|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A definition of infinity? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5521 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Would the outcome be different if we were to employ a different measuring device?
I'll quote myself
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Wow chirp!!
Based on your other posts off EVC, I had no idea you knew and thought all this stuff. Cool!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
No matter what you do, you cannot at the same time know which slit the electron went through, and still get the interference pattern. It`s just not possible. I think we all agree with that premise but wonder why that it is. Maybe its just not possible as of yet. I mean, who would have thought that matter behaved like a wave function or that by trying to observe the phenomenon would actually cause it to behave differently than when not directly observed? "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I imagine a sphere one meter in diameter, with a line extending infinitely from its surface, I will have a semi-infinite line. If I then imagine the diameter of the sphere to be halved, I still have a semi-finite line. I guess my question is, what prevents me halving the diameter of the sphere indefinitely? In other words, if I were to follow the line on its journey towards an ever-shrinking sphere, must I inevitably reach a point where the line can extend no further, and therefore be considered semi-finite? I don't know. But I do object to the term "semi-finite." I mean, something is either finite or infinite. What in-between would exist? "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5521 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
I think we all agree with that premise but wonder why that it is. It's a consequence of the uncertainty principle. In the first experiment, (Without the observer) the position of the electron is uncertain (We don't know which slit the electron went through). that allows for a less uncertain momentum which is the same as a more shaply defined wave-length (By the de Broglie's relation p=h/lambda). This shaply defined wave-length leads to the observed interference pattern. In the second experiment the position of the electron becomes more determined and, by the uncertainty principle, its wave-length becomes blured (more uncertain) destroying the interference pattern.
Maybe its just not possible as of yet. I mean, who would have thought that matter behaved like a wave function or that by trying to observe the phenomenon would actually cause it to behave differently than when not directly observed? I don't think so. the validity of quantum mechanics (QM for short) has been confirmed by a huge range of experiments to the point that it is not unreasonable to consider it incontrovertable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dogrelata Member (Idle past 5312 days) Posts: 201 From: Scotland Joined: |
nemesis juggernaut writes: I don't know. But I do object to the term "semi-finite." I mean, something is either finite or infinite. What in-between would exist? Obviously I’m no expert in this area, which is one of the reasons I started the post, but I hope I’m starting to gain a better understanding than I previously had. It begins to appear that the way we view things goes some way to defining degrees of infinity. If we take, for example, the set of positive integers, it could be defined as infinitely large. If we then pick a positive integer at random, and proceed to increment it by one, we can do so forever, as the number of positive integers is presumably infinitely large. However, if we choose to deduct by one each time instead of increment, we will eventually arrive at the number one, a point beyond which we cannot go as there are no positive integers less than one. So it appears to me if we view the set of positive integers solely as that, a set, it may be defined as infinite. However, if we start to think of the set in terms of a sequence, it may be defined as semi-infinite, as there is a point beyond which it is impossible to go in one ”direction’. There’s another interesting point regarding positive integers and infinity. It concerns what happens when you pair each positive integer with its square, i.e. 1 with 1, 2 with 4, 3 with 9, etc. The original set will be a complete set of positive integers, but the set of squares is not, yet both sets are exactly the same size! I believe this apparent paradox has been resolved, but I cannot remember by whom, and am not aware as to what the explanation is. Maybe somebody on here can help us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
One thing I never figured out is how human minds (which are finite by definition) were able to quantify an infinite definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dogrelata Member (Idle past 5312 days) Posts: 201 From: Scotland Joined: |
Phat writes: One thing I never figured out is how human minds (which are finite by definition) were able to quantify an infinite definition. Is an ”infinite definition’ the same as a definition of the infinite though?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Neutralmind Member (Idle past 6124 days) Posts: 183 From: Finland Joined: |
fallacycop
How about if we observed it by different means, something that doesn't involve light?
The problem isn`t the observer per se, but the means for observing. in order to observe the electron, you would have to shine some light on it. The act of shining that light changes the behaviour of the electron and distroys the interference pattern.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
There are questions about two things here so I'll answer them in order.
So it appears to me if we view the set of positive integers solely as that, a set, it may be defined as infinite. However, if we start to think of the set in terms of a sequence, it may be defined as semi-infinite, as there is a point beyond which it is impossible to go in one ”direction’.
Formally that quality is expressed by saying that the positive integers are bounded. They are still infinite in the sense that they do not have a finite collection of elements.You've spotted the difference yourself though. As a set (as you said) the positive integers are infinite, but when you think of it another way they are only "semi-infinite"(bounded). This other way of thinking is Topology, where being bounded is an important property. If something is bounded from both ends and it is closed (if you know what closed means) it is called compact. Being compact is probably one of the most important topological properties. There’s another interesting point regarding positive integers and infinity. It concerns what happens when you pair each positive integer with its square, i.e. 1 with 1, 2 with 4, 3 with 9, etc. The original set will be a complete set of positive integers, but the set of squares is not, yet both sets are exactly the same size! I believe this apparent paradox has been resolved, but I cannot remember by whom, and am not aware as to what the explanation is. Maybe somebody on here can help us.
It was resolved by Cantor at the turn of the century. Any infinite set of objects that can be put into correspondence with the positive integers is called countably infinite or aleph-null. (Believe it or not, the set of all fractions is countable)Any set which cannot be put in correspondence with the positive integers is called uncountable. An example would be the real numbers. Now with regard to the double slit experiment, let's call the slits hole A and hole B,. When you attempt to detect which hole the particle went through, you must set up experimental equipment which can measure what hole the particle went through. (This might sound like an obvious tautology but it's a very important point that I'll explain later.) This will mean the equipment can return two results.These results being A or B. Corresponding to each of these two measurements there is a quantum mechanical state/wavefunction. I'll call these wavefunctions |A> and |B>, being in these states means the particle is localized (or concentrated) at hole A or B. Measurement of either A or B by the equipment will mean the particle is now in state |A> or state |B>.(To sum up, if that sounded muddled, if I measure B (i.e. I detect the particle at B), that means the particle-wave is now concentrated at B and not spread out all over the place.) So I let the experiment run and my equipment detects the particle at hole A, which localizes the particle to A (puts it in the state |A>). After the measurement the particle spreads out like a wave from A and hits the detector screen. However I get no interference pattern. Why? Take a look at this picture, where interference is occurring:
The reason I got no interference pattern was because I localized my particle to A, which meant there was no wave coming from hole B and therefore nothing for my particle-wave from A to interfere with. Now it doesn't matter what method of detection I use, because all methods will have {A,B} as their set of possible results and therefore localize the particle to A or B and prevent interference. Therefore the result holds for any experimental equipment which can measure what hole the particle went through regardless of the method it uses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dogrelata Member (Idle past 5312 days) Posts: 201 From: Scotland Joined: |
Son Goku writes: Now it doesn't matter what method of detection I use, because all methods will have {A,B} as their set of possible results and therefore localize the particle to A or B and prevent interference. Therefore the result holds for any experimental equipment which can measure what hole the particle went through regardless of the method it uses. That sound you just heard was my head exploding! I can get my head around the Schrodinger’s cat thought experiment. As far as I understand it, there is no way of knowing whether the cat is alive or dead until the box is opened. Although I have seen this characterized in some places, as being the cat is simultaneously alive and dead, my standard worldview kicks in and dismisses this as purely hypothetical. A different analogy might be, a football match has taken place, but I am unaware of what the result is, so until I learn of the result, the outcome remains a matter of probability-based conjecture. I think the problem for those who hold the ”standard’ worldview as regards the double slit experiment is more complex. On the face of it, the interference pattern observed when no attempt is made to identify which slit the particle passed through, can be seen as the outcome of the event. Using the football analogy again, when I’m told the result, it is A wins 45% of the time, B 25%, the draw 30%. But if I want to know what actually happened, I need to have observed the game take place. However, I guess what you’re saying is that the interference pattern observed is not the outcome of the event, but the spectrum of possible outcomes, had we taken the trouble to observe it. Or am I still confused?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2319 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
One thing I never figured out is how human minds (which are finite by definition) were able to quantify an infinite definition. I'm not sure what 'quantify[ing] an infinite definition' means, but the origin of our notion of infinity is fairly commonplace, I think. We observe that we can take any number and add one to it, and add one to that number, and so on without end. That gives us our notion of an infinite set of things. And we observe that space extends in all directions as far as we can see. If we imagine ourselves at the edge of space, pushed up against the boundary, as it were, we can imagine that we could stretch out just a little further... And that gives us our notion of infinite extension. And, just as with numbers, we can imagine adding another second to the time, and another second, and another without end, giving us our notion of infinite duration. Is there anything more to it than that, do you think? 'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
I'll get back to your post tomorrow, stuck for time at the moment.
However I will give you something to chew on, the difference between regular everyday probability and quantum probability. The example I'll choose is a ball/particle (ball for the classical case, particle for the quantum) being kicked from A to B along three different tunnels.
In fact it'll usually be n% chance for one hole and a m% and l% for the other two holes. With m%+n%+l%=100% At the quantum mechanical scale, probabilities come in after I've obtained complex number associated with each path. I won't go into the details but basically sometimes the rules of the mathematics mean I have to subtract probabilities. An example would be:I get 33.3% for path 1, 33.3% for path 2 and 66.6% for path three. However the maths says I have to subtract the last probability from the other two. So I get a 33.3% + 33.3% - 66.6% = 0% chance of the particle arriving at point B. A result you never get at the classical scale. The more paths you have to a location never reduces your chance of getting there. (To those who know the details of the mathematics, I know I'm skipping a lot, but I think this captures one of the major differences between standard probability and QM)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
To me the question of infinity is incorectly approached when considering a point of refference. Once a point of reffernce is accepted a destination can be reached. Boundaries can be defined. The question becomes infinity by what refference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2319 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
An example would be: I get 33.3% for path 1, 33.3% for path 2 and 66.6% for path three. However the maths says I have to subtract the last probability from the other two. So I get a 33.3% + 33.3% - 66.6% = 0% chance of the particle arriving at point B. A result you never get at the classical scale. The more paths you have to a location never reduces your chance of getting there. Could you explain this a little further? Classical probability is just a statistical thing: if path X has a probability of 0.2, all this means is that in 100 cases of the ball travelling from A to B, then the ball is likely to follow path X in 20 of them. What does the probability of 0.2 mean in the quantum case? 'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024