Researchers chart the 'secret' movement of quantum particles

December 22, 2017, University of Cambridge
Researchers chart the ‘secret’ movement of quantum particles
Credit: Robert Couse-Baker

Researchers from the University of Cambridge have taken a peek into the secretive domain of quantum mechanics. In a theoretical paper published in the journal Physical Review A, they have shown that the way that particles interact with their environment can be used to track quantum particles when they're not being observed, which had been thought to be impossible.

One of the fundamental ideas of is that can exist both as a wave and as a particle, and that they don't exist as one or the other until they are measured. This is the premise that Erwin Schrödinger was illustrating with his famous thought experiment involving a dead-or-maybe-not-dead cat in a box.

"This premise, commonly referred to as the , has been used more as a mathematical tool than a representation of actual quantum particles," said David Arvidsson-Shukur, a Ph.D. student at Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory, and the paper's first author. "That's why we took on the challenge of creating a way to track the secret movements of ."

Any particle will always interact with its environment, 'tagging' it along the way. Arvidsson-Shukur, working with his co-authors Professor Crispin Barnes from the Cavendish Laboratory and Axel Gottfries, a Ph.D. student from the Faculty of Economics, outlined a way for scientists to map these 'tagging' interactions without looking at them. The technique would be useful to scientists who make measurements at the end of an experiment but want to follow the movements of particles during the full experiment.

Some quantum scientists have suggested that information can be transmitted between two people – usually referred to as Alice and Bob – without any particles travelling between them. In a sense, Alice gets the message telepathically. This has been termed counterfactual communication because it goes against the accepted 'fact' that for information to be carried between sources, particles must move between them.

"To measure this phenomenon of counterfactual communication, we need a way to pin down where the particles between Alice and Bob are when we're not looking," said Arvidsson-Shukur. "Our 'tagging' method can do just that. Additionally, we can verify old predictions of quantum mechanics, for example that particles can exist in different locations at the same time."

The founders of modern physics devised formulas to calculate the probabilities of different results from quantum experiments. However, they did not provide any explanations of what a quantum particle is doing when it's not being observed. Earlier experiments have suggested that the particles might do non-classical things when not observed, like existing in two places at the same time. In their paper, the Cambridge researchers considered the fact that any particle travelling through space will interact with its surroundings. These interactions are what they call the 'tagging' of the particle. The interactions encode information in the particles that can then be decoded at the end of an experiment, when the particles are measured.

The researchers found that this information encoded in the particles is directly related to the wave function that Schrödinger postulated a century ago. Previously the wave function was thought of as an abstract computational tool to predict the outcomes of quantum experiments. "Our result suggests that the wave function is closely related to the actual state of particles," said Arvidsson-Shukur. "So, we have been able to explore the 'forbidden domain' of : pinning down the path of when no one is observing them."

Explore further: Wave properties of particles can manifest in collisions

More information: D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur et al. Evaluation of counterfactuality in counterfactual communication protocols, Physical Review A (2017). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.96.062316

Related Stories

Wave properties of particles can manifest in collisions

November 2, 2017

Dmitry Karlovets, senior researcher at the TSU Faculty of Physics, and Valery Serbo from the Institute of Mathematics of the SB RAS have shown that it is possible to observe the wave properties of massive particles at room ...

Researchers demonstrate 'quantum surrealism'

February 19, 2016

New research demonstrates that particles at the quantum level can in fact be seen as behaving something like billiard balls rolling along a table, and not merely as the probabilistic smears that the standard interpretation ...

Recommended for you

New study could hold key to hack-proof systems

July 17, 2018

Major data breaches have made worldwide headlines of late but an international consortium of scientists—including a professor from Heriot-Watt—have developed a new technique that could result in hack-proof systems.

185 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

fthompson495
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2017
What physicists mistake for the particle being in two locations at the same time is the particle getting knocked around by the chaotic nature of the sub-quantum medium.

https://en.wikipe...n_Theory
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2017
...sub-quantum medium.
Ponder, are you sure you don't mean; supra-quantum medium?
sirdumpalot
not rated yet Dec 23, 2017
So really, is this counterfactual communication just using waves for communication?
swordsman
5 / 5 (1) Dec 23, 2017
Electrons, as they move and approach the speed of light, naturally spiiral. This is "old news". It is an electromagnetic phenomenon. The Biot-Savart law defines the magnetic field created by a moving electron, and it is a cross-vector. Schrodinger's equation is not sufficient in this analysis. When a moving charge reaches velocities approaching the speed of light, self-induced electromagnetic fields become a factor. This phenomenon is extremely important in analyzing such phenomina.
tallenglish
1 / 5 (1) Dec 23, 2017
Using the idea of a wave you can explain entanglement and why you can only entangle particles of opposite spin (and possibly how particle/anti-particle pairs can co-exist at all). Particle B must have the same frequency and be exact multiple of pi + n*2pi phase difference to particle A (pi, 3pi, -pi, -3pi, etc) - this way particle B is always where particle A is not - any difference to frequency or phase and they will interfer/interact - they are not connected, but rather the wave function are in sync.

Lose sync (like if one particle is interacted with by a 3rd particle like a photon and one wave function will be changed and that allows particle A and B to interact).

Spooky action at a distance is not so spooky when you look at it as two counter interacting waves with the same frequency and distance between the wave peaks as +/- (2n + 1/2) wavelength - so only particle/antiparticle or like particles pairs can entangle and they must be specific distances from each other.
tallenglish
1 / 5 (1) Dec 23, 2017
Sine waves also have an infinite number of peaks (everywhere they are most likely to be), and troffs (everywhere they are least likely to be). So yes a patical is in an infinite number of places at once, when we interact with it we collapse the wave funtion to pinpoint the location - which is just the combined wave functions of the two particals that will either constructively or destructively interfere with each other (absorb energy or emit energy).
Ralph
1 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2017
According to a doctrine of physics -- presumably confirmed by experiment -- the wave function is not a physical variable and hence can never be measured directly. I'm wondering if the paper reported on here wants to question that long-standing belief.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2017
Actually, @Ralph, the wavefunction is certainly not a direct observable for a single particle, since it doesn't describe a single particle but behavior over an ensemble. This is of course confirmed by experiment, but only for ensembles of particles. However, it is deterministic for such ensembles, predicting the frequency of detected values for any given variable on the particles. In fact, the behavior of fermions vs. bosons is determined by the wavefunctions of the two classes of particles.

It seems that you've found a categorical error. It's rather like asserting that everyone dies at 70 years of age because that's the average age at death of most people.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2017
The wavefunction doesn't describe the behavior of individual particles in a dual-slit experiment. It describes the behavior of an ensemble of individual particles in that experiment. Interference or the lack of it cannot be demonstrated based on the behavior of a single particle. This has been well established in the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser of Kim and Scully.

You're making stuff up again, @mak.
paxfeline
4 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2017
If it can describe an ensemble, what would stop the wave-function from being able to describe a single particle?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2017
The wavefunction gives a probability amplitude; if you square that, you get a probability. You solve it for various positions or momenta, and square it to get the probability of various positions the particle might be found at, or momenta it might be found to have. This is called a "probability distribution."

You don't know what exact position or exact momentum you will measure until you measure it. But if you measure an ensemble of particles prepared identically, then the more particles you measure (i.e. the larger the ensemble), the closer your results will be to the prediction from squaring the wavefunction.

This is necessarily a pretty high level overview; but it gets the idea across.

Good question, @pax.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2017
It's worth mentioning as well that the squaring of the probability amplitude of the wavefunction to get a probability distribution is called the Born Rule. This is a foundational concept in quantum mechanics, and it's one of the most important ways that quantum mechanics is different from classical mechanics. The best information you can get to predict the position or momentum of a particle is the output of the wavefunction; there simply isn't any better information available by any means.
paxfeline
3 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2017
Thanks for your reply.
It seems to me that, per your description, each particle independently obeys the probability distribution. This will only be obvious once many particles have passed through the slits, in this example, but it's a consequence of each particle obeying the same probability distribution. It's visible in the ensemble because it's true of each individual particle.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2017
@pax, you only get one position or one momentum for one particle. You can't discern the probability distribution until you have measured the average for an ensemble of particles. For a single particle's single value, you'll get a random measurement within the probability distribution. The only way to measure the probability distribution is to measure many particles.
idjyit
1 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2017
Awesome illustration ...wow
Bigbangcon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2017
Wave/Particle duality of quantum particles was already explained based on QED; there is no mysticism of the collapse of the wave function is involved!
http://www.ptep-o...9-03.PDF
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2017
DaSchneib is probably referring to the Ensemble_Interpretation, which works perfectly fine for single experiments, as long as one does not confuse a superposition of states, with a mixture of states.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2017
.... for example the following is also true of classical physics which would be a mixture of states....

You can't discern the probability distribution until you have measured the average for an ensemble of particles. For a single particle's single value, you'll get a random measurement within the probability distribution. The only way to measure the probability distribution is to measure many particles


..... however in QM, one deals with a superposition of pure states, which can involve interference effects, which for single systems precludes some experimental results and renders others exponentially more likely. That we can't verify this without repeated measurements on identically prepared systems does not then equate a 'statistical mixture of states' with 'a superposition of pure states'.

[not insinuating that DaSchneib is doing so]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2017
Double slit experiment with single electron Prediction of Schrodinger equations works there as well, as at the case of multiple particles.
You are obfuscating. The prediction of the Schroedinger equation is probabilistic; it does not give the precise impact position of any single particle.

If you're just going to lie you are boring.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2017
@Noum, it has nothing to do with any interpretation at all. The Schroedinger equation says what it says. The interpretations come after that. As usual you confuse the math with the interpretation because you don't want to admit the difference. Butt out.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2017
@Noum, it has nothing to do with any interpretation at all. The Schroedinger equation says what it says. The interpretations come after that.


The Schroedinger equation is deterministic in fact, and does not give probabilities. The Born Rule is an additional layer of interpretation of the wavefunction,... that it's square gives a probability. The Schroeder equation does not do this. I posted a link to 'Ensemble Interpretation'.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2017
Edit: The [Schroedinger] equation does not do this.

IOW one can just as validly view the wavefunction as a complete description of a single system as one can view it as representing the probability description of an ensemble of identically prepared systems. It's not that you were wrong, it's just that paxfeline and mackita were not wrong either
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2017
Technically, wavefunctions are the results of the Schroedinger equation. It is the wavefunctions that give the probabilities. I was inexact.

So sue me.

And stop trying to obfuscate.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2017
Meanwhile, if the wavefunctions accurately yield the outcomes of experiments, @Noum, and they do, then it's not an interpretation, not in the sense you mean and not in the sense of "an interpretation of quantum mechanics." You stop obfuscating too.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2017
And @mac makes the standard dodge to philosophy.

This is about equations that correctly describe experiments, @mac, not philosophy.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2017
Meanwhile, if the wavefunctions accurately yield the outcomes of experiments, @Noum, and they do, then it's not an interpretation, not in the sense you mean and not in the sense of "an interpretation of quantum mechanics." You stop obfuscating too.


I didn't say that the Born rule is an interpretation of quantum mechanics, only that it is an interpretation of the wavefunction.

"[Max Born Noble Prize] for his fundamental research in quantum mechanics, especially for his statistical interpretation of the wavefunction" - Noble Foundation 1954


Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2017
At least you're getting smarter, @Noum.

The problem is, then, that the complete description of a single system is probabilistic. The particle will be detected in only one location; but the wavefunction doesn't tell what that location will be. It only gives probabilities.

So no, neither @pax nor @mac got it quite right. And as usual you lied about it.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2017
The problem is, then, that the complete description of a single system is probabilistic. [...] It only gives probabilities.


That is correct, but is the case in ensembles in any case. The point being one is free to choose which of the two views one wants, wavefunction as ensemble or as complete description, and the experimental results remain the same,... which is the definition of interpretation.

Historically, Einstein argued for the ensemble view, while Bohr cautioned that it may lead to mistaking a superposition of pure states with a statistical mixture. Personally, I prefer the wavefunction as a complete description,... because in retrospect, i.e., some locations are precluded from being observed in single measurements, and how does independent identical measurements know to interfere in such a way. There is no escaping the strangeness of QM either way, except to sweep in under a epistemic rug.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2017
Once we can measure it, it just means we can draw an energy from it permanently.


Not if the periodicity does not represent classical kinetic energy, as is the case in time crystals which don't exist in equilibrium. The laws of thermodynamics are sound.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
I don't know what this means:
isn't probabilistic but it follows the wave function
See the Born Rule.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
one is free to choose which of the two views one wants, wavefunction as ensemble or as complete description, and the experimental results remain the same
Slice it any way you like, you still only get a probability, and that's the complete description. You're obfuscating again.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
classical idealistic interpretations of quantum mechanics
I don't know what this means either.

You keep putting words together in a salad like they mean something after you arranged them randomly.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
Let me be more specific. Using the word "classical" in any sense to describe anything to do with quantum mechanics is like using the word "mammal" to describe bacteria. It's totally meaningless. This is not science; it is nonsense intended to disrupt scientific discussion. This is @mac's entire raison d'etre here.

The only question to be answered is where this individual actually gets paid from. North Korea, the FSB, and the PLA are pretty good guesses.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
So is this Bureau 121? Fancy Bear? Unit 61398? The tactics are similar across them all: sow chaos. Word salad is a typical ploy of these individuals. I would say that telling everyone they should drink urine pretty much seals the identification of this individual. That was why I tested it and made a big deal of the response. I'll keep referring back to it, too, because the only way to detect and avoid these cyber attacks is to identify them clearly by their characteristics.

Go away, cyber operator @mac. Everyone who is paying any attention at all knows what you are.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
whole this article is just an elaborated Putin's plot
So which one do you work for? It has nothing to do with this article, you're just sowing chaos, and that's obvious by your own words. By concentrating on Putin you make it much more likely that you're working for the FSB.

This is risible, @mac. You come on here and pump every crackpot theory you can find. There's none of them you'll repudiate including drinking urine. How much is anyone supposed to believe? How much do you get paid per post?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
BTW it's symptomatic how individuals working for governments who want to "disrupt the West" keep posting in favor of things like drinking urine. After all they got the stupids to vote for Brexit and Trump. If they'll do that perhaps they'll drink urine after all.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
More obfuscation. Every time this @mac cyber operative posts, it's another attempt to sow chaos.

Popper recognized crackpots just fine. You're lying again, @mac urine drinker.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2017
Maybe the people responsible for the chaotic world are those who are sowing chaos. For example those advocating drinking urine.

I mean, just sayin'.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2017
See, if you were honest you'd repudiate drinking urine. You would have done so a hundred posts ago.

You won't.

Subjected to experiment you fail repeatedly. See Popper.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
You said it.

Are you denying that now?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
I never advocated drinking urine


Urinotherapy doesn't belong into my expertise, but maybe some rational basis also exist behind it.

https://phys.org/...les.html

As usual, @macurinetherapy lies again. That's you, in black and white, on this site, this month.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
Next tactic, try to change the subject away from your own post when confronted with it.

Sowing chaos again. Standard strategy.

So tell me, if you don't work for the military how come you have all these tactics and strategy, Bureau 121?

Just askin'.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
And change the subject again.

Standard tactic in the standard strategy. Simple as that, and transparent as glass.

This scientific discussion was derailed by your claim of stochastic determinism. It's up there about fifteen posts or so, @mac. You're the one who decided you couldn't answer that and started in on the BS, like making contradictory claims. More tactics, same strategy: sow chaos.

Like I said, how come you got all these tactics and strategy? Is that your training?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
What's determined is the probabilities. This is about the fifth time you've been told this and you're still trying to pretend it was never said.

Sowing chaos by lying. Standard tactic in the standard strategy. Plain as day, anyone can go review what you've said.

You better go get the sergeant, comrade. You're over your head.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
So are you saying that the article authors are idiots - or what? Argue with them, not with me.
Here's another new way to lie: pretend I said something I didn't. I haven't expressed an opinion on this one yet. Nor will I as long as I have to contend with North Korean, Russian, and Chinese hackers. Because all it gets me is a bunch more hacks.

Maybe if you went away and didn't come back.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
It's the tactics and strategy that give you away, Fancy Bear.

Go kiss Pootie's butt, or the latest Kim's, or whoever's butt you kiss. Nobody wants you here. You just lie and lie and change the subject and disrupt the conversation.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
I thought it was perfectly on topic to reply to your post. You made a bunch of stuff up and I called you on it and you've been bobbing, ducking, weaving, and every other tactic you could use to pursue your national strategy of disrupting ever since, and you're still doing it now. I've just been pointing it out over and over again.

Sue me.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
To be technical, your thesis was flawed and you tried to make a hypothesis from it. I knocked down the thesis and the whole thing fell apart, as generally happens with the lies you make up, and you got all hurt and had a whining fit about it.

Get over it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
Wave function indeed describes behavior of isolated particles as well, for example it predicts the result of double-slit experiment,
It defines the behavior of isolated particles only in terms of the probability they will later be measured elsewhere after having passed the dual slits.

It doesn't say "this particle will hit here," unless the slit passed is known and there is no interference, in which case it's not a quantum experiment but a classical one and gets a classical result.

That was your thesis, it was wrong, and you're lying again.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
So you claim. I will evaluate the claim in the article and I bet when I'm done it won't be what you say. I'm certainly not going to bother exhaustively examining the arguments of someone who told me to go drink piss and appears to be an agent of a foreign government bent on sowing chaos and so ideologically driven that they do it on minor physics science web sites.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
You have no idea whether I agree with it or not because you do not understand it yourself. That's because you're not really interested in the science, you're only here to disrupt for some foreign government who's scared of science.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2017
You just told us
You're lying about what I said again. It's not going to work this time any better than the last.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2017
Remember that whatever is said about quantum mechanics it has to account for the DCQE. It's a real experiment with real results. Those results won't change due to an "interpretation," or some new conjecture, hypothesis, or theory.

Probably the most important quantum physics experiment of the last several decades and you've never even heard of it. You can barely stumble through Davisson-Germer, and aren't quite sure how it relates to the original Young.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2017
But I just cited you exactly word by word.
You're just lying again.

This is becoming boring.

I do have a book here to read and it's beating you bad. Worse yet it's one I've read before.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2017
I should read the rules, after you've espoused every crackpot theory including urine "therapy?"

Get over it.

And the change of subject again. Same tactics, same strategy: disrupt.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2017
I think it's sufficiently obvious that I do, in fact, read articles, and that I comment on them regularly. I also comment sardonically about crackpots and disrupters like you. It passes the time.

Second warning: boring.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2017
Nope, boring boring now you're changing the subject to process again.

Sorry man, good night and don't expect I'll bother replying again anytime soon.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2017
Try to explain, how is it possible, that wave function can be used for "pinning down the path of quantum particles when no one is observing them


I don't agree with the wording of the above article because it seems to imply existence of attributes independently of observation, .... as if the "particle" took a well defined "path" through the experiment,.... when in fact according to QED ALL possible "paths" and virtual interactions must be accounted for in the probability calculation.

What I suspect is that decoherence is used in some way to infer a classical path had the "particle" been observed there (which of itself is questionable). In QM any talk of "where" the "particle" was independent of measurement is gibberish on the face of it. I'm sure the experiment is legitimate , but am also sure they didn't "solve" the measurement problem or resolve QM to intuitive sense that one could speak in such terms.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2017
@Noum, for once we pretty much agree. I have some reservations which I'll get into when I'm done with my book.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2017
@Noum, for once we pretty much agree. I have some reservations which I'll get into when I'm done with my book.


We probably agree more than you think.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2017
The wave function is time deterministic - so that once we measure it, [....] Currently we are using "brute-force" methods for observation of wave function with photons, which also destroy its quantum state less or more completely.


The wavefunction is not an observable entity so one can not measure it per se. For multiple particles, the wavefunction evolves in a mathematical space of 3n dimensions (n = # of particles), a configuration space.

Maybe you meant that the wavefunction is determined?

Once a measurement is made, the wavefunction is determined to one state (collapse), so one knows it until it very soon evoles again, but prior to measurement it may be in superposition but still known theoretically as evolved by Schrodinger equation.

Merrit
not rated yet Dec 26, 2017
This article is about hidden variables and trying to determine the nature of a particle when it is not being observed. QM has a lot of strangeness that defies logic and intuition such as the bells inequality which proves that there can not be local hidden variables. But, something to consider is relatively and QM do not reconcile with each other. Basically, our theories are incomplete. This makes me wonder if we are missing something in QM such as a variable that would account for this strangeness. For instance, string theory predicts there are additional spacial dimensions,but the are not unfurled like the three we see. A photon, being massless, could travel these spacial dimensions.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2017
The wavefunction is not an observable entity so one can not measure it per se
So how it can be observed? Maybe you should read first some articles about it too...


I don't read posted links unless they are summarized first.

The wavefunction is a complex valued mathematical description of a quantum system used to obtain probabilities of observable states,... they are not physical waves. Some theories like deBroglie-Bohm propose it as a guiding wave, but is metaphysical in the sense of not being observable even in principal.

In terms of the QM theoretical description, what is observable experimentally, is represented by quantum operators. These mathematical operators are to operate on the wavefunction. One then finds the wavefunctions that solve an eigenvalue problem, to find the allowable states of the system. These operators (what is actually observed) are things like energy (Hamiltonian), momentum, position, etc.


Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2017
This makes me wonder if we are missing something in QM such as a variable that would account for this strangeness


As you mentioned, such a variable would have to be non-local as proven by the Bell inequalities. The Bell theorem is empirical and independent from theory,...so it will be true no matter what future theories come about.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2017
For instance, string theory predicts there are additional spacial dimensions,but the are not unfurled like the three we see. A photon [..] could travel these spacial dimensions.


The Bell theorem seems to me to imply the opposite, that the underlying quantum reality, does not evolve "in space" at all.

What IS space anyway? There has never been a 'space-particle' or physical 'space-field' observed in physics,... by which I mean independently of that concepts use in synthesizing experience. IOW, there is no space-field/particle/wave involved in the dynamics of any physical process, nor a space-particle in the standard model of particle physics. Space is a-priori defined instrumentally.

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2017
A common error imo is to think that GR proves that space is physical,.. after all gravitation curves space, no? However in GR the space and time components are observer dependent and are operationally Defined by other physical systems, i.e. rods and clocks. It is rather the metric tensor field that is the quantity that represents a physical thing.

The requirement of general covariance "takes away from space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity." - Einstein (~1916)

Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2017
Does being rated a 1 by a crank at the water-surface mean it really is a 5?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2017
The paper is available on arXiv: https://arxiv.org...6574.pdf

I am reviewing it.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2017
The Bell theorem is empirical and independent from theory
I would only add "mathematically empirical" for clarity but I know that's what you meant.

A common error imo is to think that GR proves that space is physical
This actually comes from string physics. The suggestion at its heart is that electroweak comes from U(1) + SU(2), color from SU(3), and gravity from some higher dimensional symmetry group in a manner we haven't yet found like SO(8) or some such. If this is correct then translations and rotations in 3+1D spacetime in fact define gravity, just as motions on the U(1) manifold define EM, on the SU(2) define the weak force, and motions on the SU(3) manifold define the color force. I don't necessarily advocate this, but that's what string physics says.

The only other quibble I found was you made the common confusion between principal and principle. And I'm teasing you only; it happens to be a pet peeve of mine.

Enjoy the 5s.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2017
I still have to get through the paper. The article, I think, is badly written and fails to note that what's basically being mooted in the paper seems to be weak measurement theory, but I'm not certain of that since the original authors don't explicitly mention it so far as I've seen. Since the paper is appropriate for Physical Review Letters it's a bit skimpy on the exact references it's talking about and highly technical. A paper in a higher-level journal would include much more accessible discussion.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2017
This is actually pretty interesting. I'm now getting an introduction to Mach-Zender interferometry. I'm still deciding whether this has to do with weak measurement theory.
EyeNStein
not rated yet Dec 27, 2017
I don't think this actually advances quantum theory in any way.
Using a weak measurement technique would only yield a probabilistic result.
If they could tag the particles presence as it passes through the infamous 'two-slits': Then either a genuinely tagged particle would pass through only one slit as particles do, or 'probably' pass through both as waves do.
Only the weakly (probably) tagged particles would retain their quantum behaviour.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2017
This actually comes from string physics. The suggestion at its heart is that electroweak comes from U(1) + SU(2), color from SU(3), and gravity from some higher dimensional symmetry group in a manner we haven't yet found like SO(8) or some such.


An alternative to unite GR and QFT that doesn't presume a space-time, is loop quantum gravity, where space-time is merely emergent from a more fundamental structure.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2017
@Eye, as far as we can see there isn't ever going to be anything but a probabilistic result, and the findings in this paper aren't going to change that. The information you want to see simply isn't available by any means.

Quantum particles aren't little smooth balls lit from above. They're fuzzy balls in the dark.
EyeNStein
not rated yet Dec 28, 2017
@DaS They are only "fuzzy balls in the dark" because 3D+T creatures perceive/measure them that way.
While they are only confined to Planck scale in their own 'extra' dimensions (as any massive particle must be) but unconfined in our 3D+T they appear mathematically fuzzy. Once we measure (confine ) them relative to our 3D frame then our maths rules change.
Maths rules never really change: We just haven't unified the maths/rules properly yet.

The fact that confining energy to our 3D+T (what we call mass) causes that 3D+T to distort around that measurement must be a clue. The indication that gravity unifies at the Planck scale is another. Our maths just needs to take a unifying quantum leap. (pun intended)

In future, for 'fuzzy' read mathematically imprecise.
EyeNStein
not rated yet Dec 28, 2017
[continued] The fact that space-time has no true origin (Minkowski = affine space) to make events invariant to all observers should be the biggest clue of all.
Its only when we measure to confine particles wrt our 3D origin that our maths goes haywire and Copenhagen interpretation switches rules on us.
We need a 'space' and some rules where the entities (we call waves or particles) remain frame invariant before, during and after an interaction.

Not that our origin focused reality will go anywhere: My car's origin is still in the garage. But Copenhagen interpretation can not be the end of the journey down the mysterious quantum rabbit hole.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2017
@Eye, some of the things we know, for example how the strong force works in the nuclei of atoms, depend upon them being fuzzy balls in the dark, as I put it metaphorically above. There really isn't any way out of it.

As another point, there is a boundary, and of course it's fuzzy too, between how classical things behave and how quantum things behave. This can be seen experimentally in Bell test experiments and in the experimental confirmation of the Fluctuation Theorem, as well as experiments over the last 20 years or so with entanglement.

None of these things could happen if particles were like little balls whose exact parameters could be known with ultimate accuracy all the time. Like I said, quantum particles are fuzzy balls in the dark. That's just how it is; no description that requires them to have definite parameters all the time is consistent with experiment.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2017
An alternative to unite GR and QFT that doesn't presume a space-time, is loop quantum gravity, where space-time is merely emergent from a more fundamental structure.
@Noum, I won't talk down LQG; along with string physics it seems to be one of the most viable paths to quantum gravity today. OTOH, I'm not sure that dimensionality (and I don't mean the Hilbert spaces of QM) isn't the most basic concept of the universe that can be detected both in classical and quantum mechanics. The most basic conservation laws seem to emerge from it, by Noether's Theorem. String physics seems to emerge from this directly; while it does not explain the dimensionality, it seems to use it superlatively well without introducing any other postulates. And it does so in the same manner GR and QM both do.

I said I don't advocate it; that's because there isn't a good way to verify it experimentally. But I do favor it for the above reasons.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2017
[contd]
If you want my guess, the "landscape" of Calabi-Yau spaces will be reduced or even fully parsed by advances in computational QM and GR not too long from now, and we will see whether there is a Calabi-Yau manifold that yields the physics we see. At that point we can make calculations and see whether they yield predictions that match our universe, and test them in experiments that are within our reach.

But that's just a guess.

Explanations for where the dimensionality comes from seem to me to be a lot farther out than anything string physics says, and I am suspicious that it's possible that string physics explains everything in terms of dimensionality and LQG explains dimensionality. In other words both are right but LQG holds the position of being a true TOE whereas string physics is only a partial TOE. But that's rank speculation.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2017
@Noum, I will add a thought that just occurred to me: in the 1920s and 30s, there was a big debate about whether the Schroedinger equations or the S-matrix were correct, and it turned out both were. And I wasn't impressed by Smolin's book; too much diatribe. Express and explain your hypothesis; it's unnecessary to attack others. If your stuff works out that's enough. Such ideological diatribe is inappropriate in mechanics.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2017
The paper is tough as should be expected by a technical paper from PRLA. I am still reviewing it and everyone should.
EyeNStein
not rated yet Dec 28, 2017
There is no definable origin in the only truly invariant frame we know of, that of "space-time" Your time measurements and my space measurements of the same events or entities can never yield the same answers as we cannot define a common origin.
Any attempt at a defined measurement has to be imprecise or fuzzy as we cannot truly define our own origin even.

The classical world doesn't truly exist: Only an imprecisely defined quantum world from which it emerges as pseudo reality. Copenhagen interpretation is about as pseudo as this reality gets by suddenly changing its own rules.

The "pants diagram" of string theory is a much better interpretation of a quantum interaction as it doesn't have the discontinuity of rules that Copenhagen has. But we still don't understand the maths 'space' this interaction must exist in to cause our fuzzy 3D+T to be emergent.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2017
I'm not sure what definable origin means, and I don't see spacetime as an invariant frame, due to relativity theory. It certainly has nothing to do with quantum indeterminacy, i.e. that which makes quantum particles fuzzy balls in the dark.

I don't agree that classical reality doesn't exist; I think each of us probes it with our senses every moment. I do agree it might be emergent but I don't think that affects its reality or lack thereof from our personal points of view.
EyeNStein
not rated yet Dec 29, 2017
Under Special Relativity: The only way two observers can agree on an 'event' is to mathematically abstract themselves into space-time. This agreement or 'invariance' is how I define real 'reality'. Anything else is just a chosen perceptual approximation. Not that I have a problem with that: My approximate laptop is still useful!

Since Copenhagen switches rules based on an 'event' we need an invariant view of the event, or its meaningless. However after General Relativity two observers still can disagree on weather an event has happened yet and therefore which rules apply: This is no longer invariant. So we need a deeper space (maybe string theory space) where rules can be continuous and invariance restored.

Not that we can visit this space by stepping out of our 3D+T; but we still need a mathematical description of our reality where Mercury precesses around the sun, and in the future where quantum gravity makes sense.
Even if reality still measures 'fuzzy' to us afterwards.
Merrit
not rated yet Dec 29, 2017
The fuzzy nature of the quantum particles really bothers me. It would make more sense if they had set values regardless if you actually were to measure them or not. The issue is if the particles are indeed in an indeterminate state while not being measured, then how are the interactions being calculated? If the properties were determined beforehand, then they could simply react, but this implies some sort of calculation is going on every single time. This brings me to the conclusion that we are living in some kind of simulation.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2017
Hmmmm, I think you're not fully aware of what Lorentz invariance means, @Eye. It's pretty much what you're talking about. Of course, it doesn't provide an absolute reference. The closest we've come to an absolute reference is the CMBR, and we already know that varies from place to place. For example, due to combined motions of the Sun in our galaxy, our galaxy in its group, and the group among the filaments of the universe, we are moving at 627 +/- 22 km/s relative to the local CMBR frame. We can measure this due to the dipole anisotropy in the CMBR. What we know is that late-time integrated Sachs-Wolfe effects cause variations in the CMBR and as a result it varies from one place to another; therefore, even the CMBR frame cannot serve as an absolute frame of reference. But as I said, it's the closest thing we've got.

There are suggestions that so-called "dark energy" is simply a matter of where we are in the universe relative to the large-scale structures.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2017
[contd]
In other words, in our current location expansion seems to be increasing, but not only is it not strong enough to dissolve the Milky Way, it's not even strong enough to separate the Local Group from our supercluster. Recent papers have shown analyses of astronomical data that suggest that while filaments and superclusters seem to be moving away from each other, within such structures their components are not, but instead are concentrating. This is not entirely astonishing since the matter in the filaments and superclusters makes gravity and the gravity draws them together. One would expect expansion of the voids due to concentration of the matter. The data, however, are equivocal, so this is not a sure thing.

I think, however, that we are far from applying any of this to quantum mechanics.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2017
Let's talk about what Lorentz invariance means. It means that all events have a definite timeline in any single frame of reference, and that they can be converted into another frame of reference using a Lorentz transform and will still construct a definite timeline; this does not mean they will be the same in both timelines, only that they will be consistent within a single frame, and still consistent after being transformed. In all frames they will be consistent, and will agree with the laws of physics as we know them.

So when you claim Lorentz invariance is not in fact invariant, I think that you don't quite understand Lorentz invariance.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2017
Galilean transformations which are manifestly non local
Making stuff up again.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2017
Making stuff up is boring. Telling everyone on the site you're trying to disrupt to drink piss is, on the other hand, amusing. And stupid.

In case you try lying about what you said again,

https://phys.org/...les.html

Urinotherapy doesn't belong into my expertise, but maybe some rational basis also exist behind it.


Keep it up and I'll start making up a list of the 100 stupidest things you've said here. And I'll start posting it. And if you think I won't, I suggest you haven't been here long and seen how well it works to show what people actually say.

You are a fool, comrade. Get a new job.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2017
Quite frankly, @macurinetherapy, I see little point in you continuing to post here. You have thoroughly discredited yourself. No one but an idiot would have snapped at the bait I dangled. And no one but a fool would expect a bunch of people who are used to doing analysis to fail to notice your tactics and strategy, particularly after it's been widely revealed in politics. Yet you keep trying the same tactics and strategy over and over.

Claiming that Galilean transforms show non-locality is absurd.

Hopefully they'll take you out and shoot you for failing, comrade.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2017
Speed-of-light limits for information transfer are precisely the limits nonlocality notionally transcends.

This is very much like asserting phlogiston "theory." For physics, SRT is the third rail. Step on it and you die.

I wouldn't expect a comrade from North Korea to be technically sophisticated enough to know that.

Still @macking stuff up.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2017
Atmospheric muons in cosmic ray showers prove you're lying, comrade.

Data always trumps theory. You apparently haven't figured that one out, comrade @macurinetherapy.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2017
The point is it has no explanation in classical mechanics as you yourself admit by bringing in relativity. You're lying again, comrade @macurinetherapy.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's great for my morale.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2017
In dense aether model
Like I said, every dead stinking corpse of a simulation that no one ever made because the math didn't work is brought out by the disruptors. The point is to disrupt, not any legitimate scientific point of view.

Nice try comrade @macurinetherapy, another dud. If you're lucky the pistol they bring out to splash your cortical matter across the brick wall for failing will shoot a bullet made of dense aether.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2017
LOL, it goes back to the water surface analogy to change the subject after being pwnt again. Thou standest between me and my sire. Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, ere I set this troll's bane in thee!

I cannot be slain by the hand of a man.

I am no man.

Shinggggg....

I toy with you, comrade @macurinetherapy.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2017
So, predictably, @macurinetherapy's pet phantasy is water woo.

Heh.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2017
Take for example the Copenhagen interpretation with its wavefunction collapse. The process of "instantaneousness" wavefunction collapse blatantly violates Lorentz invariance. Measurement is inherently not covariant, because you need an observer, who then defines preferred time-slicing of spacetime. The Multi World Theory (MWT) proponents think they should get around this by replacing objective wavefuction collapse with subjective wave function collapse.


You copy/pasted this post from multiple posters at physics forums, HERE

The problem with plagiarism especially in non-formal discussion, is that you become responsible for their errors as well.....i.e. Copenhagen interpretation proponents do not advocate for objective wavefunction collapse, but rather a subjective or epistemic one, while contrarily MWI don't advocate for wavefunction collapse at all.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2017
@Forum, FYIs for anyone interested in Einstein's cogitations and analogies forming part of his 'conceptual thinking' that underlaid his Relativity abstraction math/spacetime 'model' and theory, as per Einstein's Leiden University Address of 1920:

Re Aether:
... special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. ...
Re Water surface/body waves analogy:
Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things........if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterize it as a medium.
Happy and Safe New Year to all! :)

Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2017
Copenhagen interpretation proponents do not advocate for objective wavefunction collapse, but rather a subjective or epistemic one
I didn't say, which wave function collapse they do advocate.


You're being a bit disingenuous. You stated ....

Take for example the Copenhagen interpretation with its wavefunction collapse. The process of "instantaneousness" wavefunction collapse blatantly violates Lorentz invariance


...clearing linking Lorentz invariance with the CI. Since CI does not regard the wavefunction as a physical entity but rather as constituted of epistemic conditions, it need not be Lorentz invariant.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2017
MWI don't advocate for wavefunction collapse at all

This is also what I said.


What you said is...

The Multi World Theory (MWT) proponents think they should get around this by replacing objective wavefuction collapse with subjective wave function collapse


.. which is still wavefunction collapse. There is no wavefunction collapse at all in MWI, as that theory just lets the Schroedinger formalism do the interpretation in a literal sense, and there is no collapse derived from the standard Schroedinger equation.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2017
@Noum, [.......] Express and explain your hypothesis; it's unnecessary to attack others. If your stuff works out that's enough. Such ideological diatribe is inappropriate in mechanics.


I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Did I attack someone?
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2017
Everett noticed that the unitary, deterministic dynamics alone decreed that after an observation is made each element of the quantum superposition of the combined subject–object wavefunction contains two "relative states": a "collapsed" object state and an associated observer who has observed the same collapsed outcome; what the observer sees and the state of the object have become correlated by the act of measurement or observation.


You copy/pasted again without quotation marks. You conveniently left off the following bit from your source,...

"Since the wavefunction merely appears to have collapsed then, Everett reasoned, there was no need to actually assume that it had collapsed. And so, invoking Occam's razor, he removed the postulate of wavefunction collapse from the theory." - Wiki

There is no wavefunction collapse in MWI.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2017
Speed-of-light limits for information transfer are precisely the limits nonlocality notionally transcends. -DaSchneib

Do we agree that QM violates locality by allowing statistical superluminal communication? -makita

QM is manifestly nonlocal, but it doesn't allow superluminal communication. No such thing is possible. There are statistical correlations, but such correlations are not 'nonlocal communications'. I think DaSchneib's point was that since the notion of nonlocality a-priori presumes the notion of speed of light or signal velocity limit, the supposed nonlocality of Galilean relativity is vacuous.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2017
There is actually some dispute over whether the Copenhagen Interpretation includes wavefunction collapse, and this goes back to Bohr and Heisenberg, who disagreed over it at various times. It's also noteworthy that CI doesn't have an official canon as to collapse and other issues. Given the Bohm deBroglie pilot wave interpretation, the Cramer/Wheeler/Feynman Transactional Interpretation and absorber theory, and Consistent Histories (my current favorite), along with Many Worlds and Many Minds, none of which include wavefunction collapse, I think the data are equivocal.

I think DaSchneib's point was that since the notion of nonlocality a-priori presumes the notion of speed of light or signal velocity limit, the supposed nonlocality of Galilean relativity is vacuous.
You are correct. Since there is no means by which the wavefunction or the Schroedinger wave equation's outcome can be determined other than probabilistically this is a corollary.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2017
In another words he replaced objective wavefuction collapse with subjective wave function collapse


There is no objective collapse derived from the Schroedinger equation, therefore he had no 'objective collapse' to replace with something else to begin with. The entire wavefunction in superposition never collapses in MWI but continues to exist, ....only for each observer it 'appears' as so. If you're elevating this 'appearance' to 'subjective collapse' then I will concede your accuracy here. However, typically a subjective/epistemic interpretation of the wavefunction rejects the notion that it is a physical entity.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 30, 2017
@macurinetherapy moves to introduce further confusion, following its tactics and strategy. It is not interested in reality, but only in introducing FUD to confound the issue. This is transparent.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2017
There is actually some dispute over whether the Copenhagen Interpretation includes wavefunction collapse, and this goes back to Bohr and Heisenberg, who disagreed over it at various times.


True historically, but eventually the CI became associated with an epistemic (non objective) wavefunction collapse as most clearly formulated in the mathematical foundation of QM,....i.e. von Neumann's Hilbert space 'projection postulate'.

Consistent Histories (my current favorite),


Which is similar to CI with decoherence,... and while collapse is still valid notion, it side-steps the issue by use of decoherence, but retains the non-objective characterization of alternative histories in anycase.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2017
The fact that special relativity or quantum mechanics are based on postulates which ipso-facto violating them is inherent property of all physical properties following from Goedel incompleteness theorem.


The Goedel theorem only refutes Hilbert's program of a complete axiomatic foundation of mathematics, and Russell and Whiteheads efforts of establishing a consistent foundation of all of mathematics,...... the notion that physics was purely deductive was long since refuted.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2017
The entire wavefunction in superposition never collapses in MWI but continues to exist, ....only for each observer it 'appears' as so.
Unfortunately this "appearance" is the only measurable outcome of observable reality during process of observation. You may insist that wave function of observed object actually never collapses even after entanglement and I can even agree with it - but such a claim is not provable by experiment. Whole the observable physics is about how reality "appears" for us, not how it actually is. The dense aether model....


I'm not insisting that, I'm pointing out what MWI says only.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 31, 2017
@Noum, essentially correct on CH. The interesting thing about it is that after understanding it one finds a framework in which Bell test experiments are explainable as histories of the entangled particles, and decay of entanglement is due to decoherence. Decoherence occurs as a result of many weak measurements by the environment, or a single strong measurement by an interaction.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 31, 2017
I don't know what "wave function of observed object actually never collapses even after entanglement" means. Entanglement doesn't collapse the wavefunction; in fact, it's exactly the opposite, collapse of the wavefunction results in disentanglement due to decoherence. @mac is making stuff up again.

Tell us, @macurinetherapy, do you use a jargon generator for this stuff?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2017
Multiple Worlds Interpretation introduces multiple reference frames
No, it doesn't. It introduces multiple universes. @macurinetherapy is making stuff up again.

Meanwhile @mac gratuitously associates Peano axioms with particles and pretends that introduces Godel incompleteness into quantum mechanics. @macurinetherapy is making stuff up again.

This is just FUD, a tactic @mac's handlers have taught it to satisfy the strategy of confusion and disruption. Repetition of tactics results in discovery, comrade. You have utterly failed and in doing so made it clear what your tactics are, and what strategy you follow.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2017
It applies to entanglement of observed objects only,
Observed objects can't be entangled; as soon as they are observed they are decohered. @macurinetherapy is making stuff up again. What do you do, use a spinner from a child's game to pick terms out from your jargon generator to make up sentences? It's painfully obvious you have no idea what the terms mean, comrade. Your tactics are showing again.

And then back to the water woo.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2017
The many-worlds interpretation is just confused.
No, it's not. It's quite specific. There's a reason it's called "Many Worlds." It's not very likely, but that doesn't mean it's confused. @macurinetherapy is making stuff up again. Spin the pointer again, comrade.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2017
we can observe multiple mutually entangled objects
No, we can't. As soon as they're observed they're not entangled any more. Particularly not if they're entangled with an observer.

It becomes more and more obvious you have no idea what you're talking about the more you post. You should stop and go get stood up against a wall and shot for failing, comrade @macurinetherapy.

Let me put it short and sweet: entanglement is not an observable eigenstate.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2017
No, it doesn't. Entanglement is not an observable eigenstate. The fact they are entangled is concluded, not observed. @macurinetherapy is making stuff up again, and obviously doesn't understand entanglement, much less quantum physics, as demonstrated by its posts.

There can be only one reason it's here: to sow FUD. To create confusion and disrupt conversation here. What a disgusting troll by an obvious anti-Western military actor on a minor science site.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2017
It's patently obvious that this idiot thinks quantum particles are little balls floating around in space, lit from above so everyone can see them like in some child's cartoon of quantum physics. This is trivially wrong, given entanglement, not to mention Heisenberg uncertainty and the outcomes of Bell tests.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 31, 2017
It's not indignance. It's amusement at your childish attempts to sow FUD about quantum physics as part of your tactics, to accomplish your strategy of creating confusion and disrupt the conversation with your grade school antics.

You're being obvious again, comrade @macurinetherapy.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2017
Feynman said, if you're not shocked by quantum theory you haven't understood it. He was right; it simply doesn't behave like any classical theory. Until you comprehend the ways it violates classical physics you can't even dependably use logic to analyze it.

Anyone who doesn't know this obviously hasn't studied quantum theory. And @mac doesn't know it, as evidenced by its puerile postings on this thread.

Now @macurinetherapy is claiming to be a nuclear physicist. Like we've never seen anyone do that before. Like I said, puerile. Childish. Like some caricature or cartoon of a real person.

From your postings, @macurinetherapy, you're barely qualified to be an electrical technician and would probably screw up pushing boards into a cell phone site.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2017
Bob, duck, and weave. Don't bother to account for ridiculous statements you made earlier; change up and make a reference to a late source, pretending you never said that.

More tactics. Same strategy. Transparent. Obvious. Childish.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2017
I'm not a physicist so I can't be part of the "mainstream physics community," whatever that means given how widely spread opinions are about interpretations of quantum mechanics. I can, however, keep track of the discoveries they make. Obviously that scares your masters, since they try to disrupt it. Strategy and tactics tell their own tales, comrade @macurinetherapy. If you move toward this objective, what do you fear?
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 31, 2017
As I mentioned far above in this thread, this is about weak measurement theory. The longer I read this paper the more I get the feeling that the authors are trying to avoid WMT. I've made my way through MZIs pretty well and I'm still digging to see if my opinion holds.

But I'm not going to discuss that with an anti-Western troll who uses military tactics and strategy to try to disrupt conversations it's afraid of.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 31, 2017
Like a steely blade in a silken sheath
We don't see what they're made of
They shout about love, but when push comes to shove
They look for things they're afraid of
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2017
Rush, one of my favorite prog bands.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2017
@Mackita, your dense aether model has no mathematical formalism, so therefore it is not a theoretical theory in the modern sense.

As pointed out, there is no way to obtain an intuitive understanding of QM/QFT such that you can imagine it and describe it in poetic language. Recall that for Maxwell to develop a unified mathematical theory of EM, he imaged in his head little gears and springs and such,..... but of course did not presume such things really exist, but only as an aid in developing a proper mathematical theory that could make predictions. This is not possible in QM, as there are no such imaginable objects that can be manipulated by intuitive thought.

It is just not reasonable that microscopic reality should be expected to conform to your intuitive way of thinking. Why subject physics to this extra and arbitrary burden? Your AWT is not even a metatheory. What then is the point?
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 31, 2017
More water woo, combined with more dodging, ducking, bobbing, and weaving. Your tactics are showing again, comrade.

Longitudinal waves are used in plasma theory, and in QED. @macurinetherapy is making stuff up again.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2017
I have no idea what "physics of vacuum" or "discrimination of minors" means. This looks like more stuff @macurinetest makes up. You made a statement; you have now repudiated it, apparently, but are attempting to sow more disruption and FUD, probably by using more claims that turn out to be meaningless. Why should anyone listen to anything you have to say when you constantly make stuff up and attempt to justify it by lying?
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2017
"physics of vacuum" and "discrimination of minors" are meaningless in physics, @macurinetherapy. There is nothing to learn. You're making stuff up again, @macurinetherapy.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2018
Why should anyone listen to anything you have to say when you constantly make stuff up and attempt to justify it by lying?
..........he's just following your lead when you do exactly the same thing.

You've been here frequently to falsely claim that an electro-magnetic wave can be made subject to the Laws of Physics for Kinetic Energy, that is subjecting an electro-magnetic wave to Escape Velocity Equations.

You don't even comprehend the concepts laid forth in Special Relativity, so what else could the forum expect from you other than the name calling binges you come here & spend most of your time writing up.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2018
Your time measurements and my space measurements of the same events or entities can never yield the same answers….- EyeNStein

[….]
..I don't see spacetime as an invariant frame,... It certainly has nothing to do with quantum indeterminacy, i.e. that which makes quantum particles fuzzy balls in the dark. […..] The closest we've come to an absolute reference is the CMBR,-DaSchneib


@EyeNStein, the way STR/GTR is formulated is by use of tensors, the purpose of which is to allow invariant quantities to be expressed in terms of observer dependent space and time components.

As pointed out by Schneib, your concern is not the origin of QM effects. In fact, in experiments testing the Bell inequalities, the speed at which the wavefunction collapses* has been determined in both inertia frames of experimental laboratory and that of CMBR, to ~20,000,000 times c and ~20,000 times c, respectively.

*with assumption wavefunction represents physical wave.
Merrit
not rated yet Jan 01, 2018
@da schneib just because QM is very different than the world we see at our levels does not mean someone can not intuitively understand it. Maybe it is too complex for the limitations of the human mind, but eventually an AI algorithm at the very least will be able to understand it.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2018
the speed at which the wavefunction collapses* has been determined in both inertia frames of experimental laboratory and that of CMBR, to ~20,000,000 times c and ~20,000 times c, respectively *with assumption wavefunction represents physical wave.
Once the wavefunction collapse is subjective and individual for every observer of it, then it could run with whatever speed you just need.


Yes, well, then it wouldn't collapse as a speed then. The point of the experiment referenced was to show an theory independent lower limit on what speed any objective collapse theory must determine.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2018
da schneib just because QM is very different than the world we see at our levels does not mean someone can not intuitively understand it. Maybe it is too complex for the limitations of the human mind


That's why QM is manifestly non-intuitive,... when intuitive concepts fail to consistently synthesize quantum experimental results,...i.e. failure of ...causality and determinism, locality and separability, counterfactuality,...

It is an unnecessary and quite arbitrary burden on physics to impose that it provide 'intuitive understanding' and naïve to expect from it knowledge of 'independent reality'. Modern physics is and should only be concerned, not with understanding per se, but rather predictive knowledge of experience.

"It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics" - Richard Feynman,

..... so accordingly intuitive understanding is not important to modern science as is predictive knowledge of experience,... a problem for AWT and Strings.


Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2018
Water surface analogy of QM is simple, but mind of scientists need to keep things complex for to keep jobs and grants by their research and explanations.

Upton Sinclair — 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'


What you don't seem to understand is that the non-intuitive nature of QM is established empirically and independent of theory (which means all future and competing theories must incorporate these facts in some way) .... at least for non-locality with Einstein separability, indeterminacy/causality with Heisenberg uncertainty relation (which is more profound than 'observer effect' of classical physics).

Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2018
It's quite easy to imagine, what would we see if we would live at the water surface and observe it with its own ripples i.e. transverse waves like the waterstriders. At proximity such an observation would be blurred by longitudinal waves, i.e. Brownian noise of (additional dimension of) underwater and no "Einstein separability", "indeterminacy/causality" with "Heisenberg uncertainty" and whatever else abstract stuff (no matter how well substantiated empirically) is required for this understanding.


no matter how well substantiated empirically


So, you logically are tacitly admitting then that AWT does not expect to accord with experimental observation, and therefore is not properly a scientific theory?
Merrit
5 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2018
@noumenon you have demonstrated reasons why it is difficult for the human mind to intuitively think about QM. Our minds are evolved to think inside the framework of the world we live in. Just try to imagine objects in 4 spatial dimensions or higher and you will quickly see our human limitations. The fact is scientists don't even know exactly what is being violated. We are just assuming the one that makes the most sense based on our understanding of our reality. which is kind of silly when we can't even think about the reality of QM intuitively.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2018
The fact is scientists don't even know exactly what is being violated.


For the non-locality condition which is experimentally demonstrated by violation of Bell inequalities (constructed from correlation expectation values), the conditions for locality is well defined by the notion of Einstein separability.


Merrit
3 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2018
@mac the issue isn't that they "look" fuzzy. They "are" fuzzy. Bells thereom ruled out hidden variables which means they can't have definite states unless you measure them. Your analogy is wrong. Also, enough of the water analogies. If it helps you to understand something, that is great, but we don't want to hear about it. I don't want to discredit your Aether theory since it does have truth to it. There is no such thing as empty space after all. But, you are taking it too far and trying to have it explain things that doesn't make any sense for it to explain.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2018
@Noumenon and @Merrit.

@Noumenon. Re Bell's Inequality. Please don't forget: it has NEVER been more than a VERY 'partial abstraction/interpretation' from a STATISTICALLY based analysis 'result/claim', and NOT a '100% every time' effect. Hence what @Merrit points out (especially to you/Da Schneib) is CORRECT; ie: that QM experimentalists/theorists DO NOT KNOW 'what' IT is that they are 'observing/measuring/analyzing (purely via STATISTICAL techniques, NOT 'deterministic' cause-effect 'setups/dynamics' of FUNDAMENTAL levels (even FURTHER BELOW the 'fuzzy ball' scales/dynamics of REAL energy-space, as distinct from UNreal 'time-space' analytical abstractions construct).

So please avoid using Bell's Inequality for arguments 'against' delving into the actual reality of QM dynamics/entities; and so avoiding reiterating 'cop-out interpretations' trying to sweep QM reality 'under the rug' because you decide to 'just give up' trying to ACTUALLY COMPREHEND QM reality.

Cheers all.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2018
Re Bell's Inequality. Please don't forget: it has NEVER been more than a VERY 'partial abstraction/interpretation' from a STATISTICALLY based analysis 'result/claim', and NOT a '100% every time' effect.


Please don't forget that the entirety of science is statistically based as it is inductive, and that no experiment can ever be 100% efficient every time, nor 100% loophole free in every case.

However, experimentalists of course measure these inefficiencies and then take account of them. In terms of loopholes, most of the loopholes have been closed, and at least one experiment has been called loophole free.

What matters is the statistical confidence level of the result, the number of standard deviations away from local-variable theory expectations. The Bell tests have been perform to a high confidence level,... so that one can conclude it as an experimental fact that one would have to give up locality in any theory that is to account for QM experiments.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2018
Furthermore, the Bell theorem is NOT an interpretation. As I mentioned above, it is an experimental result that is independent of theoretical description and interpretation. Violation of these inequalities empirically refutes at minimum locality, or a component of local realism. There are of course a few reasonable assumptions made, like freedom to choose which measurement to perform, etc.

that QM experimentalists/theorists DO NOT KNOW 'what' IT is that they are 'observing/measuring/analyzing (purely via STATISTICAL techniques, NOT 'deterministic' cause-effect 'setups/dynamics' of FUNDAMENTAL levels


Science by definition only studies empirical phenomena, as opposed to whatever underlying reality may exist independently, as the "IT". So, when one says that non-locality is a fact established by experiment, it is within such a context and not within metaphysics.
Merrit
not rated yet Jan 01, 2018
@mac I am not a scientist so I don't really care if you take me seriously or not. I just find science interesting and try to learn it on my own. It is fun to think about. People like da schneib are pretty good about answering any questions I have. I don't always agree with everything the experts say, but for the most part they get it right. I just don't like when people come up with new theories such as aether theory and take it as fact without proof. I agree it is interesting and has some merrit but that does not mean it is fact
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2018
You've been here frequently to falsely claim that an electro-magnetic wave can be made subject to the Laws of Physics for Kinetic Energy, that is subjecting an electro-magnetic wave to Escape Velocity Equations.
Your go-to tactic is to lie about what people said, @Lenni the Liar. Link it or you're lying again.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2018

Meanwhile I will remind you that you have not and cannot work the equations for the Schwarzchild solution to GRT, viz.,

-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0
Source: http://www.etsu.e...esis.pdf
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2018
Please don't forget: [Bell theorem] has NEVER been more than a VERY 'partial abstraction/interpretation - RC

Furthermore, the Bell theorem is NOT an interpretation. As I mentioned above, it is an experimental result that is independent of theoretical description and interpretation - Nou

@RC, to be more precise, the operating premise of the Bell theorem IS to interpret the wavefunction as a physical influence, so that experimental violation of the Bell inequality demonstrates that given this presumption, this supposed physical influence must be nonlocal. However alternatively, one can choose not to interpret the wavefunction as a description of a physical entity and rather then reject the other component of local realism, counterfactual definiteness,…. That elements of quantum reality have an existence or values independent of measurement.

Merrit
not rated yet Jan 01, 2018
@mac sorry but the comments of phys org is not for breakthrough ideas. It is for us layman who enjoy science. This isn't some holy ground or the scientific equivalent. And I ask pertinent questions to the article for the most part. As for science as a whole it has always been the super geniuses that lead the way. Everyone else just works out the nocks and crannies. Science needs the next Einstein
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2018
but until the Bell theorem remains tested with photon polarization, it's difficult to prove existence of local wave function, because longwavelength photons serve like their own wavefunction.


The Bell theorem has been tested with beryllium ions to 8 σ, NIST 2001.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2018
The first major test of Bell's Theorem was Aspect 1982. It confirmed the theorem as all subsequent Bell test experiments have. This is not new. Quantum mechanics cannot be both local and realistic.
Merrit
5 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2018
Bells inequality only ruled out local hidden variables. There is still the possibility of non local hidden variables. While relatively indicates nothing can travel faster than light, this would be only possibly information in a sense. But, you could also think of it as a single entity existing at two different locations. So a measurement of one particle effects both simultaneously. But, since no information can be sent via entanglement, then not even information would be technically being sent ftl
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2018
What matters is the statistical confidence level of the result, the number of standard deviations away from local-variable theory expectations. The Bell tests have been perform to a high confidence level,... so that one can conclude it as an experimental fact that one would have to give up locality in any theory that is to account for QM experiments.
Be very, very careful here, @Noum. One can either give up locality, *OR* give up realism. QM might be unrealistic, that is, the Born Rule is literally true and particles have parameters whose values are in undefined states when those states are in superpositiion, and still maintain locality. Nonlocality is often emphasized in popular science articles because it seems more startling or difficult to reconcile with expectations, but unrealism is just as possible though more difficult to understand.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2018
I favor the choice that QM obeys the Born Rule and is local. This is unpopular, but it is also consistent with two field theories: the Maxwell equations, and the Einstein equations. Both indicate that causality is local. Given these constraints I think it is more likely that superposition is a real state, based on the Born Rule and Heisenberg uncertainty, than that it is nonlocal. This is, however, an opinion; one supported, I will note, by evidence and not by mere whim.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2018
Be very, very careful here, @Noum. One can either give up locality, *OR* give up realism.


Yes, I clarified this point subsequently ("to be more precise...") when I mentioned counterfactual definiteness....

might be unrealistic, that is, the Born Rule is literally true and particles have parameters whose values are in undefined states when those states are in superpositiion


They way I would phrase this, in reference to that other component of local realism that is violated, .... counterfactual definiteness,,... is that elements of QM (what you're calling parameter values), do not exist at all, until they are measured, which is to say they are effectively Created by the experimental apparatus.

This notion is in line with the standard Hilbert space formulation where the mathematical Operator is a representation of the experimental apparatus, ....it is what is observable and is independent of the wavefunction itself (operates on it).

Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2018
.... one effectively chooses the axis-basis in which the state-vector (wavefunction) evolves and is in superposition of.

I favor the choice that QM obeys the Born Rule and is local. This is unpopular...


It's quite popular and I would concur with perhaps some rewording as noted. I don't regard the WF as a physical entity, so for me elements of quantum reality do not exist until they are created in measurement.

but in addition, but only philosophically (since WF is not physical anyway to me), the underlying reality does not evolve in space or time, and is conceptually formless, waiting for an experimental apparatus and subsequent interpretation to give it conceptual form (wave, particle, position, momentum, energy...),.... for which I would reference delayed choice experiment (time) and even Bell inequalities wrt entanglement (space).
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2018
.... (continued from above) ... This view also falls in line with GR, as that mathematical formalism is specifically arranged to 'transform away' observer dependent concepts by use of tensors, leaving invariant quantities.

[People go ape-sh!t when I speak in these terms (they don't generally know much QM/GR), but the fact is, it is merely IMO merely a small and logical extension to therwise valid interpretation of QM, observations which many prominent physicists have made as well.]

The requirement of general covariance "takes away from space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity." - Einstein
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2018
@DaSchneib, btw, I believe the Born rule is valid in any case,.... excepting only interpretations like MWI, or objective collapse theories. For example it's even valid in terms of need in the deBroglie-Bohm pilot wave theory (btw, originally Einstein's idea) that is a nonlocal hidden variable theory.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2018
@Noum, that's pretty deep and it's going to take me a little while to parse it, but I don't see anything immediately wrong. Looks like you were right and we think much alike on these matters. I will definitely have more to say, and I am still reviewing the paper as well. This thread has dropped off the recent posts list, so keep an eye on it and maybe one of us will learn something new and interesting from the other.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jan 02, 2018
I think a lot of what makes people go apesxxt is that you seem to be saying there is no underlying physical reality. My opinion is that view conflicts with conservation laws. If there's nothing there there's nothing to conserve.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
I think a lot of what makes people go apesxxt is that you seem to be saying there is no underlying physical reality. My opinion is that view conflicts with conservation laws. If there's nothing there there's nothing to conserve.


That comment was only directed at people who would make such unwarranted presumptions and then attack, not the substance, but the form of the comment (that it's philosophy sounding). Such misapprehensions can be resolved simply by asking that valid question directly....

So, yes, I do think there is a physical and objective underlying reality,... albeit conceptually formless and unobservable as an independent reality. There must be an objective reality that at minimum informs experiment and allows for falsifiability of arbitrary theories, and for the reasons you cited, symmetries / conservation....
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
.... I think one can derive this conclusion if we take the core elements of GR and QM to their 'natural conclusion',..... i.e. transform away all observer dependent coordinates and Hilbert basis,... take as falsified counterfactual definiteness to accept that observable elements of QM are created by the experimental apparatus where they did not exist before hand.

Some physicists say that what Exists is potentiality,.... with the rough analogy of a broken-glass where such a attribute (broken) only exists on account of the apparatus where it has no meaning otherwise. Likewise it's a 'particle' only on account of the experimental apparatus.

I prefer to just say the underlying reality, while objective, is conceptually formless, and that we supply the conceptual form to an otherwise Noumenal reality, which since is conceptually formless is metaphysical and as such is unknowable of itself. This point refutes 'scientific realism' as well as opposed to scientific positivism.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
Edit: This point refutes 'scientific realism' as well, ....as opposed to scientific positivism.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018


While I have derived this conclusion originally from reading Kant (with awareness of QM),... in fact am not the only one to have extended QM interpretation the small amount beyond proper physics to think this way. Bohr and Heisenberg argued likewise, though they differed amongst themselves,... Abraham Pais calling Bohr 'the natural successor to Kant'. Another is B. d'Espagnat who argues likewise using the phrase 'veiled reality' purely from QM. He has written extensively on the conceptual foundations of QM and was involved early on with the J. Bell and the Bell inequalities .

Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects [attributes, separability] whose existence is independent of human consciousness [mind] 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

"[On Kant's objection to Realism that...]... knowledge must go through the mold of our a-priori synthetic judgements , the constraints of our mind, so to speak [...] This is not very far from Bohr's point of view, formulated much lator" - Roland Omnes , physicist.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2018
I dunno, @Noum, I think I lean toward the opinion that there's something there, just not something that behaves the way classical objects do. We can't ever sense it the way we do classical reality, and we can only describe it with math, but I think there's something there. I don't think classical reality as we sense it could exist without it.

I think real things have real attributes, so my opinion is that quantum particles have such attributes, but their values might be indeterminate under certain conditions (i.e. superposition). This is rather less stringent than what you appear to be saying, which seems to be that they have no attributes until they are observed.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2018
Here, I'll add another piece of evidence: you can trap a single ion in an ion trap and excite it enough so it's visible to the human eye without aid. If you can do that, then there must be something there that's not formless. You can come back later and it's still there. Since such an ion can be a hydrogen ion, that's a single proton. I suspect but have not looked to see that you can do the same thing with an electron; you could argue that a proton is composite but not an electron. For that matter you can see individual electrons hitting a scintillation screen, and you can aim them with magnets. I don't think I agree that these phenomena are only there when we look. They seem to be doing stuff even when we aren't looking.

I'm not quite sure whether this is contra the position you are taking or not, but it sounds like it is to me.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2018
I suppose looking the articles on philosophy over that I'm a scientific realist, but I don't know enough about it to say, nor to take a position on it. What position would you take, @Noum? Would you agree I'm a scientific realist? And what is your own position?
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
I think real things have real attributes, so my opinion is that quantum particles have such attributes, but their values might be indeterminate under certain conditions (i.e. superposition). This is rather less stringent than what you appear to be saying, which seems to be that they have no attributes until they are observed


Yes, that's what i'm saying. I agree that there is something objective (photon, electron, atom), but don't agree that that somethings attributes exist apart from measurement. I will refer to the Wheeler type delayed choice experiments, where the choice of attribute/measurement is made AFTER the photon or atom would have already interfered with itself. This imo would show that the experiment creates the attribute of 'particle' or 'wave', when neither form could have existed before hand.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
If one refutes counterfactual definitiveness this would refute the position that entities have attributes prior to measurement,…. for otherwise you could meaningfully make reference to such counterfactual measurements,… which is to say measurements that could have been performed but were not in fact performed.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2018
I don't see how the quantum things can be different from one another unless they have intrinsic attributes that make them so, and it is inarguable given the results of experiment that they are different.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
I suppose looking the articles on philosophy over that I'm a scientific realist, but I don't know enough about it to say, nor to take a position on it. What position would you take, @Noum? Would you agree I'm a scientific realist? And what is your own position?


A realist would think that one can in principal attain knowledge of 'independent reality', by which I mean apart from any mind dependent elements, or that would take the wavefunction as representing a physical wave, or that would think that quantum objects have attributes that exist independently of measurement. But you like the CH approach which I don't believe to be regarded as a 'realist' theory.

I would lean toward an instrumentalist or positivist stance,... that physics does not give knowledge of reality independent of the conditions of experiment, but rather of experience. IOW, there is always a mind dependent component. See the Hawking quote. I think he is a positivist.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2018
one can in principal attain knowledge of 'independent reality',
I don't think that. I think there is an independent reality, but we are blocked by QM's principles from ever finding out what it is for certain. The closest we can come is to use math to figure out how it behaves.

What's that make me?
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
I don't see how the quantum things can be different from one another unless they have intrinsic attributes that make them so, and it is inarguable given the results of experiment that they are different.


Do you mean like an electron as opposed to a proton? Yes, there is definitely an objective and independent reality that somehow informs experiment. The problem is that, as Hawking said, there is no way to remove the mind-dependent conceptual structure that we wrap around this reality in order to observe it.

So a proton or electron are not particles per se (independent of observation) because they can be diffracted if one freely chooses to observe them and interpret that observation that way. Nor can they be literal point particles (independent of observation). Nor can they be separable as if individual things when entangled, (independent of observation) etc. The conclusion must be that measurement creates these attributes and that they did not exist as such prior.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
one can in principal attain knowledge of 'independent reality',
I don't think that. I think there is an independent reality, but we are blocked by QM's principles from ever finding out what it is for certain. The closest we can come is to use math to figure out how it behaves.

What's that make me?


The distinction between "for certain" as if there are attributes but only the values are uncertain, and those attributes don't exist apart from measurement is necessary to say. But don't think there is a 'right' answer.

My general outlook is that there is no 'problem' with QM that can't be swept under an epistemological rug,.... the strangeness is not a defect in the theory, but on account of what Hacking said.

Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 04, 2018
Maybe it's the acceptance of what they think; not what they know, or maybe they don't know. No, wait a minute, maybe they think we are all stupid or they are stupider than we, or maybe its a game call catch the bull$hit!

Wait for it. Wait. This will be deleted since we are stupid, or the narrator is stupid. Or truth is not allowed!
Merrit
not rated yet Jan 04, 2018
Could it be simply the properties are continually changing and when we make a measurement it is just a snap shot?
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 04, 2018
When searching with QM, anything is possible, i.e. non causal. What you say is what you say; if need be, tweak the wave equation or your model where you apply Maxwell. This is not science. It's a kinda fuzzy logic and the naming conventions have no provability. In other words, it's nonsense. Does not fit the rigor of the Formal Logic, a requirement that has been dis'ed for over a hundred years 'cause we got lucky, i.e. wavelets & wave equation. Cat in the box is always at 1 state. Only logical, the rest is imaginative possibilities misinterpreted as actuality. Not provable with QM + many misnomers.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 04, 2018
Try my reality.

https://drive.goo...nXPRU3FG

Work in progress, so forgiveness is expected; else, I don't care.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2018
Well, @Noum, I'd say we've pushed this out of the realm of physics and into the realm of philosophy about as far as I'm comfortable going and don't seem to disagree much. These are matters of opinion; the facts we have and can get are in the math. And we seem to agree firmly on those. See you next thread!
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2018
Could it be simply the properties are continually changing and when we make a measurement it is just a snap shot?


That is already the case in classical physics, unfortunately it does not work in QM. Even if one imagines some underlying process going on which we can not see that determines measurement outcomes, it would still have to be a non-local influence, as established by the Bell inequalities experiments.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2018


@DaSchneib,...which was the entire positivist point made by Bohr, Heisenberg, etc,.... and the similar considerations i've posted here'.....i.e. the non-intuitive nature of QM is an epistemic problem, and not one of the standard QM formalism's completeness, and so therefore there is no sense in looking for some metaphysically motivated explanation (pilot wave, etc) interpretation to return to a realist understanding, nor to "image" that quantum entities have attributes independently of measurement, as this is in conflict with the facts established by experiment and the standard mathematical formalism ...

...which CI (and it's CH modern form) uses, .... Hilbert Space with von Nuemann projection postulate. It is the other interpretations that seek to retain some element of realism, that actually ending up postulating metaphysical elements,.... whether that be guiding waves, multiple universes, attributes existing independently of measur.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2018
... so one can say it's a matter of opinion, a philosophy of physics interpretation,... but is one that takes the mathematical formalism as is the standard one AND rejects any metaphysics,... entities that are supposedly existent independently of measurement.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2018
The original CI was one founded on positivistic epistemic considerations, similar to my position here, and directly lead to the present standard mathematical formalism, the Hilbert space, projection postulate and Born interpretation. Later.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 05, 2018
Well, @Noum, I'd say we've pushed this out of the realm of physics and into the realm of philosophy about as far as I'm comfortable going and don't seem to disagree much. These are matters of opinion; the facts we have and can get are in the math. And we seem to agree firmly on those. See you next thread!

idiot
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 05, 2018
For the comments with structure, knowledge, logic, or even a definition of logic and nothing to add but what does not make sense, or magic, or WTF, please, please, STFU.

Well, stupid can't be fixed, carry on.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 05, 2018
Math exist with logic and rigor. Math is find, when we use math for something that is illogical, this is mathematical masturbation and not even pertinent. But the sillies think it so. So continue, tell me more. This will make a very good comic! Say it again and again, maybe you will make it so.

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

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