the Sun. I'd say that's the point of @Phys1's post (and my earlier post which you ignored).

Whether a complete description can be formed or not is immaterial.
[contd]
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (27) Jun 09, 2016
These processes [decoherence & entanglement], whether abrupt or gradual, are what I have been referring to here as "interactions." You have repeatedly demonstrated that you did not understand that, so it looks like you have changed your opinion here.


Well No,.... I have assumed that by "interactions" you must be referring to decoherence, as is clear in the following exchange, in which I mention decoherence for the first time in this thread, and 15 more times subsequently....

I will point out that we can actually detect whether a particle is in this superposition state, or has interacted. It's very simple. If it has interacted, it will not show interference - Schneib


I assume we agree that on account of decoherence with the environment or apparatus the quantum state will lose it's interference terms and supposedly this occurs rapidly. This is derivable deterministically via the Schrodinger equation. - Noumenon


.....
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2016
[contd]
Our understanding of physics is represented by theory which is validated by careful experiment and analysis. Therefore in making my argument I am justified in speaking about theory and experiment only, and not referring to light entering the eye which only needlessly complicates and refering to unquantified "interaction".
Seems to me that just about anything that can be observed and quantified must be described by theory if the theory is complete.

Also I see little difference between directly observing photons and observing bubble chamber traces of electrons, whereas you claim they are vastly different. More philosophy. If photons and electrons don't behave the same way when we observe them or their effects and when we do not, then the theory is incomplete, period. While we cannot directly observe particles in superposition, we can infer they are in superposition by statistics over an ensemble, which is observing their effects; there is, then, no difference.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2016
@Noum, the incompleteness of wave mechanics, if you are correct and there is incompleteness, is therefore not due to observers, but simply to the inability of wave mechanics to properly represent interactions. This inability represents a flaw in wave mechanics, not a flaw in nature; interactions happen all the time, and resolve superposed states very often when they do. This is obvious from experimental results, and also from simple observation.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (27) Jun 09, 2016
.....

I subsequently posed the following question,..... if decoherence is derivable from the Schrodinger equation (it is) and the Schrodinger equation is deterministic (it is), then why is there the incompatibility noted above? Before answering please refer to Zeh's quote above. This resolution requires a layer of interpretation, thus cannot be resolved by [Realist] interactions alone.

[edit above: If light-fermion "interactions" , scattering dynamics is in the core elements of QED]
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (27) Jun 09, 2016
You claimed "no one forms knowledge about photons from looking at the sun." @Phys1 and I both showed that it's possible to form quite a bit of knowledge about photons from looking at the Sun. I'd say that's the point of @Phys1's post (and my earlier post which you ignored).


The word "photons" requires the establishment of knowledge that light is discrete at minimum, and are bosons from second quantization of the EM field. This didn't happen from looking at sun light, and certainly not by Huygens,.... nor even by Maxwell.

It requires a few very carful and quantified experiments to eventually establish the notion of discrete EM,.... black-body spectrum intensity/frequency at given temperature ,... photo-electric effect with monochromatic light,... Einsteins analysis.

Of course, with that theoretical knowledge, one can apply it to more complicated systems,... like light from the sun, or entering the eye,... etc.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2016
You have repeatedly demonstrated that you did not understand [what "interaction" means], so it looks like you have changed your opinion here.
Well No,.... I have assumed that by "interactions" you must be referring to decoherence, as is clear in the following exchange, in which I mention decoherence for the first time in this thread, and 15 more times subsequently....
But not all interactions necessarily decohere a particular parameter of interest on a particle. First there are gradual interactions, particularly in the EM interactions between a charged particle and a fluid it is moving in; second there are interactions that (for example) do not change a particle's spin but change its linear momentum. There are many types of interactions, and not all of them cause decoherence, and in particular not all of them cause decoherence in any particular parameter of interest.

[contd]
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (25) Jun 09, 2016
But not all interactions necessarily decohere a particular parameter of interest on a particle


This may be a good point but may make things worse for your argument (excepting the notion that a quantum wavefunction is one of parameters which as far as I know are not independent of the experimental apparatus as pointed out above).

I will read you further points a bit later as I have time.......
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2016
[contd]
It's improper to speak of "a particle decohering;" one must rather speak of a particular parameter of a particle, for example spin, being decohered, and only if it was in superposition previously.

I will point out that we can actually detect whether a particle is in this superposition state, or has interacted. It's very simple. If it has interacted, it will not show interference - Schneib
I assume we agree that on account of decoherence with the environment or apparatus the quantum state will lose it's interference terms
"May" not "will."

and supposedly this occurs rapidly.
That depends on the environment or apparatus, and how the particle interacts with it.

Also, I oversimplified; I corrected this later but you appear to have ignored that too.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2016
I subsequently posed the following question,..... if decoherence is derivable from the Schrodinger equation (it is) and the Schrodinger equation is deterministic (it is), then why is there the incompatibility noted above?
What incompatibility? Incidentally you now appear to be claiming that interaction *can* be derived from the wavefunction.

Before answering please refer to Zeh's quote above. This resolution requires a layer of interpretation, thus cannot be resolved by [Realist] interactions alone.
I don't accept a quote of someone else in lieu of you or me reasoning it through for ourselves. In addition, whether it results in nonlinear terms in QM is immaterial; what's material is whether it's observed in reality. You'll need to establish that in order to support using this quote.

[edit above: If light-fermion "interactions" , scattering dynamics is in the core elements of QED]
If QED doesn't represent γ-e interactions it is incomplete.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2016
The word "photons" requires the establishment of knowledge that light is discrete at minimum, and are bosons from second quantization of the EM field. This didn't happen from looking at sun light, and certainly not by Huygens,.... nor even by Maxwell.
So? Are you claiming light is not photons? If not, then this is immaterial and more philosophy.

Incidentally all that's necessary to establish that light is photons is a phosphor screen and a source of gamma rays.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2016
Just to keep things clear, if a parameter of a particle is decohered, then an interaction happened; but it does not necessarily follow that all interactions will decohere a particular parameter.

First, not all interactions affect parameters that are in superposition. Second, when speaking of one particular parameter that is in superposition, not all interactions can or will decohere it.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 10, 2016
I will post a few responses, then (likely tomorrow), I will address your core points which you summarized....

So my next question is, do you indeed (as you appear to) claim that the wavefunction cannot model interactions of this type? Is it indeed incomplete, or have you just misrepresented it?

It is my contention that the wavefunction and dynamics as expressed in the Schrodinger equation [and Dirac, QFT], is as complete a description as possible, and that QM generally is the most accurate theory to date.

I don't know what you mean by me having misrepresented the wavefunction.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 10, 2016
I am justified in speaking about theory and experiment only, and not referring to light entering the eye which only needlessly complicates and refering to unquantified "interaction".

Seems to me that just about anything that can be observed and quantified must be described by theory if the theory is complete.

Yes, this is true, so, referring to needlessly complicated cases, only serves to obscure the elements of QM that distinguishes it from classical physics.

I see little difference between directly observing photons and observing bubble chamber traces of electrons, whereas you claim they are vastly different.

I only pointed out that the photon is not described by the Schrodinger equation [nor even the relativistic Dirac equation], and requires QED.

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 10, 2016
the incompleteness of wave mechanics, if you are correct and there is incompleteness, is therefore not due to observers, ...


I did not claim that QM description is incomplete,.... it fact I said "it is as complete as it can be".

....but simply to the inability of wave mechanics to properly represent interactions. This inability represents a flaw in wave mechanics, not a flaw in nature


You can not validly refer to [N]ature or [R]eality in a positive sense, as if over and above our descriptive knowledge of it, ....as our description of it [in validated theories], is all that exists as a representation of our knowledge.

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2016
The original contention was about whether mind-dependent-measurement is distinct from dynamics of quantum-interactions as expressed in decoherence, and whether the latter resolves parameter-values, or rather the former defines them..... so, given this context.....

when speaking of one particular parameter that is in superposition, not all interactions can or will decohere it.


In general decoherence occurs very rapidly in exponential proportion to the degrees of freedom of the environment and is non-reservable, statistically speaking.

Decoherence is also orders of magnitude quicker than any classical dynamics except c,.... which is why preserving a coherent state is such a major problem for the development of quantum computers. This matters because we must live in a classical world and use classical concepts, in order to do experiments to form a theoretical knowledge to begin with.

.....
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2016
....

However from a realist-perspective, to the extent that it may be possible that a given interaction leaves phase coherence intact, this may go on all the time in the "underlying reality" prior to imposing classical conditions to observe.

As pointed out above, "parameters" values are not actually what is in superposition. There is no superposition of parameter values. The wavefunction is a complex-valued mathematical object, that is subject to Fourier like superposition. In order to derive parameter-values one must impose a quantum-operator and a basis for the wavefunction, ....which is a representation of what is possible to observe in an actual experiment, and so necessarily of classical concepts.

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2016

While we cannot directly observe particles in superposition, we can infer they are in superposition by statistics over an ensemble, which is observing their effects; there is, then, no difference.


There is a subtle but fundamental distinction here between pure-states as in superposition, and mixed-states as in ensembles of identically prepared systems. The former is of quantum-probability [with interference effects] while the latter is of classical-probability.

Since by "interactions", we mean decoherence occurring, and since decoherence is derived directly from the deterministic Schrodinger equation so that it does not produce a collapse of the wavefunction, the result of interactions/decoherence is still of a single global state, and not an ensemble of classical measurement outcomes as is defined by "ensembles of identically prepared systems".

......

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2016
....

Now, since the interference-terms of the pure-state have been decohered away [density matrix diagonalized], you may claim that... 'but it is now statistically indistinguishable from the mixed state',... (from the classical "ensemble of identically prepared systems").....

This is absolutely a valid interpretation (as opposed to a dynamical derivation), ... but as I said a few days ago ...."[The] resolution requires a layer of interpretation, thus cannot be resolved by [Realist] interactions alone.",....

.... therefore, is invalid from the argument that interactions alone resolve parameters from superposed states, ....because the statistical ensemble of classical probabilities already presuppose a basis and *quantum-operator in which to derive them as collapsed wavefunction results. [*which again represents a possible observable state in a necessarily classical experimental apparatus ]. IOW, the argument is not self-contained.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2016

.... this is why the measurement-problem persists and is only "resolved" via various interpretations, and is why mind-dependent-measurement is distinct from raw-quantum-interaction.

Since, obviously [the philosophy of physics of] "interpretation", is mind-dependent,.... it makes more sense to me to just start off with an epistemic interpretation,... one that is line with the QM theoretical formulation and actual experiments that are necessarily classically designed, upon which that knowledge is based; ....i.e. that while the underlying-reality [Noumenon] is Objective in that it informs experiment consistently, it is conceptually formless. That the act of mind-dependent-observation necessarily subjects the underlying reality to conform to our a-priori conceptual structure. This is supported also by the fact that in QM our conceptual framework is exposed as an artificial synthesis,... i.e. QM is de facto non-intuitive.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2016
"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment. " - B. d'Espagnat

"There is no way to remove the observer, us, from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception — and hence the observations upon which our theories are based is not direct, but rather is shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our brains" - S. Hawking
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2016
So when I said that the wavefunction description and dynamical equations is "as complete a description as possible", I mean 1) that there is no other information missing, and 2) given the unavoidable circumstance that to have knowledge of reality necessarily implies subjecting it to concepts,... which is to say that knowledge imposes unavoidable epistemological conditions in the very act of observation and synthesis of experience into theory, there is effectively a layer of more information .

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2016
IOW, the concepts that we evolved with to order and synthesis experience at the macroscopic scale, are exposed as an artificial synthesis when applied to the quantum scale, .... classical reality is emergent and we are expecting this emergent phenomenon to work work the wrong way in explaining the more fundamental level, as if epistemologically self-referential.

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2016
Of course, this is "my" interpretation, and you can attempt to disparage it as "being philosophy",.... but all interpretations that are not empirically distinguishable are just that, philosophy of physics,..... but mine is consistent whereas the notion that "interactions" from dynamics (as opposed to interpretation) resolves parameters, is not.

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2016
EDIT: "In general decoherence occurs very rapidly in exponential proportion to the degrees of freedom of the environment and is non-[reversible], statistically speaking."

There may be more auto-correct errors I won't bother to correct for now.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2016
So my next question is, do you indeed (as you appear to) claim that the wavefunction cannot model interactions of this type? Is it indeed incomplete, or have you just misrepresented it?
It is my contention that the wavefunction and dynamics as expressed in the Schrodinger equation [and Dirac, QFT], is as complete a description as possible, and that QM generally is the most accurate theory to date.
You didn't answer my question. Can the wavefunction model particle interactions, or not? I'm not asking about QFT (and if you're talking about Dirac, actually that's only one type of QFT, specifically QED). QED doesn't model interactions between particles; there is no generally accepted wavefunction for photons, and in any case QED uses Maxwellian waves to represent light as you pointed out above.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2016
[contd]
I don't know what you mean by me having misrepresented the wavefunction.
You claim it doesn't model interactions, and since we can actually see interactions in the lab, if it can't represent them then it is necessarily incomplete. If you're correct, in other words, it is obviously incomplete since it cannot model phenomena commonly seen in the lab, and if it can model these phenomena then you are wrong and have misrepresented it.

And incidentally if it cannot model phenomena commonly seen in the lab, then you are wrong and it is obviously not as complete a description as possible.

It's gotta be one or the other, @Noum. My opinion is that it is incomplete and that you have not misrepresented it, but I'll wait to see which option you choose.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2016
Seems to me that just about anything that can be observed and quantified must be described by theory if the theory is complete.
Yes, this is true, so, referring to needlessly complicated cases, only serves to obscure the elements of QM that distinguishes it from classical physics.
OK, well I don't see a vertex in a bubble chamber as "needlessly complex," nor a particle striking a CCD sensor, nor a particle striking a retinal cell. In fact, I don't see any of them as complex at all, far less "needlessly" complex.

They are quite plainly and simply what we observe, nothing more nothing less. Either the theory describes them or it does not; if it does not then it is incomplete. It's just that simple.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2016
[contd]
I see little difference between directly observing photons and observing bubble chamber traces of electrons, whereas you claim they are vastly different.
I only pointed out that the photon is not described by the Schrodinger equation [nor even the relativistic Dirac equation], and requires QED.
But even QED doesn't describe photons; it is a description of electrons interacting with Maxwellian waves. You yourself said above that there is no generally accepted wavefunction for photons. However, you also claimed that there is no possibility of a wavefunction for photons, and with that I disagree and presented pretty good evidence I'm right.

A complete theory of interactions between electrons and photons would require wavefunctions for both and would represent interactions between them. If, as you claim, it cannot (and I don't doubt at this point that you're correct about that), then it is incomplete.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2016
the incompleteness of wave mechanics, if you are correct and there is incompleteness, is therefore not due to observers, ...
I did not claim that QM description is incomplete,.... it fact I said "it is as complete as it can be".
But it cannot be as complete as it can be; it does not include a wavefunction for photons, and it does not represent interactions between particles. We observe interactions in the lab, and we can see that there is a wavefunction for photons though we do not yet have it all worked out.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2016
[contd]
....but simply to the inability of wave mechanics to properly represent interactions. This inability represents a flaw in wave mechanics, not a flaw in nature
You can not validly refer to [N]ature or [R]eality in a positive sense, as if over and above our descriptive knowledge of it, ....as our description of it [in validated theories], is all that exists as a representation of our knowledge.
But our knowledge includes interactions in the lab. Are you now trying to claim that observations of events in the lab are "invalid?" Or "not knowledge?" This just doesn't seem right, and it looks like more philosophy to me, labeling events observed in the lab as "[N]ature or [R]eality," as if they're some ephemeral or inexact thing.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2016
Please take care not to conflate what I posted with your own apprehension/interpretation of what I posted.

So my next question is, do you indeed (as you appear to) claim that the wavefunction cannot model interactions of this type?
It is my contention that the wavefunction and dynamics as expressed in the Schrodinger equation [and Dirac, QFT], is as complete a description as possible, and that QM generally is the most accurate theory to date.
You didn't answer my question. Can the wavefunction model particle interactions, or not?


The wavefunction is a description of the quantum system, whereas the Schrodinger equation represents the dynamics (interactions). As pointed out, Decoherence was derived from the Schrodinger equation.

In short, yes,.... if there is such a wavefunction description available. As pointed out in the Schrodinger cat thought experiment, the observer must always exist outside the quantum description.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2016
The original contention was about whether mind-dependent-measurement
I never claimed that measurement is mind-dependent. You did. That's not "the" original contention, it's *your* original contention, and I quite properly labeled it as philosophy, not physics. I have in fact avoided talking about measurements as much as I could, and instead used interactions. The basic facts of physics are about interactions, that is, inter-actions, referring specifically to the action principle and the actions of one particle on another, and the actions of the second particle on the first. That is the definition of an inter-action. The photon acts on the electron, and the electron acts on the photon. Substitute whatever particles you like for the photon and electron.

[contd]

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2016
the incompleteness of wave mechanics, if you are correct and there is incompleteness, is therefore not due to observers, ...
I did not claim that QM description is incomplete,.... it fact I said "it is as complete as it can be".
But it cannot be as complete as it can be; it does not include a wavefunction for photons, and it does not represent interactions between particles. We observe interactions in the lab, and we can see that there is a wavefunction for photons though we do not yet have it all worked out.


I meant within the appropriate application the Schrodinger equation,... QM is complete. Not "complete" in the sense of explaining all observable phenomena.

The basis of QED is the basic principles of QM, but with the Dirac relativistic version of the Schrodinger equation and creation and annihilation events, etc. By "compete" I only mean there is no local hidden variables as was experimentally refuted. This is the famous 'completeness question'.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2016
The original contention was about whether mind-dependent-measurement

I never claimed that measurement is mind-dependent. You did.


Yes, I know. I did NOT say that YOU claimed that. Please read the entire sentence before responding, or better yet, read ALL the posts that I made today, and understand with effort their point in context, before responding further. Lets not respond to syllables. Respond to the meaning behind the statements, which may extend over several posts before becoming clear.

I may have time tomorrow to revisit.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2016
I don't know what you mean by me having misrepresented the wavefunction.

You claim it doesn't model interactions, ....


No, I didn't. Please quote me having done so. There must be a misapprehension somewhere because if by interactions you mean decoherence, which is what I have assumed you meant, then I in fact confirmed several times that decoherence was derived from the Schrodinger equation.

I have stated that,... there is no wavefunction description of the experimental apparatus,... but not that there can't be such a description in principle, only not in practice. I believe I posted a reference to a summery I made concerning "Neumann's cut", that indeed confirms it is possible in principle to even have a wavefunction description of the observers brain , in addition to apparatus.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2016
I see little difference between directly observing photons and observing bubble chamber traces of electrons, whereas you claim they are vastly different.
I only pointed out that the photon is not described by the Schrodinger equation [nor even the relativistic Dirac equation], and requires QED.
But even QED doesn't describe photons; it is a description of electrons interacting with Maxwellian waves.


I mentioned creation/annihilation events and 2nd quantization, but okay.

..., you also claimed that there is no possibility of a wavefunction for photons,

I did not say anything as general as that, nor even gave it that much thought, but instead went out of my way to be specific..." There is no wavefunction description for the photon as used in the Schrodinger equation,",.... because I wanted to refer to decoherence and S.E.

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2016
[contd]
Note also that all measurements require interactions, and are based on them, but not all interactions are measurements, and in fact some interactions are of a particle with the vacuum and can't be construed as measurements in any way. A good example of this is the decay via the weak force of the free neutron into a proton and a W⁻ and the subsequent decay of the W⁻ into an electron and an electron antineutrino. There is no way to construe a single such decay as a measurement; but it is obviously an interaction.

is distinct from dynamics of quantum-interactions as expressed in decoherence,
A measurement is often decoherent; however, not always. For example, if we measure photons with a polarizer, and then measure them with another polarizer oriented identically, then the original spin of the photons is not decohered. On the other hand if we measure them with another polarizer oriented differently, then the original spin *is* decohered, for some of them.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2016
[contd]
and whether the latter resolves parameter-values, or rather the former defines them.....
It's clear from observation that the latter resolves them if they are in superposition. It is also clear that the former does not define them, but may resolve them if they are in superposition. What defines them is their possible values, not a measurement of those values.

I interpret the statement that measurement defines values as more philosophy. I see it as being like claiming apples define one, since I only have one apple.

so, given this context.....
when speaking of one particular parameter that is in superposition, not all interactions can or will decohere it.
In general decoherence occurs very rapidly
Now with that I strongly disagree, specifically that decoherence is so generally rapid that you could make that statement.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2016
[contd]
Some interactions are very strong; most are very weak. It's much more likely that a particle will stay far from other particles than that it will approach them closely. The universe is mostly empty space, and most actions are inverse-square. To interact strongly particles must approach other particles very closely.

in exponential proportion to the degrees of freedom of the environment
Most of the environment has essentially unlimited degrees of freedom since most of the environment is empty space. So I disagree with this also.

and is non-reservable, statistically speaking.
What's "non-reservable" mean?

Decoherence is also orders of magnitude quicker than any classical dynamics except c,....
Again, I don't agree that "quickness" is a general property of decoherence, and you seem not to have any evidence to support the contention.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2016
[contd]
which is why preserving a coherent state is such a major problem for the development of quantum computers.
No, preserving a coherent state is a major problem for the development of quantum computers because quantum computers are (so far any way) made from condensed matter, which makes preventing decoherence due to strong interactions due to close approach to particles that make up the computing apparatus. That's a property of quantum computers, not a property of decoherence.

This matters because we must live in a classical world and use classical concepts, in order to do experiments to form a theoretical knowledge to begin with.
No, this matters because we live on a planet and planets are made up of condensed matter. It has nothing to do with classical concepts, nor does being made up of condensed matter have anything to do with whether we "live in a classical world" or not. Lots of quantum phenomena happen in condensed matter.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2016
...from a realist-perspective,
This looks like more philosophy again.

to the extent that it may be possible that a given interaction leaves phase coherence intact, this may go on all the time in the "underlying reality" prior to imposing classical conditions to observe.
You are implying that interactions are somehow "classical." But we see quantum interactions all the time, and we see them both inside and outside experiments. You're also doing philosophy again: "underlying reality." Reality isn't underlying; it's reality, we see it all around us all the time. Not only that but we see the results of interactions we have not observed all the time, and know these interactions are taking place whether we bother to observe them or not. This is a result of your claim that measurement is somehow a special kind of interaction that only happens in experiments, that interactions with the environment are somehow special or different from interactions with apparatus.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2016
[contd]
If reality inside experiments were inherently different than reality outside them then we could not learn anything about reality outside experiments from doing experiments. Obviously, we do; obviously, therefore, whatever reality there is is partaken of equally inside and outside experiments.

As pointed out above, "parameters" values are not actually what is in superposition.
There is nothing else to be in superposition. That's the definition of superposition. This looks like more philosophy, and very definitely of the navel-gazing solipsistic sort.

There is no superposition of parameter values.
I was right; you are now denying quantum physics, specifically the Born Rule.

The wavefunction is a complex-valued mathematical object, that is subject to Fourier like superposition.
So?
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2016
[contd]
The wavefunction is a representation of reality, not reality itself. Characteristics of the wavefunction are not necessarily characteristics of reality, though if the wavefunction is to be representative of reality (and I can see no reason for its existence otherwise) they must be representative of characteristics of reality. More philosophy, and again solipsistic; the map is not the territory.

In order to derive parameter-values
I thought you said they were being defined, not derived. These are two very different concepts.

one must impose a quantum-operator and a basis for the wavefunction, ....which is a representation of what is possible to observe in an actual experiment,
Here you're agreeing that the wavefunction is a representation, not reality itself. Two sentences ago you were claiming the wavefunction *is* reality. Make up your mind.

and so necessarily of classical concepts.
I don't see what classical concepts have to do with it.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2016
While we cannot directly observe particles in superposition, we can infer they are in superposition by statistics over an ensemble, which is observing their effects; there is, then, no difference.
There is a subtle but fundamental distinction here between pure-states as in superposition, and mixed-states as in ensembles of identically prepared systems. The former is of quantum-probability [with interference effects] while the latter is of classical-probability.
And here we are making yet another distinction without a difference. Probability is probability. There is no distinct type of probability that applies to either quantum mechanics or classical mechanics. Probability varies between 0 and 1; values other than this are unphysical.

Furthermore, the probability distribution of a parameter over an ensemble gives the same values as the probability of finding a parameter of a particle in a particular definite state.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2016
[contd]
There is, therefore, no real operational difference between pure states and mixed states; both represent parameters of particles that are in superposition. You are postulating a "special kind of one." There is no "special kind of one," or zero, or any value between them.

This is more philosophy.

Since by "interactions", we mean decoherence occurring,
No, we mean the possibility of decoherence of some particular parameter of a particle occurring, not the certainty of it, and we also do not mean the decoherence of all parameters of a particle. This philosophy stuff you use leaves all sorts of unphysical possibilities open; reality isn't like that. You cannot infer that all B are A from knowing that all A are B. And this is something I keep having to correct you on.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2016
[contd]
and since decoherence is derived directly from the deterministic Schrodinger equation so that it does not produce a collapse of the wavefunction
No, decoherence is not derived from anything. It is a property of reality. The mathematical description of decoherence is derived from the Schroedinger equation. And the definition of "deterministic" for the Schroedinger equation is probabilistic. You're confusing the map with the territory again, and you're also using a definition of "deterministic" that has a special meaning in quantum physics that is not correct in classical physics.

Finally, the fact that the description is derived so that it does not produce a collapse of the wavefunction does not guarantee that it is an accurate description of reality, and in fact "collapse of the wavefunction" doesn't appear to describe any feature of reality. Once again the map is not the territory.

More navel-gazing solipsistic philosophy.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2016
[contd]
the result of interactions/decoherence is still of a single global state, and not an ensemble of classical measurement outcomes as is defined by "ensembles of identically prepared systems".
You've confused the map with the territory multiple times, and misused a term with special meaning, attempted to draw a distinction without demonstrating a difference, and attempted to draw a conclusion from insufficient results. I'm sorry but you have not supported this conclusion.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2016
Now, since the interference-terms of the pure-state have been decohered away [density matrix diagonalized], you may claim that... 'but it is now statistically indistinguishable from the mixed state',... (from the classical "ensemble of identically prepared systems")
No, I claim they stem from the same physical phenomena. I also claim that they have been proven mathematically equivalent; one is the Schroedinger approach, the other the Heisenberg approach. They both give the same answers because they must; they both describe the same phenomena. If one of them differed it would be wrong, because it would not describe those phenomena.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2016
[contd]
I will quote Wikipedia:
One can take the observables to be dependent on time, while the state σ was fixed once at the beginning of the experiment. This approach is called the Heisenberg picture. (This approach was taken in the later part of the discussion above, with time-varying observables P(t), Q(t).) One can, equivalently, treat the observables as fixed, while the state of the system depends on time; that is known as the Schrödinger picture. ... Conceptually (and mathematically), the two approaches are equivalent; choosing one of them is a matter of convention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_state#Schr.C3.B6dinger_picture_vs._Heisenberg_picture

[contd]
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2016
[contd]
This is absolutely a valid interpretation (as opposed to a dynamical derivation), ... but as I said a few days ago ...."[The] resolution requires a layer of interpretation, thus cannot be resolved by [Realist] interactions alone.",....
If the Heisenberg picture is an interpretation then so is the Schroedinger picture. Says so right there. So if we accept what you say, then you are claiming that the Schroedinger equation is an interpretation.

I don't think that's what you meant to say, but I also don't think you understood the implications of what you were saying about quantum states.

therefore, is invalid from the argument that interactions alone resolve parameters from superposed states,
OK, then what else resolves them? And don't say "decoherence," because you already said above that decoherence is interactions.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2016
[contd]
because the statistical ensemble of classical probabilities already presuppose a basis and *quantum-operator in which to derive them as collapsed wavefunction results.
But the statistical ensemble is made up of individual events each of which has the probability distribution predicted by the wavefunction results. Why would we expect anything but exactly the results we see?

If the wavefunction makes a prediction of a probability distribution, that prediction is tested over an ensemble; there's no other experimental method for testing it.

We're off into philosophy land again.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2016

.... this is why the measurement-problem persists and is only "resolved" via various interpretations, and is why mind-dependent-measurement is distinct from raw-quantum-interaction.
OK, well if you want to call the path integral approach, acceptance of the Born Rule as a feature of reality, and the wavefunction and Heisenberg approaches "interpretations," whatever I guess. Personally I prefer more rigorous terminology, like calling them theories like everybody else does.

Since, obviously [the philosophy of physics of] "interpretation", is mind-dependent,.... it makes more sense to me to just start off with an epistemic interpretation,... one that is line with the QM theoretical formulation and actual experiments that are necessarily classically designed, upon which that knowledge is based;
Personally I have trouble with calling theories "epistemic interpretation[s]" and think that's more philosophy. Just sayin'.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2016
[contd]
i.e. that while the underlying-reality [Noumenon] is Objective in that it informs experiment consistently, it is conceptually formless.
And I still disagree; if it were truly formless we could not make mathematical theories that predict all we can know about it. You still haven't proven that.

That the act of mind-dependent-observation necessarily subjects the underlying reality to conform to our a-priori conceptual structure.
No. This follows its own rules. We didn't make them up; we discovered them. You're confusing the map with the territory again.

This is supported also by the fact that in QM our conceptual framework is exposed as an artificial synthesis,... i.e. QM is de facto non-intuitive.
I can't even understand how you can take a bunch of obviously arbitrary rules that we have discovered by experiment and pretend they're some sort of free invention of our minds.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2016
[contd]
If they were free inventions of our minds they would be intuitive. The fact they're not proves that they are descriptive of some sort of reality outside ourselves that constrains them.

More navel-gazing solipsistic rhetorical philosophy here. I don't know why you keep trying this stuff; it never works.

Why are you wasting our time? I don't see your point in this. You always try the same rhetorical tricks, and they never work.

Can we stick to reality here, please?
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (27) Jun 12, 2016
I have read through all of your responses, and I don't believe you have understood the arguments presented, nor have fairly represented them. I don't know if this is deliberate or if you're responding in a knee-jerk fashion to partial sentences, or don't understand the mathematical formulation of QM fully and that it IS de facto a representation of our knowledge. Your repeated accusations and characterizations of "philosophy" , navel-gazing, etc, even at standard theoretical arguments and seemingly deliberate misapprehension, are suggestive.

I will only respond to a few posts as examples, and will end this with my above argument left as is....
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (27) Jun 12, 2016
The original contention was about whether mind-dependent-measurement is distinct from dynamics of quantum-interactions as expressed in decoherence, and whether the latter resolves parameter-values, or rather the former defines them


I interpret the statement that measurement defines values as more philosophy


Not philosophy, but the mathematics of QM. As pointed out repeatedly, parameter-values are the eigenvalues of the given quantum-operator in a given basis,... which is a representation of the apparatus doing the measurement,.... thus the apparatus defines the possible eigenvalues.

Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2016
So when I said that the wavefunction description and dynamical equations is "as complete a description as possible", I mean 1) that there is no other information missing,
Here's the problem: Heisenberg uncertainty means that unless you can describe the interaction in which a parameter that was in superposition takes on a definite value, there's information missing. That this actually happens both inside and outside experiments is a matter of observed fact. The three polarizers experiment is sufficient to show it. And all the philosophy in the world is insufficient to change that.

You're confusing the fact that a parameter in superposition cannot take on a definite value without causing its complement to become superposed with whether it can and does take on a definite value. *That* is the limit on information; but it is a not a limit on one parameter. It is a joint limit on at minimum two.

[contd]
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (27) Jun 12, 2016

You may want to wait until I finish responding, as posting on top of each other only adds more confusion.

[decoherence occurs in a time that is] in [inverse] exponential proportion to the degrees of freedom of the environment


Most of the environment has essentially unlimited degrees of freedom since most of the environment is empty space. So I disagree with this also.

You're not entitled to disagree with this, it is a fact. IOW, the larger the object the fastest it decohers.

Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2016
[contd]
2) given the unavoidable circumstance that to have knowledge of reality necessarily implies subjecting it to concepts,...
Like for example the Born Rule, which is based on Heisenberg uncertainty and says that we cannot get exact knowledge of complementary parameters. Your argument just swallowed itself again. Probability is all the information there is about a superposed parameter. And it is sufficient to get all the information that there is about it.

which is to say that knowledge imposes unavoidable epistemological conditions in the very act of observation and synthesis of experience into theory, there is effectively a layer of more information .
Epistemology is unnecessary. We have facts. This is always the problem with philosophy; it's not based on facts.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (27) Jun 12, 2016
Decoherence is also orders of magnitude quicker than any classical dynamics except c,....


Again, I don't agree that "quickness" is a general property of decoherence,

You're not entitled to disagree with facts. Since decoherence was derived from the Schrodinger equation (H.D. Zeh) and the Schrodinger equation has a time dependency, the rate can be calculated and has been (Zeh, Tegmark, Smolin, Penrose).

your claim [....] that interactions with the environment are somehow special or different from interactions with apparatus.


Never claimed any such thing, apart from quantifiability and that decoherence does not collapse the wavefunction nor resolve the measurement-problem. The apparatus is the environment. The "underlying reality" is the same, whatever that is.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 12, 2016
IOW, the concepts that we evolved with to order and synthesis experience at the macroscopic scale, are exposed as an artificial synthesis when applied to the quantum scale,
If that were true then we couldn't know anything at all. Again, this is where philosophy goes wrong: we can know things. We have facts and we observe them all the time.

.... classical reality is emergent and we are expecting this emergent phenomenon to work work the wrong way in explaining the more fundamental level, as if epistemologically self-referential.
Speak for yourself. I expect quantum physics to be different, not non-existent. When we can observe the action both inside and outside experiments there is no question as to its existence. There may be difficulty in understanding it, but its existence is a brute fact. Philosophy doesn't do well with brute facts.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2016
Of course, this is "my" interpretation, and you can attempt to disparage it as "being philosophy",.... but all interpretations that are not empirically distinguishable are just that, philosophy of physics,..... but mine is consistent whereas the notion that "interactions" from dynamics (as opposed to interpretation) resolves parameters, is not.
Above you seem to have contended that the wavefunction is an interpretation. And that there is no such thing as an interaction. And the reasons you give don't stand up to scrutiny, nor to brute facts commonly observed.

Quantum physics may be different from classical physics; that doesn't make either matters of philosophy.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (27) Jun 12, 2016
which is why preserving a coherent state is such a major problem for the development of quantum computers.


No, [...] due to strong interactions due to close approach to particles that make up the computing apparatus. That's a property of quantum computers, not a property of decoherence.


The point was in the context of experimental apparatuses. It's a fundamental property of decoherence,.... as thats what it IS. If a quantum entity is out in space then decoherence is most likely irrelevant isn't it, defeating the entire point.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2016
The wavefunction is a description of the quantum system, whereas the Schrodinger equation represents the dynamics (interactions).
The Schroedinger equation is the wavefunction for fermions. Differentiating the Schroedinger equation from the wavefunction is incorrect. The Schroedinger equation is *a* wavefunction; there is another, which we are finally getting around to figuring out, for bosons.

As pointed out, Decoherence was derived from the Schrodinger equation.
No, the mathematical description of decoherence was derived from the Schroedinger wavefunction; decoherence itself is a physical phenomenon. It's a brute fact.

In short, yes,.... if there is such a wavefunction description available.
OK, then show there is. Your posts to this point don't seem to do that. That's why I asked.

[contd]
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (27) Jun 12, 2016
As pointed out above, "parameters" values are not actually what is in superposition.


There is nothing else to be in superposition. That's the definition of superposition.


No. As explained, the wavefunction is a complex-valued mathematical object. The parameter-values are extracted and defined by use of Operators and a basis, which are to represent the apparatus. i.e. apparatus defines the possible observable values.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2016
[contd]
As pointed out in the Schrodinger cat thought experiment, the observer must always exist outside the quantum description.
Schroedinger's cat is not an experiment in quantum physics. It is a didactical device intended to attempt to explain a particular feature of quantum physics, specifically the Born Rule and Heisenberg uncertainty. It is an analogy and you are pushing it far beyond its applicability. For a simple understanding of why it is not fully applicable, imagine that the box is made of glass. This is an impossibility in quantum mechanics; there is no way to observe the superposed parameter of a particle (as opposed to the cat) until it undergoes an interaction. It is not merely impossible in the experiment, as with the cat; it is impossible in principle. There's no way to make the "box" "clear glass" so you can "look inside" and "see what's really going on."
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2016
I meant within the appropriate application the Schrodinger equation,... QM is complete. Not "complete" in the sense of explaining all observable phenomena.
I completely disagree, and assert once again that this is philosophy, not physics. You are confusing consistency with completeness. Completeness is a matter of describing everything that can be observed; it is not incompleteness to fail to describe something that cannot exist, but it is incompleteness to fail to describe everything that does exist and provably both inside and outside experiments.

You are confusing that which cannot exist with that which can but cannot be described by a particular theory. The definite value of a superposed parameter of a particle simply does not exist; there is only a probability distribution. However, the definite value of a definite parameter of a particle *does* exist and provably so.

[contd]
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (27) Jun 12, 2016
I suggested above that you respond only to the meaning underlying my arguments and not to sentences,... as you can see what happens,... the debate dissolves into incoherence.

There is no superposition of parameter values.

I was right; you are now denying quantum physics, specifically the Born Rule.

A swing and a miss. Ridiculous.

Two sentences ago you were claiming the wavefunction *is* reality. Make up your mind.


Patently false. It is a representation of our knowledge of the system,... theory is a representation of our knowledge of the dynamics of phenomenal reality.

Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2016
[contd]
The basis of QED is the basic principles of QM, but with the Dirac relativistic version of the Schrodinger equation and creation and annihilation events, etc.
And it is fundamentally incomplete because it does not include the wavefunction for half of the particles it describes; the bosons. Instead it uses derivations from Maxwell's equations. We've already established this.

By "compete" I only mean there is no local hidden variables as was experimentally refuted. This is the famous 'completeness question'
Actually, it only says there are no local hidden variables; non-local hidden variables are not ruled out (see Bohm/pilot wave, see Wheeler-Feynman/TIQM, see Everett/MWI, just for three examples).

Furthermore, Einstein's version of incompleteness turned out to be wrong; there is entanglement. And that also is a matter of brute fact.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2016
The original contention was about whether mind-dependent-measurement

I never claimed that measurement is mind-dependent. You did.


Yes, I know. I did NOT say that YOU claimed that. Please read the entire sentence before responding, or better yet, read ALL the posts that I made today, and understand with effort their point in context, before responding further. Lets not respond to syllables. Respond to the meaning behind the statements, which may extend over several posts before becoming clear.
If your premises are incorrect then there is no point in analyzing further. I did so out of politeness; if you prefer it I will simply point out where your premises are wrong and move on to the next post. It will certainly save me a lot of work.

You're starting to go outside the box again and engage in arguments that have nothing to do with the subject. And you haven't answered my objection.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (27) Jun 12, 2016
There is a subtle but fundamental distinction here between pure-states as in superposition, and mixed-states as in ensembles of identically prepared systems. The former is of quantum-probability [with interference effects] while the latter is of classical-probability.


There is [..] no real operational difference between pure states and mixed states; both represent parameters of particles that are in superposition. This is more philosophy.


It is not philosophy, it is basic QM; if you don't understand the meaning underlying the distinction between statistics of pure-states and mixed-states, then you don't know the mathematical formalism of QM, and will not understand my presented argument.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2016
I don't know what you mean by me having misrepresented the wavefunction.

You claim it doesn't model interactions, ....


No, I didn't.
Then show how in your view it does. For about the tenth time of asking.

I mentioned creation/annihilation events and 2nd quantization, but okay.
That doesn't change the fact that it can't describe photons.

I have read through all of your responses, and I don't believe you have understood the arguments presented, nor have fairly represented them.
I have asked questions and you have refused to answer. If there is any misunderstanding it's your fault.

Not philosophy, but the mathematics of QM.
Which are incomplete.

IOW, the larger the object the fastest it decohers.
What's "larger" mean in the context of particles? You're changing the subject again.

There, see how much work that saved me?
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (27) Jun 12, 2016
decoherence is derived directly from the deterministic Schrodinger equation so that it does not produce a collapse of the wavefunction...


No, decoherence is not derived from anything. It is a property of reality. The mathematical description of decoherence is derived from the Schroedinger equation. And the definition of "deterministic" for the Schroedinger equation is probabilistic


It is YOU who is doing metaphysical philosophy. Our knowledge of reality is represented by the equations, which are a synthesis of empirical observation. There IS no other sense of "reality" that is relevant to science.

The Schrodinger equation is categorically deterministic, as there is NO mathematical mechanism in it that derives probabilities. This is a basic fact of QM. The Born rule [integrated inner-product squared] is another additional [interpretational] layer of the wavefunction and not the S.E., over and above the Schrodinger equation.

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2016
You're not entitled to disagree with facts.
I'm not. You're confusing the map (derivation of the mathematics that describe decoherence) with the territory (the physical phenomenon of decoherence). And that's you disagreeing with facts.

The point was in the context of experimental apparatuses. It's a fundamental property of decoherence,
No, decoherence is not only seen in experiments. It happens all the time and its effects can be observed outside of experiments. Another of those inconvenient brute facts you keep running up against.

As explained, the wavefunction is a complex-valued mathematical object.
You're confusing the mathematical description of decoherence with the fact of decoherence again.

A swing and a miss. Ridiculous. ...

Patently false.
So basically you're out of arguments, and now you're reverting to old ways.

If you got any more physics, bring it. This stuff I will not bother with.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2016
Classical and quantum physics are different; but that doesn't mean physics is "formless."

Looks like we're done here because you don't have any answers to my questions, and are now claiming I "don't understand" because you are incapable of formulating arguments that hold water.

I have answered every argument you have made; you have not done me the same courtesy, and now you're becoming insulting again, and concentrating on irrelevancies instead of the arguments. I simply won't engage you on this basis, @Noum.

And here's another big problem with philosophy: when a philosopher's arguments don't hold water, they start using rhetorical tricks, insults, and other irrelevancies. They literally don't see the difference.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (27) Jun 12, 2016
Now, since the interference-terms of the pure-state have been decohered away [density matrix diagonalized], you may claim that... 'but it is now statistically indistinguishable from the mixed state',... (from the classical "ensemble of identically prepared systems")


No, I claim they stem from the same physical phenomena. I also claim that they have been proven mathematically equivalent; one is the Schroedinger approach, the other the Heisenberg approach


That has nothing to do with the given argument, which you have not understood. The distinction between pure-states and mixed-states can be expressed in the Dirac notation just as well.

Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2016
The distinction between pure-states and mixed-states can be expressed in the Dirac notation just as well.
Prove it.

Just so we're clear: they give the same mathematical results.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (27) Jun 12, 2016
tmp

This is absolutely a valid interpretation (as opposed to a dynamical derivation), ... but as I said a few days ago ...."[The] resolution requires a layer of interpretation, thus cannot be resolved by [Realist] interactions alone.",....


So if we accept what you say, then you are claiming that the Schroedinger equation is an interpretation.


No. That is not what was posted. Again that is just another one of your own apprehensions and not what I stated. You have a habit of rewording what I posted as if to assume control of my argument. This behaviour is corrupt.

I was referring to the ensemble interpretation. Again you have not put an effort in to understand the argument presented.

Either you understood it or you didn't,.... but I'm not going to waste more time defending myself from your misapprehensions and obfuscations, and repeating over and over points already made.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2016
Here's another little conundrum for you to chew on: the matrix that gives the probabilities for decay modes of quarks is completely empirical; we don't know why those probabilities are what they are. These are fundamental features of QCD. There is no theory here; it's all experiment.

The same is true of the fine structure constant, the most fundamental variable in QED.

So much for QM being complete.

Meanwhile,

That is not what was posted.
It's implicit in what you posted, though you don't want to have to admit it. That's why you didn't respond to the whole argument.

Bobbing ducking and weaving isn't physics, @Noum. It's philosophy. Answer the posts like I answered yours (until you started claiming I wasn't and I started demonstrating that I had been and doing what you said you wanted).
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (27) Jun 12, 2016
Above you seem to have contended that the wavefunction is an interpretation. And that there is no such thing as an interaction


I have NEVER stated nor implied that the wavefunction is "an interpretation". In fact I have stated that it represents knowledge of the system.

I have NEVER stated nor implied that that is "no such thing as an interaction". In fact I have stated that interactions are represented as dynamics of the equation, Schrodinger equation, etc. and their application.

I will not be responding to anymore of your posts, as these type of deliberate or otherwise misrepresentations make it impossible to conduct a rational discussion.

There could only be ulterior motives to reword, rephrase, characterize, or inform me of what my own posts said.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (27) Jun 12, 2016
The wavefunction is a description of the quantum system, whereas the Schrodinger equation represents the dynamics (interactions).
Differentiating the Schroedinger equation from the wavefunction is incorrect. The Schroedinger equation is *a* wavefunction;


This is the Schrodinger equation (h taken as reduced Planck constant)....
ih ∂Ψ/∂t = -h²/2m ∇²Ψ + V()Ψ

This is the wavefunction....
Ψ

Given boundary conditions as expressed in the potential term of the Hamiltonian, one finds eigenvalue solutions to obtain a set of ψ which are considered components of Ψ.

As you can see the Schrodinger equation is not a wavefunction, it is an equation which describes the dynamical evolution of the system and in this regard is "akin to" Newton equation of motion.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (27) Jun 12, 2016
Decoherence was derived from the Schrodinger equation.

No, the mathematical description of decoherence was derived from the Schroedinger wavefunction;l[sic] .


That's what I said. The mathematical description represents our only knowledge of physical phenomena, if that mathematical description has been validated by experiment. As stated QM is the most validated theory to date. Your distinction is utterly without meaning or is metaphysical gibberish. Decoherence was originally a derivation of the S.E.....

decoherence itself is a physical phenomenon. It's a brute fact


Only relatively recently has there even been experimental investigation of decoherence occurring in (mesoscopic objects (as mentioned above)) in a physical quantifiable way.



Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (27) Jun 12, 2016
So much for QM being complete.


That is not what I was referring to by "complete". I already addressed this. [And I'm repeating myself] It only means there is no missing information (no [local] hidden variables). The wavefunction is a complete description of the given system, as there is nothing else missing.

Why should I answer your questions that are based on faulty apprehension?

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (22) Jun 12, 2016
even though this is a subjective interpretation of events from your own personal perspective, perhaps i can answer this:
Why should I answer your questions that are based on faulty apprehension?
for the same reason that DaSchneib has been answering your posts even though you keep resorting back to your philo roots with Bobbing ducking and weaving etc

respect and the need to clarify
he even stated it earlier

I have answered every argument you have made; you have not done me the same courtesy, and now you're becoming insulting again, and concentrating on irrelevancies instead of the arguments.
...here's another big problem with philosophy: when a philosopher's arguments don't hold water, they start using rhetorical tricks, insults, and other irrelevancies. They literally don't see the difference.
i agree with DaSchneib on this one:

" If you got any more physics, bring it. [Philo] stuff I will not bother with. "
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (28) Jun 12, 2016
Your subjective opinion is worthless without an independent and objective comprehension of my core argument.

YOU are only beng lead by the nose like a dog by DaScheibs subjective characterizations and misapprehension of my posts,.... and NOT by the actual arguments presented which were physics based, nor indeed your own competence in QM.

Your own posts are not only subjective but in addition are not even about physics, and are therefore useless as usual. You don't even see the absurdity of accusing me with subjectivity while I have posted mounds of physics facts and understanding of the mathematical foundation,.. while you have posted zero.


Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (15) Jun 12, 2016
If you're going to pick and choose what you respond to then there's no point in talking to you any more. You presented your case; it didn't hold water. Now all you've got left is little logic games, and I've already told you I won't play.

@Noum, if you won't answer questions about what you think, you don't get to whine about being "misrepresented." I'm just trying to figure out what the heck you think you're saying.

What makes it impossible to conduct a rational discussion is your constant changing of the subject and refusal to answer questions about what you think.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (28) Jun 12, 2016
As is clear from the examples above, most of what I am forced to respond to is either your own lack of physics, or your own faulty "characterizations" of what I posted, or your philosophical distinction between reality and our descriptive knowledge of it.

No matter how blatently wrong you are, you are not capable of admitting it nor in revisiting the given argument.

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (17) Jun 12, 2016
That's what I said.
No, it's not; you said decoherence is derived from the Schroedinger equation.

Now you're just making stuff up.

So much for QM being complete.
That is not what I was referring to by "complete".
What you mean by "complete" is not what most people would think someone means when they talk about a physical theory being complete. It's certainly not what Einstein meant when he claimed QM is not complete. (Not that I agree with him, but that's beside the point.)

More philosophy. Complete waste of time.

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (17) Jun 12, 2016
As is clear from the examples above, most of what I am forced to respond to is either your own lack of physics, or your own faulty "characterizations" of what I posted, or your philosophical distinction between reality and our descriptive knowledge of it.

No matter how blatently wrong you are, you are not capable of admitting it nor in revisiting the given argument.
More navel-gazing solipsistic rhetorical philosophy, this time mixed with insults because you perceive my attempts to figure out what you're saying as somehow insulting you.

Complete waste of time.

BTW, you were right about the wavefunction and the Schroedinger equation, but only partially; the wavefunction is a *solution* to the Schroedinger equation (or, it appears, to its equivalent for bosons, which is only now being researched).

So here's a question for you: if the Schroedinger equation can be rearranged to solve for the wavefunction, is it still the Schroedinger equation?

[contd]
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (23) Jun 12, 2016
Your subjective opinion is worthless
@Nou
ROTFLMFAO
so... ya can't talk physics or QM using the scientific method without introducing philo-babble, as i've argued in the past... so your argument is that when i point it out above then my argument is worthless, even though you directly proved my point above?

epic!
LMFAO

.

.

What makes it impossible to conduct a rational discussion is your constant changing of the subject and refusal to answer questions about what you think
@DaSchneib
that is because this is taught to philo's - it is the core of the program

to obfuscate with generalities loosely defined so that any argument can be made to support the claim

that is how philo's get popular

it's also why they can't talk science when nailed down like you did above

THANKS for the above, @D
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (28) Jun 12, 2016
Actually, it only says there are no local hidden variables

Yes, which is why I went out of my way to say "local". When one feigns a "correction" even though it was already clearly implied, they are dropping chafe.

Decoherence was derived from the Schrodinger equation. -Nou

No, the mathematical description of decoherence was derived from the Schroedinger wavefunction;l[sic]
- DS

That's what I said -Nou


No, it's not; you said decoherence is derived from the Schroedinger equation. - DS


Yes, I corrected your post before it was possible to rationally respond to it, so I included "[sic]" above having already corrected your previous gibberish of "Schroedinger equation is *a* wavefunction". Do you see my extra burden here?

I'll give you another year to study QM and return to my above argument.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (17) Jun 12, 2016
[contd]
And a couple more questions, @Noum:

Do you seriously believe that no decoherence occurred before it was mathematically described?

Do you seriously believe that there is no reality out there that is separate from our conceptions of it?

And finally, do you seriously believe that interactions don't exist because the Schroedinger equation can't describe them?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (20) Jun 12, 2016
@Cappy, thanks for giving @Noum 5s when he didn't deserve them in order to salve his pride.

Of course I could be wrong and he could have just been upvoting himself with sockpuppets.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (20) Jun 12, 2016
What makes it impossible to conduct a rational discussion is your constant changing of the subject and refusal to answer questions about what you think
@DaSchneib
that is because this is taught to philo's - it is the core of the program
Yep. See deconstructionism. See solipsistic claims that there isn't any reality. See political rhetoric. It's all the same crap.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (31) Jun 12, 2016
BTW, you were right about the wavefunction and the Schroedinger equation, but only partially; the wavefunction is a *solution* to the Schroedinger equation


I guess you don't know what an eigenvalue problem is, as I just told you that,.... with the Hamiltonian and potential term you solve an eigenvalue problem to find a set of wavefunctions that are the energy states, then,....

I'm glad you were able to learn physics from a "philosopher".

@CS, as I said as far as I can tell given your posts here, you don't know whether my core argument was physics or philosophy or both. You only appear to know what you were told to think. If not, prove me wrong by telling me what my core argument was.

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (20) Jun 12, 2016
What I find amusing is to see someone who obviously doesn't know the Heisenberg approach from the Schroedinger approach, and doesn't seem to know anything about the action principle or the path integral approach, who claims to be a physicist.

All I see you doing here is trying to justify your claims that there isn't any reality.

I asked questions. You have no answers. That tells me everything I need to know.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (30) Jun 12, 2016
Do you seriously believe that no decoherence occurred before it was mathematically described?


Are you referring to reality as if independent of our knowledge of it? If so, that is meaningless gibberish and is the worst kind of philosophy, metaphysics. IOW, your question is meaningless and unscientific. I don't regard the wavefunction as a independent "physical thing", but only as a description that allows for predictive knowledge. That is all. The map is not the reality.

Do you seriously believe that there is no reality out there that is separate from our conceptions of it?

This question could have been answered yourself by reading my posts. There must be an objective reality (Noumenon) but it is formless and unknowable "as it exists in itself" (as it "is" apart from our descriptive knowledge).

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (30) Jun 12, 2016
What I find amusing is to see someone who obviously doesn't know the Heisenberg approach from the Schroedinger approach, and doesn't seem to know anything about the action principle or the path integral approach, who claims to be a physicist.


This is nothing more than fraudulent characterizations not based on anything of substance. You just literally made that up for the benefit of the neophytes who are clueless enough to be told what to think. You are low class my boy, and are just trying to be the tallest midget.

I do know about the distinction between both Heisenberg and Schrodinger's approaches and the confusion this cause historically, the Schrodinger's demonstration of the equivalency,.... and I do know of Dirac's method to make the Schrodinger equation relativistic and Feynman's path integral method,..... but I don't know everything and have never claimed to.

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (22) Jun 12, 2016
Are you referring to reality as if independent of our knowledge of it?
Yep. The Moon is still there even if no one is looking at it.

This question could have been answered yourself by reading my posts. There must be an objective reality (Noumenon) but it is formless and unknowable "as it exists in itself" (as it "is" apart from our descriptive knowledge).
Not into mysticism. Not into "formless physics," whatever that is. Not into solipsism. Not into philosophy.

Photons from faraway galaxies interact with cloud tops on the far side of Jupiter. Get over it.

Closing this thread now because you obviously have nothing left. Bye @Noum.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (29) Jun 12, 2016
Do you know the difference between metaphysics and scientific knowledge?

What should be learned from QM is that physics at quantum scale is not an "explanation of independent reality", but is rather a description of experience that allows for predictive knowledge, and nothing more.

"it" is only a wave or a particle to the extent that the experimental apparatus or detecting device or inference defines it as such. This is how QM works. This is embedded within the mathematics structure.

There is no way to remove the observer, us, from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception — and hence the observations upon which our theories are based is not direct, but rather is shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our brains" - S. Hawking

Hawking understands QM and is no mystic, nor am I.

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (29) Jun 12, 2016

And finally, do you seriously believe that interactions don't exist because the Schroedinger equation can't describe them?


I never said that the Schrodinger equation can't describe interactions. We agreed that by interactions you mean decoherence. In a system of multiple particles [that can be observed as such], there is only one wavefuntion [that is a function of a tensor product space], so that by "interaction" is only meant evolution of this wavefuntion according to the Schrodinger equation. As pointed out, the result of decoherence is still a single global wavefuntion.

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (27) Jun 13, 2016
you don't know whether my core argument was physics or philosophy or both
@Noumoron
it's both, as i stated here:
ya can't talk physics or QM using the scientific method without introducing philo-babble
so are you going to now play the illiterate game like rc or the other trolls?
prove me wrong by telling me what my core argument was
which one?

the one where you tried to state something doesn't exist so long as it isn't measured or observed?

the vague solipsistic deconstruction argument of semantics?

the problem demonstrated above:
1- you entered into a science discussion but you brought your philo-baggage

2- you can't argue with evidence, so you get defensive and resort to philo & ad hominem etc (used on Schneib and everyone else)

3- when it's pointed out by anyone, you attack instead of consider it

https://www.psych...ttle-ego
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (31) Jun 13, 2016
You have not posted any substance, again you post only vague characterizations and accusations.

I posted purely physics arguments and facts, and corrected other posters multiple times, and only subsequently offered interpretations,… interpretations which is shared by prominent physicists so is not out of context nor non-science.

Blatant metaphysics, ad hominess, and mischaracterizations were offered by another poster above multiple times, but this does not phase you because of your own profound ignorance of what science is, and subjective emotional bias in focusing only on me.

You don't even seem interested in science because all you post is irrelevant jerry-pringer bickering.

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (31) Jun 13, 2016
you tried to state something doesn't exist so long as it isn't measured or observed?

This stated shows you have not read the thread with comprehension as I have not stated that anywhere. In fact I have confirmed multiple times an objective reality.

Again, you're just another ding-bat speaking vaguely without quoting me nor understanding context or anything,… you're simply just "saying so".

What specifically do you object to that I have ACTUALLY posted,….. not what YOU say I said or your own faulty apprehension of what I said or what Schneib told you to think, ……but what Noumenon actually posted in context, and why? Quote me in context. What SPECIFIC evidence is lacking for what? If you are not capable of articulating a relevant objection then why are you posting here?

I could train my dog to run around saying "wheres the evidence" without any further articulated context.

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (31) Jun 13, 2016
I asked you to tell me what my core argument was. It was physics based.

The reason I asked you this is because 1) my subsequent interpretation is based on it, 2) you have yet to post anything which leads me to think that you have even read the above thread with independent consideration.

Therefore, if you don't understand the core-argument as presented, then it is pointless for me to debate you further, as those physics arguments are the "evidence" which lead me to my interpretation.

And before you ignorantly say "interpretation is philosophy",... as pointed out above "all interpretations that are not empirically distinguishable are just that, philosophy of physics",.... yet it IS still valid, useful, and necessary to formulate interpretations, as the entire history of physics shows.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) Jun 13, 2016
The distinction between pure-states and mixed-states can be expressed in the Dirac notation just as well.

Prove it.


The Dirac Bra-Ket notation for a pure-state "as in superposition", would be something like this….

|ψ〉 = |φ₁〉 + |φ₂〉

A mixed-state and derivation of classical probabilities would be something like this ….

p = ∑ pₖ|Ψₖ〉〈Ψₖ|

Statistical mixtures of states cannot be represented by a wavefunction, i.e. by a linear combination of pure-states,…. because a mixed-state as in an statistical ensemble of independent systems, already presume classical probabilities. IOW, it is NOT correct to state that some parameters are in state φ₁ and some are in state φ₂ wrt wavefunctions….