Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-25-2019 9:46 PM
21 online now:
JonF, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), xongsmith (3 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,042 Year: 7,078/19,786 Month: 1,619/1,581 Week: 441/393 Day: 32/43 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Water As An Element of Fine-Tuning
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 100 (154978)
11-01-2004 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coragyps
11-01-2004 3:47 PM


Well, hooray for bismuth.

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-01-2004 03:52 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 11-01-2004 3:47 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2004 11:10 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 100 (156487)
11-05-2004 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by RustyShackelford
11-05-2004 11:35 PM


No......it's amazing that there's JUST one.......which means we got in just under the wire. It means there were JUST enough elements present and JUST enough potential compounds......and THAT is fine-tuning.

Tell me, when a guy wins the lottery, do you immediately assume that he cheated, or that God had a direct hand in his winning?

Because your argument applies there. Since only one ticket in a million won, clearly he got in under the wire, and the lottery was fine-tuned for him to win.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-05-2004 11:35 PM RustyShackelford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-05-2004 11:49 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 100 (156502)
11-06-2004 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by RustyShackelford
11-05-2004 11:49 PM


If he was the ONLY guy who ever won the lottery?

So, the first guy to win the lottery cheated?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-05-2004 11:49 PM RustyShackelford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 12:43 AM crashfrog has responded
 Message 34 by tsig, posted 11-06-2004 12:45 AM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 100 (156517)
11-06-2004 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by RustyShackelford
11-06-2004 12:43 AM


Crash, since when are "first" and "only" synonyms?

Before the second, first and only are the same thing. This isn't Zen, Jason.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 12:43 AM RustyShackelford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 12:48 AM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 100 (156522)
11-06-2004 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by tsig
11-06-2004 12:45 AM


you know the first guy to win was not the only one?

He was before the second guy. Think, people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by tsig, posted 11-06-2004 12:45 AM tsig has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 100 (156525)
11-06-2004 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by RustyShackelford
11-06-2004 12:48 AM


So you're moving the goalposts. Gotcha.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 12:48 AM RustyShackelford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 12:54 AM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 100 (156529)
11-06-2004 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by RustyShackelford
11-06-2004 12:54 AM


.likewise, since there's ONE universal solvent which expands when frozen, regardless of the varying laws of phyisics

We don't know that, though. There's only one set of laws of physics we're aware of; we have no idea what things would be like in any others.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 12:54 AM RustyShackelford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 1:10 AM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 100 (156542)
11-06-2004 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by RustyShackelford
11-06-2004 1:10 AM


but it can't be DIFFERENT.......

Because then it wouldn't be matter? Rather circular, don't you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 1:10 AM RustyShackelford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 1:15 AM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 100 (156546)
11-06-2004 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by RustyShackelford
11-06-2004 1:15 AM


No, because relativity and the laws of physics don't effect quantum processes

Huh? Quantum processes are the laws of physics. That's why quantum mechanics is a theory of physics.

You've left all bounds of sense, now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 1:15 AM RustyShackelford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by tsig, posted 11-06-2004 1:25 AM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 51 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 1:25 AM crashfrog has responded
 Message 52 by tsig, posted 11-06-2004 1:26 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 100 (156559)
11-06-2004 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by RustyShackelford
11-06-2004 1:25 AM


Oh, I get it. You think the theory of relativity constitutes all laws of physics.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 1:25 AM RustyShackelford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by tsig, posted 11-06-2004 1:53 AM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 67 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 6:21 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 100 (156824)
11-06-2004 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by RustyShackelford
11-06-2004 6:21 PM


Nope......but defying relativity is proof that many if not all of the laws of physics don't apply to quanta.

That's idiotic. I see that it's even worse than I suspected - you can't tell the difference between the laws of physics and our models of them.

The model is not the reality, Jason.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 6:21 PM RustyShackelford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 7:41 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 100 (156835)
11-06-2004 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by RustyShackelford
11-06-2004 7:41 PM


It's simple fact that many of the laws of physics don't apply to quanta.

Oh, certainly our models of relativity don't describe quantum behavior.

But to take that fact and proclaim that quanta don't obey the laws of physics is simply idiotic. You've confused the laws of physics with our understanding of them. You've confused the map with the territory.

And now that I point this out, you're so embarrased that you accuse me of "babbling." Typical. Either that, or you're simply unable to understand the distinction between the model and the reality. Your loss.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 7:41 PM RustyShackelford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 8:03 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 100 (156847)
11-06-2004 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by RustyShackelford
11-06-2004 8:03 PM


The Copenhagen (I.E. vast majority) interpretation is that we know all of quantum function that is knowable

Not according to my sources:

quote:
he questions this experiment poses are

1. The rules of quantum mechanics tell you statistically where the particles will hit the screen, and will identify the bright bands where many particles are likely to hit and the dark bands where few particles are likely to hit. However, for a single particle, the rules of quantum mechanics cannot predict where the particle will actually be observed. What are the rules to determine where an individual particle is observed?
2. What happens to the particle in between the time it is emitted and the time that it is observed? The particle seems to be interacting with both slits and this appears inconsistent with the behavior of a point particle, yet when the particle is observed, one sees a point particle.
3. What causes the particle to appear to switch between statistical and non-statistical behaviors? When the particle is moving through the slits, its behavior appears to be described by a non-localized wave function which is travelling through both slits at the same time. Yet when the particle is observed it is never a diffuse non-localized wave packet, but appears to be a single point particle.

The Copenhagen interpretation answers these questions as follows:

1. The probability statements made by quantum mechanics are irreducible in the sense that they don't just reflect our limited knowledge of some hidden variables. In classical physics, probabilities were used to describe the outcome of rolling a die, even though the process was thought to be deterministic. Probabilities were used to substitute for complete knowledge. By contrast, the Copenhagen interpretation holds that in quantum mechanics, measurement outcomes are fundamentally indeterministic.
2. Physics is the science of outcomes of measurement processes. Speculation beyond that cannot be justified. The Copenhagen interpretation rejects questions like "where was the particle before I measured its position" as meaningless.
3. The act of measurement causes an instantaneous "collapse of the wave function". This means that the measurement process randomly picks out exactly one of the many possibilities allowed for by the state's wave function, and the wave function instantaneously changes to reflect that pick.


I don't see anything like what you say the interpretation is. Feel free to cite your own source, please.

Of course, there's every possibility that the Copenhagen Interpretation is outright wrong, according to recent experiments by Shahriar Afshar:

quote:
Waving Copenhagen Good-bye: Were the founders of Quantum Mechanics wrong?

Shahriar S. Afshar - Harvard University Physics Department Associate

Violation of Bohr's Principle of Complementarity in an optical "which-way" experiment: Wave-particle duality has been a persistent enigma in the history of optics for more than two thousand years. With the advent of Quantum mechanics and following the famous Bohr-Einstein debate, Niels Bohr put forward his celebrated Principle of complementarity (PC) which allows presence of sharp wave-like and particle-like behaviors, only in mutually exclusive experiments. In a welcher weg or "which-way" experiment we can obtain perfect knowledge about the origin and path of quantum particles (particle-like behavior), but this action must lead to a complete destruction of the interference pattern (wave-like behavior). I will report a novel quantum optical "which-way" experiment, currently being duplicated at HEPL, which violates the predictions of PC. It seems that we can now finally settle the Bohr-Einstein debate in favor of Einstein! If time permits, we can also run a demonstration of the experiment after the seminar.

cookies will be served.


mm, cookies. Out of curiosity, does this constitute evidence that Bohr was wrong for the other thread? Lessee...

quote:
It seems that we can now finally settle the Bohr-Einstein debate in favor of Einstein!

Why, I do believe it does. I must apologize; I was aware of this experiment the whole time, and I could have saved us all a great deal of time by bringing it up before, but I was having no success finding the literature on the experiment until I literally stumbled across it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 8:03 PM RustyShackelford has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019