|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Uncertainty Principle - is it real? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
randman writes: The possibilities are real. The information is real, and the physical form is derivative, right? It is interesting how the interpretation of a word or words can reflect so many different meanings. Semantics often plays a big role here at EVC.By using the word real I meant in a tangible sense. The wavefunction is most certainly real in the sense that it can be extrapolated using fancy mathmatics. But are numbers "real". Are mathmatical concepts real? When speaking about atoms or electrons or quarks and such most people think of little BB's zinging around. It seems counter intuitive to think of the extreme amount of space that is separating a atoms nucleus from it's closest electron. And almost impossible to grasp the strange nature of the physical composition of something that exist in the form of a cloud of probabilities. The bottom line I think is that at the fundalmental level of reality it is unknowable and impossible to explain adequately in any other way other than through mathmatics. *edit to add....to answer your question..I dont know. But does that make it real? It is a pickle to be sure. This message has been edited by 1.61803, 01-23-2006 12:09 PM "One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Well, I think using terms like "form" or even not physical are helpful, but the minute you say something is not physical, some folks start screaming, but the point is a definite form, physical in layman's terms, stems from this possibility state, the design. So the design is first, and the physical state is derivative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
I don't see a problem with that Randman.
I could say that I have the plans for a building on my desk. Is the building real?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Good point on the plans. Have to pick this up later again when I have time to really think on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iamaelephant Inactive Member |
First of all, thanks alot for the replies so far, much appreciated. I have been reading more about quantum mechanics whenever I can find the time, and I have yet another question regarding uncertainty.
I'm new to all of this, so please correct me if I make any mistakes along the way. The question I am asking here regards uncertainty and quantum entanglement. Imagine we have a source of entangled electrons, one going to the left towards observer A (Adam), and the other to the right, towards observer B (Brad). First off, we will measure the electron spin on axis Z, allowing two possibilities, Ia (z+, z-) and IIa (z-, z+). If Adam measures the electron at z+, then we know Brad's electron must be z-, due to them being entangled (right?). Now, if Brad then measures his electron on the x axis, we know there will be one of two possibilities, Ib (x+, x-), or IIb (x-, x+). So say Brad measures his electron to be x-, we now know that Adams electron must be x+. According to uncertainty, we can not know for certain the spin of an electron on both the x and z axis, but if the two observers are to compare notes, we will know that Brads electron is z- and x-, and Adams electron is z+ and x+. First of all, have I got this thought experiment right? Secondly, does this not violate the uncertainty principle?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Hi, must be brief... will try and fill in the details later.
As you probably guessed, no this does not break uncertainty! You haven't quite got the idea of entanglement. An analogy will have to suffice for now...
If Adam measures the electron at z+, then we know Brad's electron must be z-, due to them being entangled (right?) No. This is not entanglement, as such. This is not a surprising result really. You get the same effect with two boxes and a ball. Put the ball in a random box, separate the boxes, open one box, and know instantly the state of the other box. Entanglement deals with probablistic outcomes. Imagine two dice that are entangled. While widely separated, the outcome of one die seems to affect the outcome of the other die. This is surprising as there is no causal contact between the two dice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
One interesting thing about this is that the design is actually the fundamental reality, and the physical form is something that is derived and not all the time in existence. That seems to be what QM shows, which in a lot of ways is an opposite perspective of physical reality than the materialist view. If material does not consist primarily in physical form, but a somewhat hidden, always existing design (an information state), then what we see is the long held spiritual view of reality being upheld, imo, by quantum physics.
The spiritual view is the physical form is somewhat illusory in one sense: it is not self-existing but derives from the spiritual dimension and realm. The information/energy state that gives rise to physical form matches up well with ancient spiritual traditions whether biblical or otherwise, have told us about the world. It's really a very interesting discovery, and more or less totally unexpected in the scientific community, so much so that often scientists still don't see it. To them, "spiritual" has to be something science can never deal with. The idea of a deeper reality connected to, giving rise to, the physical world, and this deeper reality being spiritual is blasphemous to many of them. Imo, there is mental block over the term "spiritual."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
It might look spiritual to you at the moment, but there isn't anything that spiritual about Hilbert Spaces, self-adjoint Hermitian operators and the various other things which go with Quantum Mechanics.
(Platonism aside, just in case somebody brings that up) Quantum Mechanics doesn't say anything about matter not existing or being illusory. It simply gives a matter a different set of rules to the old classical ones, albeit rules that allow for a lot of weirdness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
QM does indeed say something about what constitutes matter. In fact, that's what the field is, the study of what constitutes matter, right?
And it does involve a different picture than the older perspective most people adopted. In the QM picture, we see an inherent design as fundamental that gives rise to physical form, not the other way around. Also, the concept of space with energy in it is actually fully agreement with the concept of spirituality. Spirituality is not the theory of something purely mental not connected to the physical form of this world, but as a deeper realm which very much defines and rules over the physical form of this world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
In the QM picture, we see an inherent design as fundamental that gives rise to physical form, not the other way around.
What do you mean by inherent design?Do you mean the mathematical rules of QM? Classical Mechanics had a similar set of principles which lived "underneath" matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Well, consider a sentiment expressed here on this thread.
Thats why when you ask is the Uncertainty Principal real, I chuckled, because at a quantum level nothing is real. Everything is zinging around in a state of possibilties. Wheeler has made similar comments as well as others in saying things exist in an inherently undefined state until observed. The undefined part refers clearly physical, discrete form. The potential or possibility state certainly exists. The design exists always, even when the actual physical state is "undefined." It's an interesting topic because clearly these ideas are expressed by prominent physicists, and yet the minute someone says, hey, that's exactly what spiritual mechanics or spiritual theories of reality (if you would) predicts, then all of the sudden the claim is somehow one doesn't understand...
Classical Mechanics had a similar set of principles which lived "underneath" matter.
But the materialist argument or the impression left with people is that these properties governing matter are actually something that occurs because the matter is there. In other words, the design does not exist without the matter. The physical form is not derived from the design except maybe going back to the beginning of the Big Bang and then it is murky. But in QM, the design gives rise to the present physical form, always. This message has been edited by randman, 01-24-2006 01:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
When we say that it isn't defined we mean it is in what is called an eigenstate.
It's very different from the casual use of the word undefined. You can't pull a word from a comment about quantum mechanics if you don't know the mathematics behind the theory. But the materialist argument or the impression left with people is that these properties governing matter are actually something that occurs because the matter is there. In other words, the design does not exist without the matter. The physical form is not derived from the design except maybe going back to the beginning of the Big Bang and then it is murky.
State exactly what you mean by design, so that I can accurately respond to this. But in QM, the design gives rise to the present physical form, always. This message has been edited by Son Goku, 01-24-2006 02:17 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
When we say that it isn't defined we mean it is in what is called an eigenstate. It's very different from the casual use of the word undefined. It's not different than the context I used it in, nor anyone else like Wheeler. There is a possibility-state, not a discrete, single physical form, right? I fail to see how my use of the term "undefined" in quoting Wheeler, in fact, is wrong. Moreover, in the context of this thread, it's pretty clear what we are talking about. Certainly, the information/probability state or whatever you want to label it, is defined, but the physical form is not necessarily, at least not as a single state. The specific instance I recall of Wheeler using the term "undefined" referred to whether a particle was a wave or particle travelling across the universe to us prior to the time of observation, and Wheeler's comment was that it was neither, but existed in an undefined state until observed. The math may be complicated but the idea is not, if strange nonetheless. This message has been edited by randman, 01-24-2006 02:29 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
There is a possibility state for observable quantities. The set of possibilities for the observable quantities is the physical form at the quantum level.
There is the wavefunction, this is the state of the particle, its form if you will. The wavefunction can be used to figure out the probabilities of measuring some value for some quantity or more accurately the chance of the electron jumping to another wavefunction associated with that quantity. The "physical form" at the quantum level is the wavefunction. There just so happens to be wavefunctions which are "in one place" or have a definite energy, like the classical things we are used to, but they're no more physical or possessed of form than other wavefunctions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The "physical form" at the quantum level is the wavefunction. I think that says the same thing I am saying although sometimes it seems physicists disagree a little, such as some emphasizing observer participancy and others disagreeing with that. In some respects, I think the issue of observer participancy is another issue, but at the same time, in layman's terms, if true, it activates somehow the wave-function to express a discrete form, right?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024