Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Chance moves in mysterious ways.
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 64 of 99 (442842)
12-22-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by PaulK
12-22-2007 6:52 PM


Here's the simple answer again. I am not certain of the appliation of the Uncertainty Principle in this precise case.
i.e you can't answer 8.
8. The accuracy of B is nothing to do with the uncertainty principle of the particle, but depends on the accuracy of our instruments.
The reason you can't answer 8. is because you are applying a classical understanding of position to a particle. Your acceptance of 4., 5. and 6. are all incorrect.
4. B is not a random effect of A.
5. B is caused deterministically by the particle.
6. B is a repeatable measure of some property of the particle.
7. is incorrect.
7. The property for which B is a measure is the position of the particle.
In the classical concept B is the measurement of the classical property of position. In the quantum concept it is only part of the measurement. The full measurement is the whole probability distribution which gets randomly sampled to give B. In a similar way that a point in space can be defined by three coordinates, so the position of a particle can be defined by a whole probability distribution. It is a different sort of quantity entirely from the classical position.
Then, of course, you got stuck on 8. after calling an argument you lacked the knowledge to follow through "irrelevant".
I'm off. Back tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 6:52 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2007 4:19 AM sinequanon has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 66 of 99 (442928)
12-23-2007 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by PaulK
12-23-2007 4:19 AM


6 is a bit silly, really, because you can't repeat it with the same photon.
That is not the reason 6 is wrong. Repeatability of the experiment is not about using the "same photon" (another thing you are confused about).
According to your own assumptions 'B' is the arrival of a single photon at a specific location and the ONLY element of uncertainty is in the instruments measuring it. THAT measurement would be identical to your "classical" property - according to your own assumptions. The probability distribution simply doesn't enter into it.
B is a measurement of a dot on a film.
Unless you quote where I claim it is, "the arrival of a single photon at a specific location" then accept that as your own flawed assumption based on your classical understanding of position. It's a bit like trying to say a wave arrives at a specific location. You can sample the form of the wave, but an individual sample does not define any physical property of the wave.
Also quote where I have said, "the ONLY element of uncertainty is in the instruments measuring it". I don't think you are necessarily dishonest, just confused by quantum physics.
You've been so busy trying to force what you think "the point is" that you are confusing your misconceptions with my assumptions. Now you are bashing your own misconceptions, which was the reason I made those five points.
B is a non-deterministic outcome of an experiment which quantum physics predicts has NO deterministic model. Therefore, truly random phenomena exist, not just deterministic phenomena for which we choose probabalistic models.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2007 4:19 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2007 6:07 AM sinequanon has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 68 of 99 (442938)
12-23-2007 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
12-23-2007 6:07 AM


It doesn't mention multiple particles. It doesn't indicate ANY other source of uncertainty.
I define B in point 1) as a dot on a film. You have confused yourself by applying your classical interpretation of how the dot got there.
See Message 36 where I point out that the location of the photons includes a statistical element. You change to just "a dot on the film" in Message 38. In Message 46 I specifically point out the distinction between simply causing a dot and the arrival of the photon at a particular point. Which I repeat in Message 48
Nice try. Now try again. Show where I claim (not where you "point out") that B is "the arrival of a single photon at a specific location".
Reminder Message 65...
PaulK writes:
According to your current argument 'B' is the arrival of a single photon at a specific location and the ONLY element of uncertainty is in the instruments measuring it.
Where precisely did you think I accepted your misconception as my "current argument"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2007 6:07 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2007 6:45 AM sinequanon has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 70 of 99 (442947)
12-23-2007 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by PaulK
12-23-2007 6:45 AM


My interpretation of "how it got there' involves QM in so far as it describes WHERE the photon hits (and it describes that as a probability distribution). So make your mind up. Is B the simple effect of the photon happening to cause a dot wherever it happens to hit the film or are you including the question of where the photon hits, too ?
B is the dot on the film. Is always has been. B happens and you can take the film away and examine it.
The rest about "where the photon hits, too" is the confusion coming out of your head.
It's not my misconception. It IS your point 8.
Points 1 to 8 was me showing you where YOUR logic led to. YOU agreed to each point and then came unstuck, proving that your logic was flawed.
As I have said, I do not agree with you on point 4...
4. B is not a random effect of A.
It is.
Point 4, like the other numbered points, is me recording YOUR logic and asking you to confirm, which you did before your embarrassment of getting stuck.
That is how to disprove somebody's argument, not by using a load of rambling waffle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2007 6:45 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2007 7:35 AM sinequanon has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 72 of 99 (442952)
12-23-2007 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by PaulK
12-23-2007 7:35 AM


OK. B is just the appearance of a dot on the film, whereever the photon hits.
B is B, a dot on the film. B, the dot on the film, has a position. You can take the film away and measure it. I have made no such interpretation of it being "where the photon hits". That avoids YOUR confusion coming from your classical interpretation of what is happening.
Except my logic doesn't come unstuck. The only problem is the confusion over whether 'B' includes location or not - a confusion that you introduced.
See above. B has a position regardless of any interpretation YOU may wish to slip in.
So now you're saying that when the photon hits the film it will randomly either cause a dot or fail to cause a dot. Please explain the basis for this claim that you have suddenly introduced.
See above. The position of B is random, regardless of any interpretation YOU may wish to slip in.
So, you are still stuck at 8. I'm sorry you find logical argument "tricky" and "confusing".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2007 7:35 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2007 8:04 AM sinequanon has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 75 of 99 (442962)
12-23-2007 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Son Goku
12-23-2007 7:57 AM


Re: Simple question
sinequanon are you basically saying that a "full" measurement of the photon would require complete knowledge of its wavefunction, (i.e. the actual amplitudes at each point)
Yes. Or, equivalently, the amplitudes of its eigenfunctions.
however a position measurement only samples (non-deterministically) the wavefunction over a small range of positions?
Yes.
It is not "THE position" of the photon because it doesn't have a classical position. A single photon passes through two slits unlike a single classical particle. What sense would "THE position" make there?
Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Son Goku, posted 12-23-2007 7:57 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Son Goku, posted 12-23-2007 10:05 AM sinequanon has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 77 of 99 (442970)
12-23-2007 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by PaulK
12-23-2007 8:04 AM


The dot on the film has a posiiton. The fact that a dot appears on the film does not have a position. This is not a matter of my interpretation, it is all your confusion.
Looks like we are going to have to break this down further for you.
A. A photon is fired at a film in the classic two slit scenario.
B. A DOT appears on the film as a result.
C. The film can be removed and the position of the DOT measured.
(Note: no talk of "where the photon hit").
What are you having difficulty understanding? Which point do you disagree with?
Now, does there exist a deterministic model for the measured position of the DOT.
i.e Given accurate enough instruments can we predict the position of the DOT to arbitrary accuracy.
Actually, in case you screw that up, it means:
If the same classic two slit experiment is repeated, does there exist a deterministic model for the measured position of the DOT
Edited by sinequanon, : Spoon feeding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2007 8:04 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2007 10:28 AM sinequanon has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 79 of 99 (442978)
12-23-2007 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Son Goku
12-23-2007 10:05 AM


Re: Simple question
Well you seem to have sailed passed any mental obstacles PaulK is suffering from.
The randomness in QM is not the simple randomness that is commonly associated with that word. That is to say it is not simply a negation of determinism. For instance as we know from quantum computing it is capable of increasing computational capacity. We also know it possesses the structure of complex number multiplication. In fact in general this randomness possesses are very rich C*-algebra structure.
Agreed. It is non-deterministic nontheless. A Hilbert space does afford rich structure and functionality, but simpler systems also have structure and functionality. I believe it is more a matter of degree.
Quantum system are truly non-deterministic in the sense that something like the uncertainty principle would collapse if the system had an alternative deterministic model.
It means there are certain thing we will NEVER be able predict. There is a predictable component, as you indicate, but is God hiding in the detail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Son Goku, posted 12-23-2007 10:05 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Son Goku, posted 12-23-2007 9:16 PM sinequanon has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 80 of 99 (442982)
12-23-2007 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by PaulK
12-23-2007 10:28 AM


No more games.
Trying to shift the question again by saying it pointless, and then changing it to something else? Later you will claim I shifted the point.
Do you agree with A, B, and C. Answer the question even if you can't see the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2007 10:28 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2007 10:53 AM sinequanon has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 82 of 99 (442988)
12-23-2007 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by PaulK
12-23-2007 10:53 AM


A. A photon is fired at a film in the classic two slit scenario.
B. A DOT appears on the film as a result.
C. The film can be removed and the position of the DOT measured.
A clear answer would be in the form:
"I agree with A, B AND C"
OR
"I disagree with B because..."
Not this waffle...
PaulK writes:
Well you can leave that out but it's pointless to do so. Except, maybe if you want to leave out the fact that I was talking about it earlier. You do realise that the dot is a measurement ? And that the wave function of the photon collapses as a result ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2007 10:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2007 11:09 AM sinequanon has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 84 of 99 (442991)
12-23-2007 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by PaulK
12-23-2007 11:09 AM


I quite understand your fear and embarrassment of getting stuck again.
We can continue once you've read up on the subject enough to answer the simple question.
Do you agree with all three points, A, B, and C? If not which do you disagree with?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2007 11:09 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2007 11:39 AM sinequanon has not replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 87 of 99 (443246)
12-24-2007 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Son Goku
12-23-2007 9:16 PM


Re: Simple question
What simpler systems are you talking about? Maybe an example or two. Just to make sure I'm understanding you.
The impact locations on a wall of shot fired from a shotgun.
To clear up something I was saying, the unpredictable component also has structure. There is a good book by Julian Schwinger where he analyses unpredictable results in QM and uses it derive complex number algebra. That is QM's randomness has an imprint of complex numbers. Very interesting stuff.
I haven't read that particular book, but I have covered the standard mathematics university courses on QM and using Hilbert spaces and the Hermitian operator. We went up to the basics of string theory.
Complex number algebra is sort of "by the way". It happened to come in handy as it does in many systems modelled using differential equations with second partial derivatives - a pendulum for example.
Basically randomness was forced on us rather than it being us giving up and saying "randomness did it".
If it were simply a case of "giving up" then we could not claim the system is random, just the model we use for it. However the theory is saying randomness is forced on us - no deterministic alternative. The theory is that randomness is responsible, which is what I mean by "randomness done it".
Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Son Goku, posted 12-23-2007 9:16 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Son Goku, posted 12-24-2007 8:46 AM sinequanon has replied
 Message 97 by Chiroptera, posted 12-26-2007 12:27 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 89 of 99 (443278)
12-24-2007 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Son Goku
12-24-2007 8:46 AM


Re: Simple question
I'm not sure that is true. It doesn't just come in handy in Quantum Mechanics it's literally responsible for nearly all of what is unique about QM. If QM was based entirely on real numbers there would be no entanglement and superposition wouldn't be as strong.
Not sure what you are driving at here. Can you post an example of a unique characteristic? Can you also post an example demonstrating entanglement and strong superposition.
It is true that this system has structure, like all physical systems. However I'm saying the nonpredictable component of QM itself has a structure, which instantly places it above simple assertions like "God did it". It's "Randomness with a C*-algebra structure on top". This structure is responsible for an incredible amount of physical phenomena.
The mathematical model is useful because it lets us get at deterministic properties. That does not imply that QM's non-deterministic component has been represented or has structure. It's almost a philosophical point about whether we can talk separately of deterministic and non-deterministic sub-structures.
If you don't like the shotgun example take a 3D chaotic system. Plenty of structure there.
Would Bell's Inequalities and the Aspect experiments not provide evidential support to this assertion.
Which part of the assertion, exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Son Goku, posted 12-24-2007 8:46 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Son Goku, posted 12-26-2007 8:09 AM sinequanon has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 91 of 99 (443646)
12-26-2007 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Son Goku
12-26-2007 8:09 AM


Re: Quantum Mechanics.
Well for instance if QM had any other norm higher than the square norm it would be physically trivial.
That's not unique to QM. Any second order linear partial system has the same operation. Think of energy considerations.
What do you mean by a "higher" norm? And what evidence do you have that other norms are physically trivial?
Unless I’m very mistaken about QM, all this is specifically the structure of the non-deterministic component. The deterministic component is a Schrdinger-type equation.
That sounds confused.
The linear operations on the space are derived using the Schrodinger equation.
I don’t understand this. How does the fact that other systems have structure say anything about QM’s indeterminate aspects?
It doesn't. It says, apart from QM, there are other structurally rich systems that can be modelled in complex space.
It therefore lends support to asserting that there is randomness.
I have not said randomness doesn't exist. However, PaulK's abortive logic may have led to that conclusion somewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Son Goku, posted 12-26-2007 8:09 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Son Goku, posted 12-26-2007 11:09 AM sinequanon has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 93 of 99 (443678)
12-26-2007 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Son Goku
12-26-2007 11:09 AM


Re: Quantum Mechanics.
Huh? What theory besides QM uses a 2-norm? How does it relate to energy?
The length of a vector is a "2-norm". I'll leave the rest to you.
It's Born's 2-norm probability that then gives meanings to linear operators and their eigenvalues.
The linear self adjoint Hamiltonian operator is derived from the time independent Schrodinger equation. That is where the eigenfunctions come from.
It would make the post too turgid to go into. Any questions have their answer here:
He's basically saying, in very flowery language, that length is preserved under rotation. That's not special to the QM model.
Yes, I understand that. Other things use complex numbers, why does it matter though? What are you saying?
Ignore. It's an answer to an earlier question of yours, not a new point.
I think it is getting circular. I believe you have mentioned a few mathematical terms without really understanding the mathematical detail. As we have each stated our perspective and are unlikely to reconcile them, I think we should leave interpretation to the insight of the reader.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Son Goku, posted 12-26-2007 11:09 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by cavediver, posted 12-26-2007 12:11 PM sinequanon has replied
 Message 95 by Son Goku, posted 12-26-2007 12:20 PM sinequanon has not replied
 Message 96 by Chiroptera, posted 12-26-2007 12:23 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024