|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the underlying assumptions rig the debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
So you deny wave/partical duality then? Are you holding to the many-worlds interpretation or are you claiming there is no reason to suggest that interpretation as you don't believe there is ever a collapse to one path in the first place? If you don't believe the particle-liek behaviour is anything but an artifice of our own delusions in observation, then where is the interference pattern? If the photon continues to propogate as a wave, then the interference pattern should appear in these experiments, and it does not. How do you explain that, and why do you disagree with these researchers in that regard? This blurb alone shows you do not understand the terms you are using. Yet you attempt to wield them as if you have some authority in this area. This is highly dishonest and is why I despair of these communications. Wave/particle duality is a vague and incomplete layman description of the possible properties of a wave-function. The term has no place in any serious discussion of this topic. Asking if Iblis denies wave/particle duality on the back of his post is like asking him if he denies that multiplication is a quick form of addition on the back of his exposition of integral calculus. The question reveals the ignorance. No experiment has ever been performed that cannot be explained by wave-function mechanics (quantum mechanics). Quantum Mechanics is all about unitary, deterministic, causal evolution of the wave-function. Wave-functions are not affected by the future, they do not enable FTL, and are completely in line with causality. End of story. All of the odities you are looking at are simply the results of trying to place classical particle-type interpretations on physics which should only be talked about in terms of wave-functions. No scientist of merit (and in my experience, no scientist of merit or otherwise) suggests that future can change the past: not Wheeler, Feynman, Pauli, Dirac, Hawking, etc, etc nor any others that you wish to wheel in. You are simply confused and too stubborn to admit it...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Actually Wheeler says quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured. Hi Randman, I don't know that we have had any exchanges here. I am relatively new to this forum. The last line of your post which I have quoted above, also captures my understanding of one of the quantums implications. Not that my understanding is anything other than casual and intuitive. I am not a mathematician, nor a physicist. When speaking of the characteristic of definitions being defined by an observer, wanted to ask if you had noticed simmilarity between light and truth? I have personally found the simmilarities to be startling! We need not agree, but I would like your thoughts. If you are so inclined feel free to read an unpublished article of mine on the subject posted in the following thread. http://EvC Forum: What are you? EvC poll -->EvC Forum: What are you? EvC poll
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I have thought about how light's qualities parallel truth or even perhaps God.....you know, "God is light", and it is intriguing. I will take a look at your paper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Wave/particle duality is a vague and incomplete layman description of the possible properties of a wave-function. So what? you assume I am not aware of that. If you read Iblis post, he does in fact deny wave/particle duality in asserting that the photon does in fact take all possible paths instead of collapsing into one path. It may be a primitive term "wave/particle" duality, but the idea that when we see the interference pattern, it travels "as a wave" and when we don't, it travelled as a particle is not something requiring more observation than that. If you want to interpret it differently fine, but I think Iblis and now you need to explain why if the photon still takes all possible paths, the interference pattern disappears in some of these experiments. Let me add that I have never stated that I think the wave-function changed or anything, but the discrete form manifested in physical reality (which is a derived function) does change. The photon takes all possible paths when there is no way to determine otherwise, and when we can know what path it takes, it takes one path. These are descriptions of the behaviour of the wave-function in discrete form, and regardless of what term you want to use, it does demonstrate wave/particle duality. Furthermore, you still have not addressed the question of whether the wave-function spans segments of time. As far as the rest of your claims, they are totally unsubstantiated and pure rubbish, and frankly pathetic. Edited by randman, : No reason given. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Hmmm......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
So your argument consists of bare assertions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
If you read Iblis post, he does in fact deny wave/particle duality in asserting that the photon does in fact take all possible paths instead of collapsing into one path. Iblis is correct. I would phrase what he said slightly differently, but he is correct. And my points remain.
cavediver writes: No experiment has ever been performed that cannot be explained by wave-function mechanics (quantum mechanics). Quantum Mechanics is all about unitary, deterministic, causal evolution of the wave-function. Wave-functions are not affected by the future, they do not enable FTL, and are completely in line with causality. End of story. All of the odities you are looking at are simply the results of trying to place classical particle-type interpretations on physics which should only be talked about in terms of wave-functions. No scientist of merit (and in my experience, no scientist of merit or otherwise) suggests that future can change the past: not Wheeler, Feynman, Pauli, Dirac, Hawking, etc, etc nor any others that you wish to wheel in. As far as the rest of your claims, they are totally unsubstantiated and pure rubbish, and frankly pathetic. Name the experiment that cannot be explained by purely causal wave-mechanics. Name the scientist and provide the quote where they say that they believe the past is changed by the present. These are you claimns. Substantiate them.
Furthermore, you still have not addressed the question of whether the wave-function spans segments of time. Psi(x,y,z,t) - how can it not? The connections between the function at different times are provided by the Schrodinger Equation (non-relativistically) and the Dirac and Klein-Gordon Equations among others relativistically. These connections are causal. End of story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Imo, you are still dodging. I have named several scientists, from Wheeler, Mandel and Zeilinger, that all talk of the wave-function in the same manner and consider the potential to know whether the photon in these experiments travels one route as a particle or all routes as a wave as coorelating to the actual path the particle takes.
Now, you want to bring up something else, in typical fashion, trying to suggest these observations somehow are incongruent with standard QM when in reality standard QM is demonstrated by these experiments. The simple reality is that if we can tell which path a proton takes in the past, then that proton takes a definite path. If we cannot, then the proton takes all possible paths. You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge and deal with that fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Imo, you are still dodging. I have named several scientists, from Wheeler, Mandel and Zeilinger, that all talk of the wave-function in the same manner and consider the potential to know whether the photon in these experiments travels one route as a particle or all routes as a wave as coorelating to the actual path the particle takes. So? What has that got to do with it? I repeat, name the scientist and provide the quote where they say that they believe the past is changed by the present.
Now, you want to bring up something else, in typical fashion, trying to suggest these observations somehow are incongruent with standard QM when in reality standard QM is demonstrated by these experiments. Huh? There are no experiments incongruent with QM. All of these experiments are perfectly explainable by (causal) QM. They leave no room for your bizarre counter-QM ideas...
The simple reality is that if we can tell which path a proton takes in the past, then that proton takes a definite path. If we cannot, then the proton takes all possible paths. You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge and deal with that fact. What are you talking about? I haven't even addressed any of this. Why would I refuse to acknowledge the obvious? I disagree with the language used, but that's just sloppy laymanese for you. This has nothing to do with your claim of the past being changed by the present. I state categorically that it is implied by neither QM nor these experiements. Now, name an experiment that cannot be explained by purely causal wave-mechanics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The idea that I am merely misinterpreting the data and that no one has drawn the same or similar conclusions should be put to rest by the following:
The Copenhagen interpretation suggests that observation constructs reality. Bohr wrote of 'fundamental limitations' within atomic physics, in the 'objective existence of phenomena independent of their means of observation.' The reality envisaged by Bohr was not an objective, but a phenomenal one. It did not exist in the absence of observation. Bohr did not actually deny the existence of an objective reality 'out there'; but he thought it meaningless to ask any questions about what this reality was. In Bohr's philosophy, the facts of measurement and observation must suffice. There is no point in asking what lies beyond the observation. Einstein could not agree with Bohr. In 1954, a year before his death, he maintained: 'Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects. Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made.' What, at root, was the difference between Bohr and Einstein? Bohr's view has been well summarized by the Princeton physicist John Wheeler: 'no elementary phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon'. Wheeler illustrated what he meant by recounting a dinner party he once attended which degenerated into a game of twenty questions. The aim of the game was to identify an object, selected by the other guests, through a series of 20 'yes' or 'no' answers to questions posed. Wheeler's fellow diners obviously knew him well enough not to think of anything at all, and instead decided simply to give answers consistent with those previously given. At the end of his series of questions, Wheeler believed that they had chosen 'cloud'. Wheeler argues that 'in the game, no word is a word until that word is promoted to reality by the choice of questions asked and answers given'. This is the central point for Wheeler; but he also acknowledges the part played by the other guests. If they had responded differently, he would not have come up with 'cloud'. He believes his role in the game was the same as the role of the experimenter with electrons. Such an observer, Wheeler maintains, has a 'substantial influence on what will happen to the electron by the choice of experiments he will do on it, "questions he will put to nature".' But the experimenter also knows that 'there is a certain unpredictability about what any given one of his measurements will disclose, about what "answers nature will give".' Wheeler believes that it is only within the confines of a particular experimental situation that reality, phenomenal reality, can be specified. Moreover, he takes this belief to its logical conclusion: 'There is a sense in which what the observer will do in the future defines what happens in the past - even in a past so remote that life did not exist, and shows even more, that observership is a prerequisite for any meaningful version of reality.' What Wheeler means is that the observer literally creates the universe by his observations. .... Indeed, Heisenberg generalized this rejection of causality from the quantum domain to the whole world of science: 'Because all experiments are subject to the laws of quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics definitely shows the invalidity of the causal laws.'
http://www.prometheus.demon.co.uk/02/02kumar.htm The truth is that quantum mechanics are something great scientists have struggled with since it's inceptions because of the implications of it. The notion put forward by cavediver that somehow my raising these same issues as these great scientists is merely the result of ignorance on my part is ludicrous. Heck, some of these men wrote the equations cavediver alludes to, and they certainly saw some of the exact same implications as I have raised. As Heisenberg states:
'Because all experiments are subject to the laws of quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics definitely shows the invalidity of the causal laws.'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Good to know I'm not alone at least potentially. My paper may be very rough and not well spoken, but it sounds like you'll understand the points...
For the record, my definition of Dualism vs Monism in regard to that paper is of the good and evil forces kind, not the natural and supernatural per se (but even then they are liked in my mind). Any criticism or commentary is welcome, Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3896 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
I don't believe I have stood on any points which are not fully documented in the reference I provided in my first post. But if there are any aspects of the assertions I have made that do not seem to follow directly from the math, or even from a rational reading of Wiki's attempt to express the math in verbiage, then I will be happy to paraphrase the posts in which I have covered this material in such a way as to make it clearer. Please just let me know, I don't have any intention of undermining the debating system here but I am also not responsive to whining and loophole-surfing.
In the meantime, as a gesture of good faith, I will resubstantiate my base argument with a different reference
quote: http://www.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/TeachQM/misconnzz.pdf
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I repeat, name the scientist and provide the quote where they say that they believe the past is changed by the present. OK, how about this?
Wheeler believes that it is only within the confines of a particular experimental situation that reality, phenomenal reality, can be specified. Moreover, he takes this belief to its logical conclusion: 'There is a sense in which what the observer will do in the future defines what happens in the past - even in a past so remote that life did not exist, and shows even more, that observership is a prerequisite for any meaningful version of reality.' Or this?
Indeed, Heisenberg generalized this rejection of causality from the quantum domain to the whole world of science: 'Because all experiments are subject to the laws of quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics definitely shows the invalidity of the causal laws.'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
It's a long paper. Read half of it, but may need to wait to finish it. I do think careful consideration of this area is warranted and agree with some things you are saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Why would I refuse to acknowledge the obvious? So you are now admitting that the wave-function operates in such a manner that a later measurement can affect it's behaviour prior to that measurement (with respect to the observer's vantage point), or are you disagreeing with that?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024