|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Foundations of ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4869 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:Notice how he says, "so says the Copehagen Interpretation." There is no reason to think the Copenhagen Interpretation is correct. The only reason it is so widely accepted is because it was the first interpretation that could be made to work and it was forcefully promoted by Neils Bohr. Also, John von Neumann wrote a authoritative proof that an alternative theory, the pilot wave theory, couldn't be true. His proof was false but influenced the fate of the interpretation of QM. The pilot wave theory is only recently (past 20 years) being taken seriously. The Copenhagen Interpretation leads to so many absurdities, such as Schrodinger's Cat Paradox, that a lot of physicists only use it tentatively as a way to think about what's going on. So keep in mind that the Copenhagen Interpretation isn't the only game in town, and there's no reason to accept it over other interpretations. All we can say is that for a certain experimental setup, certain results occur. By the way, I learned a majority of the information in this post from Gribbon's, "Schrodinger's Cats and the Search for Reality." From what I understand, Gribbon no longer accepts the Copenhagen Interpretation but opts for a pilot wave type theory. He also says that the value of the interpretations should be judged not on their ability add insight into the reality of the phenomena but on their ability to help people think about the phenomena. I don't think he believes there is one true interpretation on the phenomena. That's how I understood the book. This message has been edited by JustinC, 04-29-2005 12:31 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Parasomnium
quote: Is that typo really confusing you to the extent you are expressing? Just mentally go back and replace the term with "collapse of the wave" or "wave function collapse" or whatever it would take for you to understand that the wave collapses into particles.
quote: Right.
quote: There's many. You might want to start with the harbinger, common descent.
quote: I'm not ridiculing the theory of evolution. There is no such thing as a theory of evolution as theories are taken through the scientific method from observation -----> hypothesis -----> theory by experimentation or mathematics and this concept has never been through either. Darwinism certainly seems like a 'poof' concept to me. Is there a real mechanism you can show to explain the Cambrian Explosion where organisms just seem to pop into the fossil record unexplained?
quote: Because no one in your camp has shown a way to falsify it. Perhaps you would like to do that.
quote: No. You were not the radar wave in the scenario of a car going by and being stopped for speeding. You seem to be dropping your logic on many of the tenets we are discussing. You were the driver of the car. But the radar waves DO hit the cops detector when they bounce back from your car just as they do when they (or light waves, or whatever that particular detector is using) bounce off a photon or electron. I feel I have fairly well covered these points you've brought up and probably won't be responding to many more posts on them unless new material is introduced. Thanks! Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: They already do, Limbo. You might want to wade through the deeper posts in this thread. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
I meant that they will support each other in an easily falsifiable manner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Not correct, I'm afraid. First, you are confusing the double-slit experiments with the quantum erasure experiments where entanglement occurs. Entanglement is not studied in the simple double-slits I was discussing. Second, this is not ONLY old science (nothing wrong if it was, of course, but you seem to be implying that it has been falsified). See Wheeler's work on this in the delayed choice experiments. Also see the paper I posted on quantum Erasure. That paper is dated 2000.
quote: It can be the Christian God if one chooses to view this theologically rather than scientifically. It can also be Allah, Zeus, Krisna, demons, a computer or a giant green pickle from the planet Xenon. The role of an observer may only explicate a small part of the observer's overall persona, the individual can then take it from there by incorporating it into his belief system. Or, one can just stop at quantum mechanics and be done with it.
quote: It could be omniscient, science does not tell us it is or isn't.
quote: You certainly haven't eliminated any possibilities. Just because you only describe my hands does not logically extrapolate to, "therefore, there must be no arms, legs, brain and body attached to them." This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 04-29-2005 05:55 PM Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Not correct, I'm afraid. First, you are confusing the double-slit experiments with the quantum erasure experiments where entanglement occurs. Entanglement is not studied in the simple double-slits I was discussing.
Could you explain more why there is that distinction. I'll have to do some other reading too I guess.
It can be the Christian God if one chooses to view this theologically rather than scientifically. Well, since science works with natural evidence it has to be viewed theologically doesn't it? Most folks seem to consider the Christian God to be omniscient don't they? That suggests to me that He/She/It is an observer of all events for all times.
Or, one can just stop at quantum mechanics and be done with it.
I thought that this was a "foundation of ID" that you were putting forward. Are you suggesting that quantum mechanics is an "intelligent designer"?
It could be omniscient, science does not tell us it is or isn't. If the designer is omnisicient what does that suggest about the observations of all quantum events?
You certainly haven't eliminated any possibilities. Just because you only describe my hands does not logically extrapolate to, "therefore, there must be no arms, legs, brain and body attached to them." As I noted when I started: Most Christians I am aware of consider the Christian God to be omniscient. If I can say from what you are telling me about the QM issues that the observer is NOT omnisicient (since it does not collapse all wave functions ) then I can say that the designer is NOT the God that a majority of Christians believe in. If in discussing some unknown creature I can say nothing about the arms, legs, brain etc. but I can say that the hands are claws then I can say that we are not talking about a human being. I have eliminated that possibility. It seems to me that eliminating omniscience might still give us a God but it is not the God of the majority of Christians. I am inclined to think that without omniscience I also don't get omnipotence but that is too far from the topic at hand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The photon doesn't hit the detector. The detector is just there to observe the photon as it goes by. The detectors I'm familiar with, the photon does hit the detector. Thats how it detects it. Anyways, the detector has to interact with the photon in some way to get a detection, and that interaction could be what is interupting the interference pattern.
If it takes an observer to collapse a wave into a particle (energy to matter) and since there is matter in our universe that is exhibiting that form rather than its energy persona, it follows that an observer has collapsed those waves Collapsing a light wave into a photon is not the same as collapsing energy to matter. Photons do not have mass. So you cannot conclude that matter requires an observer to collapse it into energy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But the radar waves DO hit the cops detector when they bounce back from your car just as they do when they (or light waves, or whatever that particular detector is using) bounce off a photon or electron. You need to know how the detector detects the photon to determine if it is simply observation that is disrupting the interference pattern. You have to rule out the possibility that the detector is at fault.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: The references I have posted do not seem to question the Copenhagen Interpretation. And I don't think I've listed any that aren't fairly well known and reputable in science: Bohr, Heisenberg, Young, Feynman, Gribbins, Wheeler, Tipler...... In fact, there is much material on the Web by physicists about the CI, some way out there, but many just as I've proposed it. With that said, this is not the end all and be all on the subject. This is science and we need to question everything in science. But we certainly don't want to prematurely falsify something just because we may not like it (or have other pet theories, which we all do).
quote: What's wrong with that? That's exactly the way I am using it. To get people to think about what's going on.
quote: It's not the only game in town, but it is the game to use in this subject, as I am using it, because it communicates my thoughts quite well.
quote: I haven't read that book. I probably need to place that on my summer reading agenda. But I did do some Googling on the Pilot Wave Theory and enjoyed it immensely. The possibility exists that Bohm may have went way out there with this (after first being proposed 25 years earlier by Louis de Broglie, then also thoroughly rejected by him, and Einstein). For example, He proposed that particle behavior is determined by an unusual field or wave consisting both of classical versions of forces such as electromagnetism and an entirely new force-which Bohm called the quantum potential-that is responsible for nonclassical effects. I don't think that his force has been discovered experimentally, to my knowledge, so there are some big "ifs" in there. "The Bohm interpretation is not popular among physicists for a number of scientific and sociological reasons that would be fascinating but long to study, but perhaps we can at least say here it is considered very inelegant by some (it was considered as "unnecessary superstructure" even by Einstein who dreamed about a deterministic replacement for the Copenhagen interpretation)" De Broglie—Bohm theory - Wikipedia Now, that is an interesting alternative to the CI that we will need to keep an open mind toward as further research is done into it. Here's a good read: Page Not Found | Waterloo Region Record Your post was a great contribution to the thread, I might add. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Could be doesn't cut it, CS. Do you have experimental evidence to show that the detector is collapsing the wave other than by observation? You are still on the argument from incredulity here. I mean telescopes are sometimes used as these detectors, how does a telescope interfere with something other than just by observing it?
quote: Well, this is controversial, but remember that electrons have been used as well in these experiments and you cannot argue they are not matter. Anyhow, photons do not have mass in the way that many people use the term, but they certainly are attributed with one mannerism of mass called relativistic mass. Of course, photons do not have resting mass because they never rest! If you will think this through with me, we all know that photons are energy (think of solar panels and photosynthesis) and Einstein directly related energy and mass, E = MC^2. Turning that formula around to M = E / C^2 it's easy to see that energy is always a form of mass, in fact, velocity-dependent mass; and this is the definition of relativistic mass.
quote: No. I don't need to do that because I am not the researchers doing the experiments. If you don't think that theoretical physicist John Wheeler is qualified to do an experiment on this, I would hate to ask you what you might think about the state of science as a whole. You're are grasping at straws here, CS, simply because science seems to be upsetting your belief system. But some assert this is how all of Darwinism works. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You're are grasping at straws here, CS, simply because science seems to be upsetting your belief system. Well, its not. My belief system is just fine.
Could be doesn't cut it, CS. Do you have experimental evidence to show that the detector is collapsing the wave other than by observation? You are still on the argument from incredulity here. I'm not trying to prove you wrong. You are the one who is doing the arguing so you look up the evidence. This thread seems to be trying to convince people of ID and I'm just saying that I'm not convinced and this is why. I'm not gonna spend time looking up experimental evidence to prove you wrong. Here's what I'm getting from you: When the double slit experiment is performed an interference pattern emerges. When detectors are placed to observe what slit the photon goes through then the pattern goes away. It must be the observation that is interfering the pattern. So, there must be an observer for the whole universe. Here's what I see: When the double slit experiment is performed an interference pattern emerges. When detectors are placed to observe what slit the photon goes through then the pattern goes away. It must be the detector that is interfering the pattern. And then I say that I don't understand how you jump from the light wave-particle duality to the whole universe.
electrons have been used as well in these experiments and you cannot argue they are not matter Electrons are not matter. They are point charges that have no mass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4869 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be using the interpretation to imply that there is a ultimate intelligent being collapsing the wave functions. I just think the caveat should be included which states, "if the CI is correct," which is by no means certain.
quote:Again, I think the caveat should be added, and I think that really takes away from the heart of the argument. Other consistent models have been made(e.g. pilot theory and multiple universes). quote:I highly recommend the book. I enjoy reading Gribbin more than any other author of QM. quote:I don't see that as being a downfall. It's no different than proposing some sort of "probability wave" and supposing wave particle complementarity. These are taken as justified since they can explain the results, but there is no direct evidence for either of them, just as there isn't direct evidence for the quantum potential. quote:Just as the probility wave hasn't been discovered experimentally. They're all ad hoc explanations for results, and I don't see the one being more reputable than the other just because it has been around longer. If von Neumman hadn't made that mistake, the pilot wave theory would probably be just as developed and would have been apart of the QM orthodoxy. quote:The main reason Einstein disliked pilot wave theory is because it assumed non-locality, which goes against his theory of special relativity. But, with the Aspect experiment breaking Bell's inequality, you have to abandon either locality or reality (i.e., local reality cannot exist). This is the case no matter which interpretation you take. (I have admit that I don't understand the details of this experiment or inequality, but take the word of several authors, including Gribbin.) And just in case it isn't clear, "local" means no communication faster than light and "reality" means the world existing outside of observation. I'll try and dig up that book to see what else it has to say about the issue. The last chapter introduces his preferred interpretation which is definately not CI, but I forget the details.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: If you trust my judgment, I can probably clear that up for you right here. Photon entanglement involves a phenomenon where several photons are considered together as having the same properties and being the same unit. Physicists study two proton, three proton, four proton entanglements, etc. But the double-slit experiment only considers a massive amount of photons, as in a beam of light, or single photons coming through the slits one at a time. My point is, no entanglements need be considered in that experiment to complicate it.
quote: No, I don't think science CAN be viewed theologically and kept pure, can it? If a chemist looks at a strange chemical reaction in a beaker, shrugs his shoulders and says, I guess God did it, we probably wouldn't get very far in scientific inquiry. Therefore, ID theorists, just as anyone else, recognize that metaphysics must be kept out of our test tubes. However, that doesn't mean one isn't entitled to have religious beliefs. Heck, most of the greatest scientists of all time had them, Newton, Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Pasteur and even Einstein appeared to favor Pantheism. I don't see how omniscience of a deity then ties into that, but I see you ask further questions on it below and I'll expand on this.
quote: Yes, it is a foundation of ID I'm putting forward. I'm suggesting that the implementation of design was quantum mechanics being manipulated by a Supreme Observer. Remember that I posted a quote from John Gribbin that stated this observer must exhibit true intelligence and that a cat would not work? Mathematical physicist Frank Tipler, also ties that observer into a mathematical entity called an Omega Point. It's all math and quantum mechanics, but I feel that many people (unknowingly) extrapolate other qualities such as omniscience to this phenomenon and who am I to say they are wrong? I mean common sense tells me that the Omega Point may be omniscient because how else could it know what to observe in order to collapse it into a solid and what not to, and be able to do it across the entire universe at the same time?
quote: Nothing to me other than it would be able to observe them all.
quote: Well, I hope I have cleared that up for you. The fact that the observer knows which energy systems to observe in order to collapse them, and which ones not to observe in order that they stay waves suggests omniscience on its part rather than monoscience or whatever the antonym of that word is, in my opinion. And more specifically to this:
quote: But you cannot validly state the hands are claws. One cannot deduce a macrostate from a microstate just vise versa. The fact that I can show quantum mechanics to be the observer and the Omega Point to be the manipulator does not then tell me anything else about the macrostate of the observer. Deduction of those other qualities lie outside of science (at this time) and fall into the arena of metaphysics: individual beliefs. And I believe we all have a right to those. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Ok, we will agree that you remain unconvinced and we'll leave it right there. I have presented a ton of references from reputable scientists and can't seem to get you to produce any to show that your assertions hold merit. You seem just not to agree with them. Not much I can do about that, I'm afraid. Finally, since I'm not sure how to convince you of the obvious fact that the keyboard you are typing on right now is matter and made of atoms with tons of electrons in their valence shells, I would guess our conversation is over and I will bid you a good day and thank you for your contributions. Thanks for your posts Sorry, I forgot to post the link: "Electrons are matter and must be accounted for (Law of Conservation of Mass); the number of electrons lost must equal the number of electrons gained" This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 04-29-2005 09:28 PM Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: I'm suggesting this as a likely possibility based on the evidence and the math we have achieved at this point, yes. But nothing in science is ever certain. Theories never prove anything and caveats are always applicable. I'm not disagreeing with you that I haven't proven anything as this is impossible in science. University of Texas at Austin: "theory (the'-o-ry) A scientifically accepted general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena that is consistent with evidence, data, and experimental results. Theories can be disproved, but it is scientifically impossible to prove a theory correct." Page not found | Texas Memorial Museum
quote: You obviously have a background in physics. It's true, probability waves have been proposed to explain this dilemma. All I would add at this point is that we know it takes an observer to collapse the wave function and this has been shown experimentally time and time again. Thus, in my opinion, this the best explanation of the phenomenon in question and this is as far as science can take it. Perhaps someday we will know why this happens and discover the 'god' particle and all kinds of other cool things. But until then, this is all we know and it is from this conclusion and mathematics that I draw my designer hypothesis. Seems to work just fine.
quote: Thanks Design Dynamics
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024