LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAre quantum particle pairing (In quantum entanglement, which quantum particle gets paired with which one) and quantum fluctuations hidden variables?
How did scientists confirm that?
or hasn't it been confirmed?
or it can't be confirmed?
7Likes
February 12th, 2013, 08:02 PM
Are quantum particle pairing (In quantum entanglement, which quantum particle gets paired with which one) and quantum fluctuations hidden variables?
How did scientists confirm that?
or hasn't it been confirmed?
or it can't be confirmed?
In 1964 John Bell produced a test to determine if it was possible to explain quantum theory using hidden local variables. When tested experimentally it was found that such a theory cannot explain the results.
This is a good non-technical explanation of Bell's Theorem: Bell's Theorem: Physics
Nice explanation, I would continue with the explanation , but what it says there is movement back and forth in time of the particle and movement of information in specific force through
Sorry for jumping a little ahead
There is no jumping back and forth in time. Why do you keep posting this nonsense? Please stop.Originally Posted by Water Nosfim
Well, perhaps you can just jump back in time and stop yourself posting until you know what you are talking about.
The connection Through nonLocalty is back in time
Nope.
It is requested, only in a certain force
I am tempted to request that the moderators ban you:
- You only ever post nonsense.
- You never make any effort to provide any support for your ridiculous statements.
- You add no value to the forum.
- You just cause confusion to those who don't realise that everything you write is wrong.
It's hard to me to explain in English, but even in the example,thay talked about the stock market in context
It has nothing to do with your English. Nothing travels backwards in time.
Either Strange is wrong or you've just cracked time travel, I wonder which is more likely.
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the problem is your English.
Perhaps if you tell us exactly where you have read about things going backwards in time, we can explain what it is that you have misunderstood.
for Example the experiment of double slite (but the topic is good )
i have my De Ja vu
Please provide a quotation from an article on entanglement or the double slit experiment where it says that time travel is involved.
For example the concept of delayed choice in the experiment of the double slite (but stay in the topic )
Again, there is no time travel involved. I would like to explain your misunderstanding, but I can only do that if:
Please provide a quotation from an article on entanglement (or the double slit experiment) where it says that time travel is involved.
Do you want to doubt, some part of the many worlds interpretation ?
No. I want you to provide a QUOTATION from a reputable source that you believe says that time travel is involved.
How difficult is that?
You can give your version of De Ja vu if you want?
Time travel has NOTHING to do with quantum entanglement, double slit experiments, many-worlds, or deja vu.
As this is obviously not something you have read somewhere (otherwise you would be able to provide a citation to support it) I have to assume that you are just making it up.
Please stop making up nonsense. This is a science forum.
Translate it from French if you want
That would be version of the well-known "etymological fallacy". Don't fall for it.
This is a science forum; stop presenting things you invent as fact.
No it is not, you are asserting a direction in an origin-less dimension. That cannot be the case.
Good work strange, but don't feed the trolls.
I think we all know that Water is referring to the popular misconceptions surrounding the good ol' "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser" experiment.
As you can see it , it how "scientists" take it today
Well it should be noted that the Delayed choice experiment was thought of, by wheeler, in the copenhagen interpretation. And that hence, it was a prediction of the Copenhagen interpretation. In that interpretation, there is nothing strange, and nothing out of the ordinary.
In other interpretations, alike the ones you and many other people attain, the explanation requires difficult constructions violating causality, or time-travel, or even inter-dimensional pathways. And, those are all very difficult ways to explain something which in another interpretation is fairly simple.
It is like explaining why trees bud new leaves every spring. You can simply explain it in the interpretation which it was observed in (biology, or in this analogy, the Copenhagen interpretation) or you could explain it in the interpretation where the gardener has made everything in the garden. It is extremely difficult to explain why every single bud of leaves or flowers grow the way they do, and how they do. If the Gardener has to do it.
Therefore by many physicists the Delayed choice experiment is seen as a proof that, even though the intial philosophical notions might be unpleasent at first sight. Once they are taken, the whole world suddenly becomes fairly easy to explain. Occam's razor. Delayed choice is where Copenhagen interpretation is simply the most simple explanation.
You could see it as an building. Copenhagen Interpretations has deep, weird and complex foundations with different kinds of structures that would seem overly complex to other people. But that can withstand all sorts of tests like earthquakes and very heavy high buildings, as the building after all has to explain all that we observe and is hence big.
Other interpretations are simple foundations, which anyone can easily accept, but they simply do not hold up to the tests of the weight of things it needs to explain. And literally break down.
Whatever foundation (interpretation) you choose is of course your own choice. However if you have to be able to explain, and understand a lot. The simpel foundations simply don't suffice. And hence many interpretations are just attempts to see how far the foundations can be stretched in order to accomidate the changing world, experiments and understandings. Whereas for instance the Copenhagen Interpretation foundation. Has been quite big and simple and hasn't really had any such difficulties.
The reason why people don't like to change interpretations, is because most of them were taught the simple one, from the beginning and they started building up from there. And asking to re-build an entire and complex building from scratch, when you are already so close. Is not a favourable action to do. And they'd rather try and lean out the window a bit further to reach that point anyhow. Yet they simply don't manage. Hence:
The reason why many scientists don't attain Copenhagen Interpretations or just don't care about it. Is not because it is too difficult or to weird, not at all, but because the change from one to the other is a very hard one.
So what is the " simple " explanation for the hidden variables
There are no hidden variables: see post #2.
Ah " hidden " !
This is called the possibility three of the two presented
What is says the lack of statistical correlation complete in hundred percent and absolute correlation in 5 / 9 and we went fifty percent, that means first of all goes information through , then it is negative but still passes information and probably by deleting
Water Nosfim
I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not intentionally spouting nonsense. Be that as it may though, it doesn't mean you should be given a free pass to post that nonsense in the main sections. Please stop doing that. In future if you are curious about something, please feel free to open a thread in New Hypothesis, Pseudo or Trash. Your generally obscure postings detract from threads rather than to add to them. I am sorry, but that is just the way it is. Thanks for your compliance.
determinism
Determinism come for the 5/9 not for the 50%
You might wish to reword your question. What I think you mean is: Does quantum particle pairing like quantum entanglement, and quantum fluctuations (quantum vacuum fluctuations), involve hidden variables for their creation. Has the non-existence of hidden variables been confirmed, or is it even possible to confirm one way or the other?
If this was your question then I will give you my answer. If I misunderstood your question in some way please clarify
The present consensus view is that there are no hidden variables that control entanglement or quantum fluctuations. We know there is a background field called the Zero Point Field where the energy from quantum fluctuations come from. But this field is not considered a hidden variable because of its observed randomness. There are presently thought to be no hidden variables in the form of particles that could accordingly be involved in quantum entanglement or quantum fluctuations. The hypothetical/ theoretical particles in this field are presently thought to be gravitons, Higg's particles, and dark matter, and real particles like free electrons/ positrons, neutrinos, etc. but none are though to be involved with creating/enabling entanglement or quantum fluctuations. Bell's theorem asserts that there are no hidden variables but all is based upon theory, so it could be possible someday that a hidden background field of hidden variables of some kind could be discovered that may be involved with entanglement and/or quantum fluctuations, but today that idea is considered highly speculative.
Last edited by forrest noble; February 17th, 2013 at 05:47 PM.
How does it being random make it be considered to be not a hidden variable?
and also, yay someone knows what im taking about. im not talking about time travel.
sorry for double posting, but i did it to make another different point
Qn.: does anything happen that is not due to casualty(does not have a cause), making determinism wrong?
and how did scientists confirm that?
ryanawe123, I should warn you that Forrest is famous for providing confused and confusing explanations based on his misunderstandings of popular science articles.
It is possible (see post #2). It has been confirmed by many experiments. Google "tests of Bell's inequality" for more examples.
Of course, this being science, nothing is ever proved 100%. There are still people exploring the limits of the theory, showing the possible loopholes in previous experiments, and planning new experiments. No one expects a theory of hidden variables to work or to be found.
But it would be very exciting if Bell's theorem was shown to be wrong.
It would be more accurate to say that the non-zero energy of the vacuum (the zero point field, as Forrest prefers because it sounds a bit more mysterious) arises from quantum fluctuations.We know there is a background field called the Zero Point Field where the energy from quantum fluctuations come from.
It is not considered a hidden variable because it is not a variable (it is not hidden either). It is just the lowest energy state of a vacuum.But this field is not considered a hidden variable because of its observed randomness.
Forrest's typical FUD. Of course, it is all based on theory. All of science is based on theory. That is what science is.Bell's theorem asserts that there are no hidden variables but all is based upon theory
Interesting question. It certainly seems that at the quantum level, things can happen purely randomly, with no apparent cause. For example, there is a particle called a muon (like a heavy version of the electron) which decays after an average time of ~2 µs. So you van have an isolated muon, a fundamental particle with no constituent parts (as far as we know) and after some time it will spontaneously decay. Nothing causes it to decay at that instant. What causes it to wait that long? Nothing as far as we know.
ryanawe123,
It is hidden to the extent that it is random/unpredictable but it is not thought to be involved in quantum entanglement, concerning the OP question. It is not a hidden variable because its existence is known and its effects observed and measurable.How does it being random make it be considered to be not a hidden variable?
Last edited by forrest noble; February 17th, 2013 at 05:48 PM.
(And it is not a variable.)
All of which raises the question: why bring it up? Just because you like to talk about the "mysterious" (to you) zero point field, perhaps. Like those crackpots who think it is a source of "free energy".
Since there is no known causes, present theory asserts that there is randomness involved concerning particle decay rates at the quantum level via the Strong Force and gluons, and isotope decay rates at the macro/micro level where accordingly the Weak Force is involved.
(bold added)(And it is not a variable.)
All of which raises the question: why bring it up? Just because you like to talk about the "mysterious" (to you) zero point field, perhaps. Like those crackpots who think it is a source of "free energy".
It was simply to answer the question. /////////
How does bringing up non-zero energy of the vacuum, which is not hidden, not a variable and nothing to do with entanglement, answer a question about hidden variables and entanglement?
I mentioned those existing known background entities/variables that might have cause-and-effect influences in some instances, if unaccounted for.How does bringing up non-zero energy of the vacuum, which is not hidden, not a variable and nothing to do with entanglement, answer a question about hidden variables and entanglement?
Well, I suppose they might, but they don't. You might as well mention the infinite number of other things that "might" have an influence. Like rice pudding, unicorn droppings, or chronosynclastic infundibuli.
This is a science forum. If someone asks a question about science, it makes sense to give them an answer based on our current understanding of the relevant science. With any necessary caveats about what we don't know for sure, etc. There is no necessity to bring in things that have no connection just because you would like them to. How on earth would the fact that a field has a non-zero minimum energy affect entanglement. Sheesh. And you wonder why you get asked to keep your ignorant nonsense out of science threads.
(bold added)Well, I suppose they might, but they don't. You might as well mention the infinite number of other things that "might" have an influence. Like rice pudding, unicorn droppings, or chronosynclastic infundibuli.
This is a science forum. If someone asks a question about science, it makes sense to give them an answer based on our current understanding of the relevant science. With any necessary caveats about what we don't know for sure, etc. There is no necessity to bring in things that have no connection just because you would like them to. How on earth would the fact that a field has a non-zero minimum energy affect entanglement. Sheesh. And you wonder why you get asked to keep your ignorant nonsense out of science threads.
The ZPE has influences in the quantum realm where rice pudding does not, as a general rule, since it is not omni-present.
Last edited by forrest noble; February 17th, 2013 at 06:39 PM. Reason: bold added
I ask again: Please stop posting your nonsense in the mainstream threads. People coming here need real answers, not your made-up fairytale crap. Post your fantasies in Pseudo or Trash, but not here, and certainly not in response to people's questions.The ZPE has influences in the quantum realm where rice pudding does not, as a general rule, since it is not omni-present.
Stop.
Posting.
Crap.
The rules are to state what you think has been mis-stated by someone, not to insult the person making the statement. You keep making the same mistakes over and over again. To call someone's posting nonsense you must explain what you think is wrong with their statement, not just to post it and insult them, unless you're just trolling. Maybe you don't know the rules or choose to ignore them.I ask again: Please stop posting your nonsense in the mainstream threads. People coming here need real answers, not your made-up fairytale crap. Post your fantasies in Pseudo or Trash, but not here, and certainly not in response to people's questions.The ZPE has influences in the quantum realm where rice pudding does not, as a general rule, since it is not omni-present.
Stop.
Posting.
Crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy.....Zero-point energy is fundamentally related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.....
Many of your postings contain Ad Hominems, your last posting being a mild example. Please stop. The moderators will tell when they think the rules of courtesy or otherwise are not being adhered to.
Last edited by forrest noble; February 17th, 2013 at 06:50 PM.
I have only called you ignorant. That is objectively true. I have backed up that statement numerous times.
I have accused you of posting nonsense. That is objectively true. I have backed up that statement numerous times.
Those are not ad homs. Those are descriptions of your posts.
If you feel you have a case, by all means flag my posts, and let the mods act as they deem fit.
As to ZPE, I am not swayed by your link to wikipedia. That article merely confirms the irrelevance to the OP's question.
Continue Ad Hominem postings and I will not need to report you. If you disagree, exactly say why. Either somebody else will report your insulting postings or the mods will read them and warn you or suspend you. Never call anyone ignorant, leave it to those reading the postings to decide. People, by illogical reasoning, can identify themselves as being ignorant to those that understand the rules of formal debate and logic. Calling people ignorant is simply an invitation to a pissing contest. Simply stick to criticisms with specifics, do not ever insult anyone -- period, for any reason! That is the clearest sign to all that you blatantly ignore the rules of this forum and online etiquette in general.I have only called you ignorant. That is objectively true. I have backed up that statement numerous times.
I have accused you of posting nonsense. That is objectively true. I have backed up that statement numerous times.
Those are not ad homs. Those are descriptions of your posts.
If you feel you have a case, by all means flag my posts, and let the mods act as they deem fit.
As to ZPE, I am not swayed by your link to wikipedia. That article merely confirms the irrelevance to the OP's question.
In case you didn't know what "ad hominem appeal" is I will explain it to you:
Ad Hominem defined: Involves all persons who make illogical arguments by:
- (of an argument or reaction) appealing to the emotions of others without using subject-related reason or logic.
- attacking an opponent's motives, character, suggesting ineptitudes etc., rather than the policy or position they maintain.
- insults or statements to belittling someone, without subject-related specifics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Last edited by forrest noble; February 18th, 2013 at 03:13 PM.
Alternatively: everyone (but you) will continue to see tk's posts for what they are (and your nonsense for what it is) and just watch you flailing purposely.
Realize that your own posting is not subject related, is directed toward a person, and should not be stated for that reason since it also is an Ad Hominem appeal. Realize that Ad Hominems are one of the simplest logical fallacies to see through. Respond to the statements or arguments given. Do not state unfavorable opinions or inferences of persons stating them, especially when not giving subject-related specifics or reasoning. This is called Ad Hominem appeal.Alternatively: everyone (but you) will continue to see tk's posts for what they are (and your nonsense for what it is) and just watch you flailing purposely.
Last edited by forrest noble; February 18th, 2013 at 05:14 PM.
Does it have ANY relevance to the question asked?
Allow me to answer that, as you will no doubt just fudge the issue for your own warped purposes.
NO.
So please stop posting irrelevant nonsense. It would make life a lot easier for everyone if you just stopped posting. Then we wouldn't have to keep correcting your misunderstandings, ignorance and general confusion.
And yet another failure on your part.
Why don't you actually READ the link you posted?
"attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their argument".
My post, and tk's, does NOT attack your person in order to invalidate argument (since your argument is specious as it is), it (they) simply point out that you consistently fail to understand what is written (as tk mentioned).
I'm sorry Forrest, but I have to agree that you have repeatedly demonstrated your profound ignorance of physics, especially quantum theory and cosmology, the subjects you most like to talk about. You frequently post things which are flat out wrong (despite being repeatedly corrected). When you do post something which has a kernel of truth in it, you confuse matters so badly that it still needs someone to step in and point out your errors.
And then, to make it worse, you always play the victim card. Get over yourself. It is not all about you. It is about communication good science as clearly as possible in order to answer people's questions. No one cares about you or your misunderstandings.
I would like to apologise to ryanawe123 for his thread getting dragged off topic by Forrest. Sadly, this happens in nearly every thread he "contributes" to.
The serious and unsolved (and likely unsolvable) problem, Forrest, is that you repel correct arguments. So, the usual methods of science are ineffective with you. Your recalcitrance means that people asking questions here suffer from the confused, broken, illogical and downright incorrect answers that you routinely give. When an absolutely solid refutation of your falsehoods is offered, your response is always some combination of "I said 'in my opinion'" (as if that somehow confers immunity from criticism); "I'm right; it's just a matter of interpretation" (as if all interpretations were of equal validity -- which they are not); or "Here's a collection of links that I found on the interwebz" (as if finding other ignorant posts somehow validates your own ignorant posts).
Since you stubbornly continue to inject disruptive errors even after correction, you leave very few options. You don't like pissing matches, you say, yet you routinely invite and engage in them. If you truly don't like being corrected, stop posting crap. Get some real education. Study math (don't just say that because you've allegedly gotten a degree in it, that you don't need to). Study the mainstream arguments for real, not those of cartoon strawmen that you regularly invoke.
You want respect? Then comport yourself in a manner deserving of it. As Strange has put so well, you play the victim card all too often. You call for "criticisms with specifics," yet you dishonestly fail to acknowledge when specific criticisms are presented. Then what options have you left, Forrest? Your behavior is rude and intellectually dishonest. It goes beyond mere ignorance. It is demonstrably anti-science and thus certainly has no place in the main sections of a science forum.
Just stop posting nonsense. Stop posting crap. Stop repelling correct arguments. Stop ignoring corrections. Stop injecting your distorted, ignorant view of physics in the mainstream sections.
And for FSM's sake, get some real education.
Finally, I, too, would like to apologise to ryanawe123 for the thread derail.
It has everything to do with the OP question. The ZPE is the source of quantum vacuum fluctuations in the OP question. Collectively it could be considered another name for it. The "rice pudding" part originally came from your quote of sarcastic humor.(Re: the ZPE) Does it have ANY relevance to the question asked?...........................
Vacuum Fluctuations and Zero Point Energy (2.6)
Zero-point energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited by forrest noble; February 18th, 2013 at 02:21 PM.
As is so often the case, this and the other links prove you are wrong. It says:
So the zero point energy is not the "cause" of quantum fluctuations. This nicely also reinforces that you were talking crap about the uncertainty principle in the other thread.These vacuum fluctuations and the zero point energy have a common origin in the noncommutability of the operatorsand
Please, please, please stop posting about things you are totally ignorant of.
(Strange quote)I never used the word "cause." I used the words "possible cause and effect influences."........the zero point energy is not the "cause" of quantum fluctuations.
(parenthesis added)....He explains that the physical vacuum creates a virtual photon flux of electromagnetic energy (quantum fluctuations).....
The zero point field
This link below uses the word "may": "One contribution to the vacuum energy may be from virtual particles."
http://www.aadet.com/article/vacuum_energyVacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe.One contribution to the vacuum energy may be from virtual particles, which are thought to be particle pairs that blink into existence and then annihilate in a time span too short to observe. They are expected to do this everywhere, throughout the Universe. Their behavior is codified in Heisenberg's energy-time uncertainty principle. Still, the exact effect of such fleeting bits of energy is difficult to quantify.
http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/SODA_chapter4.html
Since some texts use the word "may," apparently there is a difference of opinion concerning the certainty that virtual particles contribute to the Zero Point Energy field, where it would seem that there is a consensus opinion concerning virtual photons being a part of it.
Last edited by forrest noble; February 18th, 2013 at 05:16 PM.
<deleted>
Last edited by Strange; February 18th, 2013 at 04:29 PM. Reason: utterly pointless arguing with someone who is too ignorant and stubborn to learn anything.
okay, Strange Just some guy, thanks for the point that you made. i understand more clearly nowInteresting question. It certainly seems that at the quantum level, things can happen purely randomly, with no apparent cause. For example, there is a particle called a muon (like a heavy version of the electron) which decays after an average time of ~2 µs. So you van have an isolated muon, a fundamental particle with no constituent parts (as far as we know) and after some time it will spontaneously decay. Nothing causes it to decay at that instant. What causes it to wait that long? Nothing as far as we know.
But, wouldn't "the Muon's Radioactive decay without a cause" make determinism and casualty theories wrong?
Since they are wrong, why do people still debate over it?
Why do they still debate that its true that "in the present, every subatomic particle's inertia, velocity, energy regions, and all other natural factors, through a cause and effect, will affect each other to emerge the future"? Since its "proven" that things happen with a cause
I would also like to know,
1) how does bell's tests prove hidden variables doesn't exist,
2) how do we know if muon's radioactive decay is not due to hidden variables
1) Bell's theorem is a mathematical proof. It says that: "if certain predictions of quantum theory are correct then our world is non-local. So the assumption is that certain QM assertions are correct. When referring to "Local" they would mean that there would be a cause-and-effect physical influences directly, by contact, or by local forces, effecting the experiment. By Non-local they refer to an effect that could be only caused by influences outside the distances possible for direct influences.
2) They do not know of any reason for particle decay, and QM proposes probabilities of chance based upon known half-lives. If there is no evidence for the existence of something like a cause, in this case, then it is assumed to be a random process.
QM asserts that many things happen by chance in the quantum world.
So, the radio active decay:
1) Happens without a cause (casualty theory is wrong)
or
2) Is unpredictable, but it does happen with a cause that we may not know of (casualty theory is correct)
and also, is it correct to say: "If casualty is true and really happens, it makes the many worlds interpretation wrong."?
There's no known cause AND quantum theory proposes that this process is random.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decayRadioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e., random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a ...........
Present observations, however, seem to indicated that some radio active decay rates of isotopes, decay at a different rate during solar flares, at different times of the year, and vary within a 33 day cycle.
The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements
Neutrinos being the possible cause, was one proposal. But present understandings indicate that neutrinos interact too infrequently. Eventually present theory will have to explain why there is a variable but predictable radioactive decay rate if this process is totally confirmed. If not explainable by present theory, then the theory will need to be amended/changed/replaced.
Last edited by forrest noble; February 20th, 2013 at 12:37 PM.
Yup. Even a blind squirrel sometimes finds an acorn, it seems. But then:
This is old news. First, carrying out such measurements is very tricky, so errors of various kinds -- and of the same magnitude as the reported effect -- can easily creep in. Four or five years ago another, much more careful, study with considerably tighter error bounds failed to find the effect reported by Jenkins. See http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers/EarthSun.pdfPresent observations seem to indicated that some radio active decay of isotopes, decay faster during solar flares.
The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements
That paper also mentions another study (performed by one Cooper) using the power decay of the RTG aboard Cassini to study Jenkins' claim as well. Cooper also failed to see any effect on decay rates.
Last edited by tk421; February 20th, 2013 at 12:39 AM.
What is "casualty theory?" I am not familiar with that term. If you could say a bit more what you mean, perhaps I could offer an answer
Last edited by tk421; February 20th, 2013 at 12:55 AM.
Not necessarily. Perhaps just less predictable. It may be that things are only deterministic in a probabilistic sense.
Perhaps because philosophers love to argue for ever over meaningless concepts like determinism?Since they are wrong, why do people still debate over it?
The article in post #2 is one of the simplest, non-technical descriptions I have come across. If you need a more mathematical treatment, there are lots of papers on the subject.
We don't. But until there is evidence for them, we assume they don't exist. That is just the way science works.2) how do we know if muon's radioactive decay is not due to hidden variables
Sounds reasonable. (causality, by the way).
I don't see why. But then I don't know much about the many worlds interpretation (most interpretations don't seem to make any sense to me).and also, is it correct to say: "If casualty is true and really happens, it makes the many worlds interpretation wrong."?
That reply didn't make the slightest amount of sense.
If there are also some random and some permanent part , the answer has to be somewhere in the middle,
Still doesn't make it any clearer.
I think he was referring to Bell's Theorem and the great tutorial link that Strange provided concerning electron pair conditions whereby:That reply didn't make the slightest amount of sense.
Quotes from link below:(parenthesis and bold added)Some electron pairs come out with an instruction set that says "for two of the orientations, I will flash red; for the other orientation, I will flash green" (or vice-versa). For such a pair, the two detectors will give the same answer roughly 5/9 of the time (probability).
Bell's Theorem: Physics....what's the probability that they will flash the same color? There are 9 possible configurations for the detectors, and in 5 of them, the two detectors give the same result. Since we assume the detector positions are set randomly each one of those configurations should be equally likely, so the answer is that they will flash the same color 5/9 of the time.
seems legit haha. but really, if muon's radioactive decay does not have a cause, butterfly effect maybe would cause an earthquake that will happen? and causality cant explain how the earthquake came about, since muon's radioactive decay did not have a cause.Not necessarily. Perhaps just less predictable. It may be that things are only deterministic in a probabilistic sense.
Perhaps because philosophers love to argue for ever over meaningless concepts like determinism?Since they are wrong, why do people still debate over it?
from The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elementssince it does not interact with anything, why did the decaying particles react?Jenkins and Fischbach guessed that the culprits in this bit of decay-rate mischief were probably solar neutrinos, the almost weightless particles famous for flying at almost the speed of light through the physical world – humans, rocks, oceans or planets – with virtually no interaction with anything.
(parenthesis added)
That is the present theoretical question. According to the study if this effect of a solar cycle rate every 33 days, and a lesser decay rate during solar flairs, is valid then there is no present mainstream theoretical explanation to explain decay rate changes. Others will need to repeat their 2010 study observing the same results, before science will look for an alternate explanation in earnest. If this effect is valid then one of the possibilities mentioned in the article were neutrinos, and another was another presently unknown particle. A third possibility could be changes in a background field (physical, magnetic, energy, etc.) whose variations could change the decay rate based upon a 33 day solar cycle, speculated in the article to involve the rotation rate of the sun's interior.
Last edited by forrest noble; February 20th, 2013 at 11:47 PM.
Once again, Forrest, you rudely pretend that no one posted updated information (in this case, showing that Jenkins was wrong). See my post 70 for the details.
The point, in case you missed it, is that there is no effect to explain, no "present theoretical question" to ponder.
Please stop posting nonsense. Please stop ignoring corrections. It's one thing simply not to know physics. It's a much more serious thing that you pretend to have knowledge, and then propagate your misconceptions.
Just stop it, or you may find the choice being taken out of your hands.
Last edited by tk421; February 21st, 2013 at 12:06 AM.
They did not react. See Post #70. Follow-up experiments have shown that Jenkins' work was flawed. When more careful analyses are carried out, the "effect" disappears.
Ignore anything that Forrest posts. His grasp of science is far too weak to be trustworthy.
tk421,
This study from the link I provided started in 2006 and was not concluded until the middle of 2010, as I read it, and involved the 33 day solar cycle conclusion and less decay during solar flairs. It also included the annual effect. Your link talked only about the annual effect only in a 2008 re-evalution of their previous studies and data from the 1990's and early 2000's. So it would appear that the publication of the link I provided was studied more recently and came afterwards. Your link seems to be in response to Jenkins initial findings concerning the annual cycle. This last publication also involved different conclusions not addressed in your link. In any case I do not believe the matter is settled yet.
(as of mid 2010)........Purdue researchers Ephraim Fischbach, a professor of physics, and Jere Jenkins, a nuclear engineer, have been gathering for the last four years.
Purdue Newsroom - Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation
Last edited by forrest noble; February 21st, 2013 at 12:25 AM.
And the Norman paper from 2008/2009 analyzed decay data from a 15-year period of data collection. Given that, and the Cooper study of the Cassini RTG, it is greatly premature to declare that there is an effect to be explained. Certainly in answering a question asked in the mainstream section, one must avoid treating reports that are highly preliminary -- and thus perhaps wrong -- with the same certitude as more established knowledge. That's why this forum has separate sections for pseudoscience and new hypotheses. It is frustrating that you regularly perform "data dumps" of random quality and relevance, all in service of your dogmatic beliefs.
Regardless, it is rude and disingenuous of you to have ignored Post #70.
hey what experiments did scientists have have that they made up the many MWI many worlds interpretation?
for e.g. quantum suicide/Schrodinger cat,
given that things happen randomly without a cause, what thought made the theory that the world will split come out from?
things happening randomly without a cause doesn't make the world split into infinity dimensions.... where and why did this idea come from and about?
simplified what i mean: why did the many worlds interpretation came up? some experiment should lead them into thinking dimensions split, right?
It is important to understand that the many worlds interpretation is an interpretation. It is an attempt to "explain" the theory. As I understand it (not much) the idea is that, because quantum mechanics is entirely based on probability, whenever one event happens there is the possibility that something else happened. E.g. either the cat is dead or it is alive. One way of "explaining" why we only see one outcome is that both outcomes happen in different universes.
This fits entirely with the muon decay, because that is also a random unpredictable thing: you could imagine the decay of the muon triggering the death of the cat if it decays before some time and not otherwise.
I suppose this also allows you to maintain the pretence of determinism: you could say that things are predetermined in our universe but different outcomes are predetermined in another universe. But I will leave that sort of nonsense to the philosophers.
There are alternative interpretations, the most famous being the Copenhagen.
Because these are just alternative descriptions of the same theory, there is no experiment that can distinguish them. Which means, as far as I can tell, that their only value is to sell books.
If something return back from parallel world , it creating duplication and because you do not know him he seem random , (and can be from MWI )
i dont get whats you are saying at all sorry nosfim.
@strange, "so the WMI its just a way to explain how different outcomes could happen due to things happening w/o a cause"
right?
and btw, whats the term "things that happen w/o a cause" called?
Don't worry. Nobody does. But his mum loves him
I guess. I don't know if the "without a cause" bit is important or not.@strange, "so the WMI its just a way to explain how different outcomes could happen due to things happening w/o a cause"
right?
Acausal, maybe? (Although the spellcheck doesn't like it! But then it doesn't like "spellcheck" either...)and btw, whats the term "things that happen w/o a cause" called?
Aha, I only know the Bell theorem as it is. :PI think he was referring to Bell's Theorem and the great tutorial link that Strange provided concerning electron pair conditions whereby:That reply didn't make the slightest amount of sense.
Quotes from link below:(parenthesis and bold added)Some electron pairs come out with an instruction set that says "for two of the orientations, I will flash red; for the other orientation, I will flash green" (or vice-versa). For such a pair, the two detectors will give the same answer roughly 5/9 of the time (probability).
Bell's Theorem: Physics....what's the probability that they will flash the same color? There are 9 possible configurations for the detectors, and in 5 of them, the two detectors give the same result. Since we assume the detector positions are set randomly each one of those configurations should be equally likely, so the answer is that they will flash the same color 5/9 of the time.
That still doesn't change my argument though, and that still doesn't make Nosfims answer make any sense.
Most importantly, hidden variables were thought off, to preserve determinism.
But there passage of information and data freedom
Kerling,
Oui, c'est vrai. Longue déterminisme direct et l'éther........Most importantly, hidden variables were thought of to preserve determinism.
Pourquoi est-ce que vous postez en français? La plupart des gens ici ne le comprendra pas.
The reason is because when one says "long live aether and determinism" in English, Spanish, and Arabic, it doesn't sound and resound as good as it does in French
Last edited by forrest noble; February 25th, 2013 at 01:35 PM.
What causes particles to be quantum entangled?
and What causes quantum fluctuations to appear?
Entanglement requires electrons, as an example, to be brought into a type of physical interaction whereby they can become entangled. Present theory does not propose an exact mechanism for entanglement. In the same way present theory proposes no mechanism for quantum fluctuations, AKA virtual photons. Such occurrences can be described by theoretical physics, where verbal logic is generally not involved. To get a better understanding of them see the links below.
Virtual Particles: What are they? | Of Particular Significance
Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited by forrest noble; February 26th, 2013 at 11:11 PM. Reason: added: as an example
Once again, you'd be far better off disregarding Forrest's posts. He truly does not know what he's talking about.Entanglement requires electrons to be brought into a type of physical interaction whereby they can become entangled. Present theory does not propose an exact mechanism for entanglement. In the same way present theory proposes no mechanism for quantum fluctuations, AKA virtual photons. Such occurrences can be described by theoretical physics, where verbal logic is generally not involved.
Entanglement is not limited to electrons, for example. FN's post does not make that clear.
As to FN's constant irrelevant references to "verbal logic" (which is code for "stuff that Forrest doesn't like, doesn't understand"), ignore it; it's just cognitive noise. I'd call it a quantum fluctuation, but it appears too macroscopic for "quantum" to apply.
Quantum fluctuations are not "AKA virtual photons." Quantum fluctuations are actually a consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, combined with a universe that perversely seems to follow the dictum, "What is not disallowed is almost mandatory." As we've already had a discussion of how the HUP describes an essential, fundamental property of our universe, I won't repeat the argument here. Just start with the HUP, then apply the dictum. Seeming violations of conservation laws can occur as long as the HUP is satisfied [1]. So, for "very short" times, for example, particles (not just photons, Forrest) can pop into existence (and then pop out). This random popping in and out is what quantum fluctuations are all about. (And just fyi, these fluctuations are distinct from, e.g., thermal and shot noise.) An interesting speculation is that our universe may have begun as a quantum fluctuation.
[1] I say "seeming" because the rigorous view is that energy, e.g., is actually conserved. More on this later, if you wish.
But for your own good, ignore Forrest's posts. He posts a confounding mix of irrelevancies and errors, always with total confidence.
whats HUP?
It's an abbreviation for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
| « accelleration in circular motion | A smoke test can someone explained what I sore? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
