Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 207
Like Tree37Likes

Thread: Quantum Mechanics: A single atom can be in 2 locations at the same time?

  1. #1 Quantum Mechanics: A single atom can be in 2 locations at the same time? 
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    359
    I picked up a book on Quantum Mechanics by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw called The Quantum Universe. After reading as far into the book as page 9, I soon realised I was well lost after page 1. So Iíve put the book down, for now, and stepped away...

    What I vaguely understand about QM is that itís a lot to do about probabilities and that a single atom can be in more than one place at the same time, simultaneously? (I watched the double spilt experiment on YouTube). So a single atom could be presently floating about in our Solar system and yet also be floating about a million galaxies away, simultaneously? Or so i've read, i think...

    So my 2 question is this.

    How can an atom be in one place at the same time? Is there an easy way to answer this, for laymen?

    And how can an atom be one end of the universe to the other at the same time, where speed of light is limit for travailing.

    Cheers!


    AlifyZ likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    How can an atom be in one place at the same time? Is there an easy way to answer this, for laymen?
    There are varying probabilities that an atom, or other quantum sized particle can be found in different locations. It's not so much it's at more than one place at a time as it isn't definitively in any particular location, until it's observed.


    pineapples likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    359
    Although I’m not fully clear on it, what your saying is making my second question redundant? Because the atom isn't in 2 places.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    No, it's indeterminate. You can think of the atom as having a 80% chance of being here, a 10 % chance of being there, a 2 % chance of being over there and a .000001% chance of being waayyy over there. Until you look at it, (measure it, observe it in some way), it doesn't have a definitive position. Once it's observed, the wave function collapses, and it assumes a 100% chance of being where you're looking at it.

    Weren't there a bunch of posts deleted from this thread?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    No, it's indeterminate. You can think of the atom as having a 80% chance of being here, a 10 % chance of being there, a 2 % chance of being over there and a .000001% chance of being waayyy over there. Until you look at it, (measure it, observe it in some way), it doesn't have a definitive position. Once it's observed, the wave function collapses, and it assumes a 100% chance of being where you're looking at it.

    Weren't there a bunch of posts deleted from this thread?
    Not that I'm aware of...

    I just assumed it was a niche subject that not many physicists had an interest in.

    So from what your saying, I'm thinking an example of a wooden box with a sealed lid containing an unknown object the size of an apple and also a single floating atom. Both inside the box, somewhere.
    Are not both ‘indeterminate’ until someone opens the box and observes the contents of the box? Or is it a case of, the apple is definitely there but the atom may or may not be there, until we obverve?

    At this point I won’t blame you if you try to fob me off with a link on quantum mechanics for dummies!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    The apple is a large collection of atoms, all interacting with each other to form the solid apple. Although in quantum mechanics the term used is 'observed', an observation is not just some sentient being looking at something, but it's an interaction with some other object, be it a photon, or an electron, or another atom. So all the atoms in a macro sized object like an apple have had their positions definitively settled. So the probability of the apple being there is 100%, or so close to it that there's no difference. For the single atom, unless it interacts with something, it's still a probability wave.

    Now please note that this is just one interpretation of what happens at the quantum level (the Copenhagen interpretation). There are other interpretations, such as Feynman's sum over history, which says that the atom actually does take every possible path, with different probabilites for each path, all adding up to 1. (that's simplified, and I may have botched the explanation badly). But the different interpretations all yield the same result.

    Quantum mechanics it counter-intuitive, and counter-logical, and anybody who claims to really understand it is lying.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapples View Post
    I picked up a book on Quantum Mechanics by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw called The Quantum Universe. After reading as far into the book as page 9, I soon realised I was well lost after page 1. So I’ve put the book down, for now, and stepped away...

    What I vaguely understand about QM is that it’s a lot to do about probabilities and that a single atom can be in more than one place at the same time, simultaneously? (I watched the double spilt experiment on YouTube). So a single atom could be presently floating about in our Solar system and yet also be floating about a million galaxies away, simultaneously? Or so i've read, i think...

    So my 2 question is this.

    How can an atom be in one place at the same time? Is there an easy way to answer this, for laymen?

    And how can an atom be one end of the universe to the other at the same time, where speed of light is limit for travailing.

    Cheers!
    "At two different places at the same time," has been proposed before concerning electrons. This has been considered not only a mainstream possibility, but even an observed certainty. As far as atoms as a whole are concerned, some have proposed, via observations, the "two places at one time idea" concerning atoms, as you have explained. This however, as far as I know, is still theory and not an accepted mainstream proposal. Opposing mainstream ideas have been contrary to such ideas offering alternative explanations for such observations/ proposals . The flip side of this question could be two different particles being at the same location at the same time. Those making such proposals, which also has been asserted as being observed reality, believe the Pauli Exclusion Principal does not apply for various reasons. I prefer those proposing that "two places at the same time" idea, or "two different particles at the same location in time," is not possible concerning atoms. If the Pauli Exclusion principle, or other QM laws rules etc, that relate to physical multiplicity assertions validly excluded such possibilities, then we could only argue why matter "sometimes appears" to be at two places at the same time? -- rather than it being a fact I wouldn't want to bet in favor of this idea of atoms being at "two places at the same time" proposal -- but of course in the long run observation will trump any and all proposals regardless of theory or "principles."
    Last edited by forrest noble; June 23rd, 2013 at 11:50 AM. Reason: edited for clarification
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,638
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Those making such proposals believe the Pauli Exclusion Principal does not apply because it does not involve two particles in the same state, but the same particle in two different states. I prefer the Pauli exclusion principle interpretation that asserts that this conclusion,"two places at the same time," idea is not possible. If the Pauli Exclusion interpretation is correct, then we could only argue why matter sometimes appears to be at two places at the same time. ? I wouldn't want to bet in favor of this "two places at one time" proposal -- but of course in the long run observation tumps all proposals.
    Good grief. Yet another horribly mangled non-explanation from you, Forrest. Please refrain from "contributing" until you actually understand the "explanation" you offer. In other words, please learn some (actual) physics.

    The Pauli Exclusion Principle is irrelevant to the OP. The OP has to do with a single atom possibly being in two places. The PEP concerns the prohibition against two (same-type) fermions (e.g., electrons) simultaneously having the same quantum state.
    Last edited by tk421; June 23rd, 2013 at 08:55 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    From what I can tell, wave function collapse is observer dependent in Quantum Mechanics in much the same way as how time dilation is observer dependent in Special Relativity. That is to say that your perception about which wave functions have or have not collapsed may be different from mine in much the same manner as how you may observe a different amount of time dilation from your vantage point than I do.

    Similarly in QM, no wave function ever collapses for you until you observe it. That doesn't mean it won't have collapsed for someone else earlier. Also if they observe it and then tell you, then that may be sufficient to collapse it for you.

    Cats are sentient beings. In Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, I well imagine the cat inside the box never experiences any uncertainty as to whether it is dead or alive. We who are on the outside of the box are the only ones experiencing uncertainty.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    The only thing is that a wavefunction don't collapse differently Ƒor different observers or measurements. All we know is that consciousness(measurement or observation)causes collapse of the wave function! The unanswered question is that how can a super-position that feels So real/existed objectively collapse to jυѕт one reality? What happens to the other possible αη∂ equal realities?(It is in тнιѕ part i become a strong supporter of evert's many world interpretation)
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    All we know is that consciousness(measurement or observation)causes collapse of the wave function!
    Consciousness is not required for the wave-function to collapse - all that is required is an interaction of any sort. A piece of dust can collapse the wave-function, for instance.
    "Ok, brain let's get things straight. You don't like me, and I don't like you, so let's do this so I can go back to killing you with beer." - Homer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,638
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    The only thing is that a wavefunction don't collapse differently Ƒor different observers or measurements. All we know is that consciousness(measurement or observation)causes collapse of the wave function! The unanswered question is that how can a super-position that feels So real/existed objectively collapse to jυѕт one reality? What happens to the other possible αη∂ equal realities?(It is in тнιѕ part i become a strong supporter of evert's many world interpretation)
    As SpeedFreek points out, consciousness is not a requirement (and invoking consciousness as a requirement triggers a cascade of interpretational problems -- is a scintillation counter conscious?). The von Neumann interpretation of a consciousness-triggered wave-function collapse is thus decidedly non-mainstream these days, although it figures prominently in numerous pop-sci treatments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    .....In this pensive setting, he looks back on the events that convinced him that quantum theory has serious problems, a view that would be heresy for a young physicist entering academia today. Penrose’s faith began to waver while he was a graduate student at Cambridge. The crucial moment came during a lecture by Paul Dirac, one of the legendary early thinkers in quantum mechanics. “He was talking about the superposition principle, whereby objects could be in two places at the same time. To illustrate, he broke a piece of chalk in two and then tried to explain why you never saw superpositions in real life. My mind may have wandered briefly, because I never heard his explanation!” Penrose says, laughing. “But when I think about it, I’m not sure it did wander, because it’s not possible to explain why you don’t see objects in two places at once on the basis of present-day quantum mechanics. It’s a big problem. It’s what I’ve worried about ever since.”

    The maddening part of that problem is that the ability of particles to exist in two places at once is not a mere theoretical abstraction. It is a very real aspect of how the subatomic world works, and it has been experimentally confirmed many times over. One of the clearest demonstrations comes from a classic physics setup called the double-slit experiment.
    The above quote comes from an article, link below, whereby Roger Penrose, the well known physicist, contemplates the same problem. How can the same particle/ or-maybe-atoms, be in two places at the same time?

    If an Electron Can Be in Two Places at Once, Why Can't You? | DiscoverMagazine.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    The only thing is that a wavefunction don't collapse differently Ƒor different observers or measurements. All we know is that consciousness(measurement or observation)causes collapse of the wave function! The unanswered question is that how can a super-position that feels So real/existed objectively collapse to jυѕт one reality? What happens to the other possible αη∂ equal realities?(It is in тнιѕ part i become a strong supporter of evert's many world interpretation)
    Yeah. All observers agree as to what it collapsed to. They only may disagree about when it collapsed.

    Schrodinger's Cat knows it's dead (or alive) a long time before we observe that it is dead or alive by opening the box. But after the experiment is over, both we and the cat agree about which state the cat arrived in.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Yea same as winger's friend thought experiment,an expanded schrodinger's cat experiment.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    .....In this pensive setting, he looks back on the events that convinced him that quantum theory has serious problems, a view that would be heresy for a young physicist entering academia today. Penroseís faith began to waver while he was a graduate student at Cambridge. The crucial moment came during a lecture by Paul Dirac, one of the legendary early thinkers in quantum mechanics. ďHe was talking about the superposition principle, whereby objects could be in two places at the same time. To illustrate, he broke a piece of chalk in two and then tried to explain why you never saw superpositions in real life. My mind may have wandered briefly, because I never heard his explanation!Ē Penrose says, laughing. ďBut when I think about it, Iím not sure it did wander, because itís not possible to explain why you donít see objects in two places at once on the basis of present-day quantum mechanics. Itís a big problem. Itís what Iíve worried about ever since.Ē

    The maddening part of that problem is that the ability of particles to exist in two places at once is not a mere theoretical abstraction. It is a very real aspect of how the subatomic world works, and it has been experimentally confirmed many times over. One of the clearest demonstrations comes from a classic physics setup called the double-slit experiment.
    The above quote comes from an article, link below, whereby Roger Penrose, the well known physicist, contemplates the same problem. How can the same particle/ or-maybe-atoms, be in two places at the same time?

    If an Electron Can Be in Two Places at Once, Why Can't You? | DiscoverMagazine.com
    Not quite sure what your point is here. From the whole article, it seems Penrose is speculating about an effect due to gravity that might explain why these quantum effects are only seen on the scales that they are. Or something. It is a rather unclear article, to me at least. I suspect a case of Out-of-Depth-Interviewer syndrome, possibly exacerbated by Out-of-Depth-Reader syndrome.

    Though I don't pretend it has much rigour, I personally have always semi-rationalised things like the 2 slit experiment as thinking that the wavefunction of a QM wave-particle, being a kind of square root of its probability of being at a point in space, explores all possible locations, whereas the wave-particle can only be detected in whole units, i.e. either is there or it is not.

    I expect some physicist may now shoot down my cosy mental picture............
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    .....In this pensive setting, he looks back on the events that convinced him that quantum theory has serious problems, a view that would be heresy for a young physicist entering academia today. Penrose’s faith began to waver while he was a graduate student at Cambridge. The crucial moment came during a lecture by Paul Dirac, one of the legendary early thinkers in quantum mechanics. “He was talking about the superposition principle, whereby objects could be in two places at the same time. To illustrate, he broke a piece of chalk in two and then tried to explain why you never saw superpositions in real life. My mind may have wandered briefly, because I never heard his explanation!” Penrose says, laughing. “But when I think about it, I’m not sure it did wander, because it’s not possible to explain why you don’t see objects in two places at once on the basis of present-day quantum mechanics. It’s a big problem. It’s what I’ve worried about ever since.”

    The maddening part of that problem is that the ability of particles to exist in two places at once is not a mere theoretical abstraction. It is a very real aspect of how the subatomic world works, and it has been experimentally confirmed many times over. One of the clearest demonstrations comes from a classic physics setup called the double-slit experiment.
    The above quote comes from an article, link below, whereby Roger Penrose, the well known physicist, contemplates the same problem. How can the same particle/ or-maybe-atoms, be in two places at the same time?

    If an Electron Can Be in Two Places at Once, Why Can't You? | DiscoverMagazine.com
    Not quite sure what your point is here. From the whole article, it seems Penrose is speculating about an effect due to gravity that might explain why these quantum effects are only seen on the scales that they are. Or something. It is a rather unclear article, to me at least. I suspect a case of Out-of-Depth-Interviewer syndrome, possibly exacerbated by Out-of-Depth-Reader syndrome .

    Though I don't pretend it has much rigour, I personally have always semi-rationalised things like the 2 slit experiment as thinking that the wavefunction of a QM wave-particle, being a kind of square root of its probability of being at a point in space, explores all possible locations, whereas the wave-particle can only be detected in whole units, i.e. either is there or it is not.

    I expect some physicist may now shoot down my cosy mental picture............
    Yes, I think my point is/was that all are baffled by QM interpretations including highly regarded mainstream physicists like Penrose. Not the math of it, because it is simply a mathematical system that is not generally being questioned or challenged.

    What is being challenged is the meaning and implications of QT via very different mainstream interpretations of it -- assertions such as the same particle being in two different places at the same time, and that two different particles could be at the same place at the same time, for instance.

    In this month's Scientific American, (June 2013) there is a good article about the four non-consistent interpretations of Quantum Theory, one of the less diplomatic theorists is quoted concerning this article, and made this statement:

    Asserting that Schrodinger's cat is truly both alive and dead (at the same time) is an absurdity.
    (parenthesis added)
    -- an absurdity based upon most interpretations of Quantum Theory. He went on to say that such beliefs are:

    A megalomaniac's delusion that one's personal state of mind makes the world come into being.
    Basically the article is emphasizing some asserted problems with most present interpretations of quantum mechanics, and pointing to the advantages of this new model, which is the subject of the article. According to the article this "new" version of QM was started by a team of researches going back to 2001. This version of QM and Theory is called Quantum Bayesianism, QBism for short. Beyesianism refers to the statistical system being used, however it is just the re-organization and interpretations of the math being used that is different; not the answers themselves, just the meanings of the mathematical conclusions.

    According to the article there are four present main interpretations of Quantum Theory, not including this new one being discussed, and that all interpretations are generally very different from each other which this article discusses. The main point of the article is the discussion of this "new" not-so-well-known now-considered-mainstream QM version. This new version is based upon the ideas that QM is primarily just a statistical system of probabilities. The discussion is that this new model may be "The fix for Quantum Absurdities." The title of the Article is Quantum Weirdness? "It's all in your mind." The title heading is:

    A New version of Quantum Theory sweeps away the bizarre paradoxes of the microscopic world. The cost? Quantum information only exists in your imagination.
    --- instead they are just the classifications of the observer as he makes his observations and calculations.

    As it applies to the subject topic of this thread, it may not only be the interpretations involved in Quantum Theory itself, but also it could be the misinterpretations and misunderstandings of the actual experiments and observations themselves. Such concluded results and facts are based upon both the experiment and the perspectives used to propose conclusions, such as whether there is any validity to the assertion that the same particle can be at two different places at the same time. At least that is my opinion of their discussion concerning "quantum absurdities" as they relate to problems with present-day Quantum Theory. When you get a chance pick up a copy. Scientific American aways has interesting material in it
    Last edited by forrest noble; June 25th, 2013 at 12:23 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I think removing Quantum Mechanics' absurdities would be the same as removing Special Relativity's absurdities. If those absurdities are true, then all you're doing is taking a step backward.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1
    the answer was in black and white
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I think removing Quantum Mechanics' absurdities would be the same as removing Special Relativity's absurdities. If those absurdities are true, then all you're doing is taking a step backward.
    I expect Special and General relativity will remain under theoretical fire for the foreseeable future. Both theories propose no preferred background field, no preferred reference frame. SR requires that there is no preferred reference frame as a background field. But since both the proposed hypothetical fields of dark matter and the Higgs field are particulate in nature, a particulate background field of some kind may be a certainty, contrary to both SR and GR. I don't think anything would be lost if theory were changed. The exact calculations made using the Lorentz aether model would be the same as those of SR calculations. The curved space proposal of General Relativity also has not been observed. If the theoretical basis of GR were wrong, a new theoretical basis could also take its place and the math could remain the same, or be changed according to new observations and theory. I think it would be far better if all sciences eventually had a totally logical basis whereby someday an average person could make sense of all general science principles -- if in fact all such complexities today were only fabricated to compensate for lack of understanding.

    From this perspective I have always admired Rutherford's quote when he said: "if you cannot explain your physics to a barmaid, then it is probably not very good physics."
    Last edited by forrest noble; June 25th, 2013 at 12:30 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Yes, I think my point is/was that all are baffled by QM interpretations including highly regarded mainstream physicists like Penrose. Not the math of it, because it is simply a mathematical system that is not generally being questioned or challenged.

    What is being challenged is the meaning and implications of QT via very different mainstream interpretations of it -- assertions such as the same particle being in two different places at the same time, and that two different particles could be at the same place at the same time, for instance.

    In this month's Scientific American, (June 2013) there is a good article about the four non-consistent interpretations of Quantum Theory, one of the less diplomatic theorists is quoted concerning this article, and made this statement:

    Asserting that Schrodinger's cat is truly both alive and dead (at the same time) is an absurdity.
    (parenthesis added)
    -- an absurdity based upon most interpretations of Quantum Theory. He went on to say that such beliefs are:

    A megalomaniac's delusion that one's personal state of mind makes the world come into being.
    Basically the article is emphasizing some asserted problems with most present interpretations of quantum mechanics, and pointing to the advantages of this new model, which is the subject of the article. According to the article this "new" version of QM was started by a team of researches going back to 2001. This version of QM and Theory is called Quantum Bayesianism, QBism for short. Beyesianism refers to the statistical system being used, however it is just the re-organization and interpretations of the math being used that is different; not the answers themselves, just the meanings of the mathematical conclusions.

    According to the article there are four present main interpretations of Quantum Theory, not including this new one being discussed, and that all interpretations are generally very different from each other which this article discusses. The main point of the article is the discussion of this "new" not-so-well-known now-considered-mainstream QM version. This new version is based upon the ideas that QM is primarily just a statistical system of probabilities. The discussion is that this new model may be "The fix for Quantum Absurdities." The title of the Article is Quantum Weirdness? "It's all in your mind." The title heading is:

    A New version of Quantum Theory sweeps away the bizarre paradoxes of the microscopic world. The cost? Quantum information only exists in your imagination.
    --- instead they are just the classifications of the observer as he makes his observations and calculations.

    As it applies to the subject topic of this thread, it may not only be the interpretations involved in Quantum Theory itself, but also it could be the misinterpretations and misunderstandings of the actual experiments and observations themselves. Such concluded results and facts are based upon both the experiment and the perspectives used to propose conclusions, such as whether there is any validity to the assertion that the same particle can be at two different places at the same time. At least that is my opinion of their discussion concerning "quantum absurdities" as they relate to problems with present-day Quantum Theory. When you get a chance pick up a copy. Scientific American aways has interesting material in it
    Thanks, some interesting speculations. It seems to me that some of the trouble may be due to overemphasising the "particle" aspect of the wave-particle duality. If one keeps the idea of "√(probability) waves" firmly in mind throughout, one can more easily avoid going nuts.

    But, pace your other post re Rutherford's barmaid quotation, to me the attraction of QM is its sense of counterintuitive mystery. I'll look out for the June edition of Sci. Am. - thanks for the tip.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I think removing Quantum Mechanics' absurdities would be the same as removing Special Relativity's absurdities. If those absurdities are true, then all you're doing is taking a step backward.
    I expect Special and General relativity will remain under theoretical fire for the foreseeable future. Both theories propose no preferred background field, no preferred reference frame. SR requires that that there is no preferred reference frame as a background field. But since both the proposed hypothetical fields of dark matter and the Higgs field are particulate in nature, a particulate background field of some kind may be a certainty, contrary to both SR and GR. I don't think anything would be lost if theory were changed. The exact calculations made using the Lorentz aether model would be the same as those of SR calculations. The curved space proposal of General Relativity also has not been observed. If the theoretical basis of GR were wrong, a new theoretical basis could also take its place and the math could remain the same, or be changed according to new observations and theory. I think it would be far better if all sciences eventually had a totally logical basis whereby someday an average person could make sense of all general science principles -- if in fact all such complexities today were only fabricated to compensate for lack of understanding.

    From this perspective I have always admired Rutherford's quote when he said: "if you cannot explain your physics to a barmaid, then it is probably not very good physics."
    Yeah. A lot of the complexity is just from silly presentation. There's only one important formula in Special Relativity, which is . Most of the other formulas are just the ordinary Newtonian expression multiplied or divided by that term.

    For General Relativity, I think we get almost all of our useful (and testable) information from Schwartzchild's formula . But I can't say that for sure. I've never tried applying it to a spinning object, or any other kind of interesting situations. Maybe the gravity given off by those objects has measurable properties which someone has been able to confirm by observation?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,638
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    For General Relativity, I think we get almost all of our useful (and testable) information from Schwartzchild's formula . But I can't say that for sure. I've never tried applying it to a spinning object, or any other kind of interesting situations. Maybe the gravity given off by those objects has measurable properties which someone has been able to confirm by observation?
    Gravity isn't "given off" by objects in GR.

    Please, kojax, study the subjects on which you offer such strong opinions. As DrRocket has observed in the past, folks here have to "clean up" a lot after you to avoid misinforming readers of threads in which you participate. It's ok not to be omniscient, but one should at least take responsibility for knowing what they know, and avoid making assertions about things that they don't know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,607
    Actually, tk421, you might have made that observation about virtually all responses to the OP.

    Shame on you all!

    Let's see......

    First notice in QM, the wave function is considered as an element in an Hilbert space of square integrable functions.

    As such it is a vector, and QMers write for this guy.

    Now as a vector, it is entitled to be operated on by - doh - an operator, in this case it is called a Hamiltonian operator .

    Now any operator acting on a vector is in turn entitled to an eigenvalue - in this case a Real number. One writes

    where is set of Real number - eigenvalues for this operator - called the spectrum of the operator, which may be discrete (have "gaps" between elements) or continuous (otherwise)

    Now the operator is by definition the sum of a kenetic energy term and a potential energy term , say (this is not standard notation!) - these are both operators in their own right.

    It was first suggested by Count Louis de Broglie in the 1920' that to any subatomic particle, even one with mass one can associate a wave fnction (though he didn't say how!)

    Now we know we can always relate kinetic energy of a massive particle to momentum by

    Likewise we now that potential energy has something to do with position - just as it has in a gravitational field (though of course no gravity is acting here).

    So, assuming that knowledge of either or has no effect on the spectrum of , we may say that

    knowing exactly by measurement, means that may be almost anything, and likewise the other way around.

    Now notice that, as a function maps any Real number to the interval - that's what it means to be a wave function

    It was Max Born (I believe) who suggested that the absolute square of the range of (i.e. ) could be interpreted as the probability of a certain eigenvalue for for position with fixed momentum, and likewise for momentum with fixed position.

    Does this mean a subatomic particle can ne in 2 places at once?

    You tell me!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist View Post
    Actually, tk421, you might have made that observation about virtually all responses to the OP.

    Shame on you all!

    Let's see......

    First notice in QM, the wave function is considered as an element in an Hilbert space of square integrable functions.

    As such it is a vector, and QMers write for this guy.

    Now as a vector, it is entitled to be operated on by - doh - an operator, in this case it is called a Hamiltonian operator .

    Now any operator acting on a vector is in turn entitled to an eigenvalue - in this case a Real number. One writes

    where is set of Real number - eigenvalues for this operator - called the spectrum of the operator, which may be discrete (have "gaps" between elements) or continuous (otherwise)

    Now the operator is by definition the sum of a kenetic energy term and a potential energy term , say (this is not standard notation!) - these are both operators in their own right.

    It was first suggested by Count Louis de Broglie in the 1920' that to any subatomic particle, even one with mass one can associate a wave fnction (though he didn't say how!)

    Now we know we can always relate kinetic energy of a massive particle to momentum by

    Likewise we now that potential energy has something to do with position - just as it has in a gravitational field (though of course no gravity is acting here).

    So, assuming that knowledge of either or has no effect on the spectrum of , we may say that

    knowing exactly by measurement, means that may be almost anything, and likewise the other way around.

    Now notice that, as a function maps any Real number to the interval - that's what it means to be a wave function

    It was Max Born (I believe) who suggested that the absolute square of the range of (i.e. ) could be interpreted as the probability of a certain eigenvalue for for position with fixed momentum, and likewise for momentum with fixed position.

    Does this mean a subatomic particle can ne in 2 places at once?

    You tell me!!
    Er, excuse me if this is being thick, but doesn't one have to get into the detail of the form of the function ψ, under certain circumstances (and thus the form of its mod squared), to encounter the phenomenon of "2 places at once"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    exchemist,

    Thanks, some interesting speculations. It seems to me that some of the trouble may be due to overemphasising the "particle" aspect of the wave-particle duality. ..............................
    Yes, I think the wave aspect of EM radiation and matter particles is often neglected concerning attempts to logically interpret quantum events.

    But, pace your other post re Rutherford's barmaid quotation, to me the attraction of QM is its sense of counterintuitive mystery. I'll look out for the June edition of Sci. Am. - thanks for the tip.
    The advantage of counter-intuitive mysteries might be that reality could someday be "bent" into even more kinds of shapes, devices, and realities for man's purposes, that might now seem fantastic, illogical, or even impossible. The disadvantage of lapses in logic, I think, is that if logic cannot be used or trusted in parts of science then one may not ever know which tree Schroedinger's cat ran up, whether the cat was already dead, or if there really ever was a cat in the first place. We could spend much of our time and resources just barking up the wrong tree, or maybe even barking at a non-existent cat in any tree. (my attempt at humor)
    Last edited by forrest noble; June 25th, 2013 at 11:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    For General Relativity, I think we get almost all of our useful (and testable) information from Schwartzchild's formula . But I can't say that for sure.
    That only applies to the very limited special case of a gravity outside a non-rotating, uncharged, unchanging spherical mass.

    There are far more interesting solutions to Einstein's equations, such as the Friedmann–LemaÓtre–Robertson–Walker metric.

    I've never tried applying it to a spinning object, or any other kind of interesting situations. Maybe the gravity given off by those objects has measurable properties which someone has been able to confirm by observation?
    A rotating mass has extra effects such as Lense-Thirring precession, which has been measured in the case of the Earth.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    It is never proved that a single atom can be at 2 locations at same time.
    Its just for calculation method adopted by Quantum that is working best upto now
    In model of Quantum Mechanics "Observation" has extra ordinary importance
    Model is possible best suited
    But these are "Interpretations of quantum physics " which are subjective upto some level
    These are just meanings we give to a model of quantum physics that is working best and no one
    has doubt of this model

    Not just atom any thing even smaller than atom cannot be at two place at same point of time
    It is logical impossible
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    It is logical impossible
    If there is one thing which can definitively be said about quantum mechanics, it's that logic doesn't apply.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Logic is nothing more than to judge truth & reality
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Logic is nothing more than to judge truth & reality
    Reality operates very differently on scales other than the low-energy, slow-moving maco sized world we are used to.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    It is never proved that a single atom can be at 2 locations at same time.
    Its just for calculation method adopted by Quantum that is working best upto now
    In model of Quantum Mechanics "Observation" has extra ordinary importance
    Model is possible best suited
    But these are "Interpretations of quantum physics " which are subjective upto some level
    These are just meanings we give to a model of quantum physics that is working best and no one
    has doubt of this model

    Not just atom any thing even smaller than atom cannot be at two place at same point of time
    It is logical impossible
    Rav, I don't think QM actually says or suggests this. The way I would look at it is that QM says the wave-particle spends a portion of its time in both locations, not that it can be simultaneously detected at both. Chemists are faced with this sort of situation constantly, in simple examples such as the p-orbital of an atom, which has a lobe of +ve phase on one side of the atomic nucleus and one of -ve phase on the other, separated by a nodal plane through the nucleus. So the electron can "be" on either side of the nucleus without ever - apparently - passing through the middle to get from one to the other. Impossible for a particle - but quite natural for a standing wave pattern of course.

    In examples such as the double slit experiment it is plain that a particle can only be detected at one place at a given time, in line with logic as you see it. It is the √(probability) "wave" that is in both places at once, though the physical detection is not. To me, the "wave" is a part of the reality fully equal to that of the "particle" that is seen in physical detection. It is far more than a mere aid to calculation.
    Last edited by exchemist; June 26th, 2013 at 03:41 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Just to be pedantic, quantum mechanics says very little (or nothing) about the measurable state (i.e. where is the particle) between measurements. Questions about waveform collapse and the like are to do with the metaphysics around qm and its interpretation and not with the theory itself. Or in the words of David Mermin, shut-up and calculate.
    SpeedFreek likes this.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat View Post
    Just to be pedantic, quantum mechanics says very little (or nothing) about the measurable state (i.e. where is the particle) between measurements. Questions about waveform collapse and the like are to do with the metaphysics around qm and its interpretation and not with the theory itself. Or in the words of David Mermin, shut-up and calculate.
    Yeah but that Gradgrindian approach rather misses the point, surely, which is that the metaphysical speculations about it are half the fun! It is tantamount to saying "stop asking questions".

    It seems to me we would be dull - and, dare I say it, unscientific - beings if we were to force ourselves to stop questioning how to picture what we calculate or observe. Some scientists strike me as unduly afraid of uncertainty whereas, if there is one lesson above all from QM, it must be that uncertainty is a condition we really are stuck with. Personally I like this: it feels entirely intuitive, reasonable and consistent with my experience of life!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Yeah but that Gradgrindian approach rather misses the point, surely, which is that the metaphysical speculations about it are half the fun! It is tantamount to saying "stop asking questions".
    No I fully agree but one must realise that you have stepped beyond the realm of the subject in question when you ask how does the model relate to the real world and into a completely foreign land for most scientists. Its also important to keep your wits about you, for example no one claims that a violin note is created as the superposition of an infinite orchestra of pure single tone violins even though the mathematics between fourier series analysis for sound and path integrals for qm is quite similar. In fact if I started writing popular music books to that effect, I would hope people would call me nuts!

    It seems to me we would be dull - and, dare I say it, unscientific - beings if we were to force ourselves to stop questioning how to picture what we calculate or observe.
    The difference is that this area is typically not science.

    Some scientists strike me as unduly afraid of uncertainty whereas, if there is one lesson above all from QM, it must be that uncertainty is a condition we really are stuck with. Personally I like this: it feels entirely intuitive, reasonable and consistent with my experience of life!
    That I must take exception too, there is nothing quite as uncertain as trying to do research - you need to have a certain macabre enthusiasm for the unknown to even venture out into the dark waters of original scientific research.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Yeah but that Gradgrindian approach rather misses the point, surely, which is that the metaphysical speculations about it are half the fun! It is tantamount to saying "stop asking questions".
    No I fully agree but one must realise that you have stepped beyond the realm of the subject in question when you ask how does the model relate to the real world and into a completely foreign land for most scientists. Its also important to keep your wits about you, for example no one claims that a violin note is created as the superposition of an infinite orchestra of pure single tone violins even though the mathematics between fourier series analysis for sound and path integrals for qm is quite similar. In fact if I started writing popular music books to that effect, I would hope people would call me nuts!

    It seems to me we would be dull - and, dare I say it, unscientific - beings if we were to force ourselves to stop questioning how to picture what we calculate or observe.
    The difference is that this area is typically not science.

    Some scientists strike me as unduly afraid of uncertainty whereas, if there is one lesson above all from QM, it must be that uncertainty is a condition we really are stuck with. Personally I like this: it feels entirely intuitive, reasonable and consistent with my experience of life!
    That I must take exception too, there is nothing quite as uncertain as trying to do research - you need to have a certain macabre enthusiasm for the unknown to even venture out into the dark waters of original scientific research.
    Fair enough - I didn't mean you, by the way, just the bloke you were quoting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Originally Posted by river_rat
    Just to be pedantic, quantum mechanics says very little (or nothing) about the measurable state (i.e. where is the particle) between measurements. Questions about waveform collapse and the like are to do with the metaphysics around qm and its interpretation and not with the theory itself. Or in the words of David Mermin, shut-up and calculate.
    (bold added)

    I generally agree with you. But I don't think all such questions (waveform collapse) in quantum physics are necessarily metaphysical, or that all such answers are necessarily metaphysical, but think that much of QM is metaphysical by definition. Yes, the wave collapse idea would seem metaphysical because the wave itself is asserted to be non-physical. My take on questioning what is seen in the quantum realm is that such questioning is part of the scientific method to speculate and hypothesize as to causes, effects, and reasoning for what is observed, whether in the quantum world or otherwise. I think only when one proposes something non-physical, such as EM and particle waves, for instance, or a singular truth to ones conclusions, then metaphysics might be involved. This is the Wiki definition/ explanation of metaphysics that I am using.

    The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility.
    Metaphysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Metaphysics, being a part of philosophy, deals with perspectives. You can describe the same thing accurately from multiple perspectives, using different points of view. Like all fields of study, wrong conclusions can be made in metaphysics as well, but there also is more than one correct way to describe reality from differing points of view. As to which point of view might be correct might not even be a valid question. There often is no singular correct truth or point of view since many entirely valid but differing points of view concerning the organization of a single subject in science or otherwise, can be derived.

    As to whether a particle, atom, etc. can be at two different places at one time, could depend upon how one defines a particle. Our theories say that a particle has a physical existence. This requires a place and time for that existence and an extension of space to physically occupy. Our theories say that matter also has a wave character to it, and that the wave is not physical. If not physical, then it does not have to exist in one place or time. If so, then as to what the wave is would seem to be a metaphysical question. If a light wave were physical, for instance, then in the double slit experiment light waves could go through both slits, interfere with themselves showing the interference pattern observed as in classical wave theory. Upon the waves detection when hitting a detection screen a physical wave could collapse indicating a single point of energy concentration. If detected when going through a slit, a physical wave could also collapse maybe becoming a particulate (photon) in transit. This might simply explain the double slit experiment for light if waves were physically real. For particles, the same effect might result if particle waves were physical waves (maybe created by the particle), with waves going through both slits and interfering with themselves and with the particle itself which would be going through only one slit and then the particle being somewhat directed by its own waves interference pattern when going through both slits. This might show the observed wave pattern as they direct the particles to the detection screen -- if waves were physical, which they are not according to mainstream theory.

    Continuing with the same particle being at two different places at the same time, it would seem that a physical particle having both substance and extension, might only be able to exist in one place at one time, but we know that particles also consist of waves of some kind, as in the above example. Are these particles producing these waves? present theory says no -- accordingly the waves co-exist with the particle. If these waves were physical, then a fraction of the particle as a whole could be spread out as a wave for some distance, and we might say that the particle's extension might extend far more than one particle width away from the physical central entity, at any given time. Maybe this could be interpreted as a particle being at two places at one time. But if these waves are not physical, as in present theory, then what are they? This would seem to apply to electron-particle theory when physically theorized to be solely point particles (which is a non-physical existence having no extension). If neither an electron's body or its wave have a physical existence then what are they? Today's theoretical answers might best be described as metaphysical.

    Because of the theorized non-physical nature of waves when included in a particle's description, the question of whether a particle as a whole could be at two places at one time would also seem to fall into the realm of metaphysics. I think if physical waves ever again becomes mainstream theory then, right or wrong, that theory might not need to include, what today may be perceived to be, metaphysics. Most would probably agree that metaphysics or not, the best theory is the one that most accurately describes all experiments and observations to date, including predictions. In Quantum Theory there are now four or five different well-known mainstream theoretical foundations to choose from with maybe no leading candidates, and probably a great many more possibilities formally theorized or not, .
    Last edited by forrest noble; June 30th, 2013 at 01:30 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post

    Rav, I don't think QM actually says or suggests this. The way I would look at it is that QM says the wave-particle spends a portion of its time in both locations, not that it can be simultaneously detected at both.

    .
    Completely agree and you touched the point .
    But physical detection is core of reality. If it cannot be detected physically at both places then real probability cannot exist.
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    If it cannot be detected physically at both places then real probability cannot exist.
    The probability exists. If I roll a dice, I will only get (detect) one number. But there is still the probability, before "detection", of getting a 1 or a 6. Only one can actually occur.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    The probability exists. If I roll a dice, I will only get (detect) one number. But there is still the probability, before "detection", of getting a 1 or a 6. Only one can actually occur.
    Possibly we can predict probability of sides because we have some information/knowledge about working of dice.
    If we did not have any information /experience of working of dice, we can predict probability of dice even more inferior
    & We do not give complete probability to a side because we do not have enough information
    Probability arises due to information we have , but it does not reach to 100% due to our knowledge is incomplete
    i.e. real probability does not exist for all sides of dice, only once side has probability at a time
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapples View Post
    Is there an easy way to answer this, for laymen?
    Hmmm. Tricky. I can explain it, but I'm not sure I can simplify it enough for the laymen, but I'll try. I'm an avid supporter of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics which regards the true reality as being not just the space and time that we see, but includes all the alternative possibilities that could've occurred but weren't seen to occur. This extended reality is known as the multiverse. Thus, everything in the observed reality can be considered as being in superposition with all their alternative possibilities in other parts of the multiverse. Thus, objects being in many places at once is the norm rather than a peculiarity. However, for macroscopic objects, the alternative versions can't detect each other because they are (and this is where it gets particularly tricky) at right angles as waveforms and therefore no interference pattern can result. But for microscopic objects, the superposition between the alternative versions actually exist in the one macroscopic reality as evidenced by the interference pattern in the double-slit experiment. I hope this helps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    This extended reality is known as the multiverse.
    That is but one type of a multiverse. The term is multiverse is more widely defined though. See Multiverse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    E.g. there is one kind of multiverse in which there is only one universe in which there are many regions having different laws of physics or different physical constants. It's a shame that one term is used to describe different things. It can make things confusing sometime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by PhyMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    This extended reality is known as the multiverse.
    That is but one type of a multiverse. The term is multiverse is more widely defined though. See Multiverse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    E.g. there is one kind of multiverse in which there is only one universe in which there are many regions having different laws of physics or different physical constants. It's a shame that one term is used to describe different things. It can make things confusing sometime.
    You are correct in saying that there are different kinds of multiverses (or multiple universes). But, that one kind, a configuration space, is the only kind I regard as worthy of consideration. However, my omission of the "quantum" qualifier was deliberate. My problem in attempting to answer the question was the avoidance of technical jargon (such as "the entanglement between each of the possible states of the macroscopic measuring device and each eigenstate component of the microscopic quantum state" as to why the observer sees only one outcome, even though everything is in quantum superposition).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Multiverse is one way to make sense of it. That's where hypothesis formation starts. We have to try and make sense of what we're seeing, and then once we've got a model figured out, we have to test it and see if it applies in all situations where it ought to.

    My way of dealing with QM's weirdness is to constantly remind myself the rules of QM are the foundation rules. All macroscopic stuff is caused by QM. Therefore QM has no obligation to obey macroscopic stuff's logic. Only macroscopic stuff has an obligation to obey QM.

    In other words: of all sciences, QM uniquely has the right to defy common sense. It's our common sense that is wrong.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Multiverse is one way to make sense of it. That's where hypothesis formation starts. We have to try and make sense of what we're seeing, and then once we've got a model figured out, we have to test it and see if it applies in all situations where it ought to.

    My way of dealing with QM's weirdness is to constantly remind myself the rules of QM are the foundation rules. All macroscopic stuff is caused by QM. Therefore QM has no obligation to obey macroscopic stuff's logic. Only macroscopic stuff has an obligation to obey QM.

    In other words: of all sciences, QM uniquely has the right to defy common sense. It's our common sense that is wrong.
    Meaningless
    Truth & Real is science
    Science without logic is not science
    In other word logic is way to know truth i.e. science
    You cannot separate them
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Science without logic is not science
    In other word logic is way to know truth i.e. science
    You cannot separate them
    Incorrect. Logic is based on our experiences and perceptions in a limited, low-energy, large, slow-moving subset of physical reality. It doesn't necessarily apply outside the domain it was developed in.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Multiverse is one way to make sense of it. That's where hypothesis formation starts. We have to try and make sense of what we're seeing, and then once we've got a model figured out, we have to test it and see if it applies in all situations where it ought to.

    In http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328.pdf, the authors propose a test for the reality of the quantum state, and mathematically demonstrate that a purely statistical interpretation violates the formalism of quantum mechanics. A real quantum state means that components of the quantum state which are not observed upon measurement actually exist, and represents a confirmation of the existence of the quantum multiverse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Science without logic is not science
    In other word logic is way to know truth i.e. science
    You cannot separate them
    Incorrect. Logic is based on our experiences and perceptions in a limited, low-energy, large, slow-moving subset of physical reality. It doesn't necessarily apply outside the domain it was developed in.
    What logic (available logic )we have that depends on our experience
    Similarly what observations, predictions, results of experiments etc we have depends on our experience
    Real logic no matter we have or outside the domain as you said matches the reality
    That may be in touch of us or outside our teach depends on our physical limits
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Similarly what observations, predictions, results of experiments etc we have depends on our experience
    I'd say what observations, predictions, and results of experiments we have depends on the laws of physics, regardless of our experience.

    Real logic
    Is a human construct.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post

    I'd say what observations, predictions, and results of experiments we have depends on the laws of physics, regardless of our experience.

    Real logic
    Is a human construct.
    It is not necessary our predictions matches the law of physics
    All these depends on our "Observation " which is how much accurate is a technical subject
    Every law of physics is based on logic
    You cannot make any law illogical
    It is other matter ,we are able to find that logic technically or not
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,657
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    It is not necessary our predictions matches the law of physics
    Of course not: our predictions could be wrong.

    Every law of physics is based on logic
    No they aren't - they're based on reality.

    You cannot make any law illogical
    A physical law will correspond to reality - there is no requirement for it to be logical.

    It is other matter ,we are able to find that logic technically or not
    What?

    You persist in thinking reality has to conform to your preconceptions.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    It is not necessary our predictions matches the law of physics
    Of course not: our predictions could be wrong.

    Every law of physics is based on logic
    No they aren't - they're based on reality.

    You cannot make any law illogical
    A physical law will correspond to reality - there is no requirement for it to be logical.

    It is other matter ,we are able to find that logic technically or not
    What?

    You persist in thinking reality has to conform to your preconceptions.
    If there is any law there is logic
    Reality itself is logical
    Every question has a answer no matter we are able to know or not
    Reality cannot be illogical
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,657
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    If there is any law there is logic
    Reality itself is logical
    Every question has a answer no matter we are able to know or not
    Reality cannot be illogical
    So you're going to stick with your (incorrect) version of things.
    Okay.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    If you think there may be no logic behind an event
    means if there is no logic
    We have no need to find things behind an event that is illogical

    Great
    Science does not need to find answer of some question as no answer present in nature

    Greater
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Every law of physics is based on logic
    This statement shows that you don't know physics.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    @Alexg why are saying I know Physics or not
    Say on matter what I expressed
    Say I am wrong and meaningless
    My simple point is that there are enough justification for an event in nature
    Every-output has justification(it is other thing how much we are able/unable to know it)
    No output can be illogical
    Any thing that happens in Nature has "How it happened"
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    No output can be illogical
    Quantum mechanics shows you wrong.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    If there is any law there is logic. Reality itself is logical. Every question has a answer ...... (whether) we are able to know (it) or not;
    Reality cannot be illogical
    (parenthesis and bold added)

    I too believe that your statements here are valid. But unfortunately these ideas are no longer part of mainstream thinking or theory, especially in Theory. Therefore in this mainstream forum one cannot put forth arguments that do not exist today in mainstream thinking. In Quantum Theory maybe the closest thing to logic might be the version called Quantum Bayesianism, QBism, which I discussed in posting #18 above.
    Last edited by forrest noble; July 1st, 2013 at 04:48 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    How can everything appear logical when God does not only play dice but throws some where we cannot find them!
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    How can everything appear logical when God does not only play dice but throws some where we cannot find them!
    God cannot play dice, first of all, if "he" does not exist. It was Einstein who said God does not play dice, of course that was his belief. Einstein's idea of course was that he believed that Quantum Theory, that proposed that things can happen by chance without cause, was invalid theory. The debate still continues today.

    Even worse might be playing dice with god for money. You win a few throws, god tells you, but in a few hours god tells you that you lost the game and takes all your paycheck. You complain to him that you did not see any of the dice roles, and god says that the dice are real but you cannot see them because they relate to a non-physical wave collapse and they therefore cannot be physically seen, but in fact they are real. You shake your head. Next time you look for a better dice game for your paycheck, where the game is not rigged and the dice are not loaded
    Last edited by forrest noble; July 1st, 2013 at 09:27 PM.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1
    I am not sure about dice but I hear he is an excellent Chess Player :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,657
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    You complain to him that you did not see any of the dice roles
    Intriguing use of the wrong word.
    What role do dice play in the universe...?

    The word is "roll". Buy a dictionary.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Munro View Post
    I am not sure about dice but I hear he is an excellent Chess Player :-)
    You're thinking of Death.
    (But he loses at Twister and Battleship).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    You complain to him that you did not see any of the dice roles
    Intriguing use of the wrong word.
    What role do dice play in the universe...?

    The word is "roll". Buy a dictionary.
    Spell check did not catch it. That might even make my play on words funnier, if it had humor in the first place. Man complains to god that he does not roll dice/ play dice properly. God tells man that the role of dice in the world via the probability of its rolls, is a good analogy of the mechanics of the world as a whole, it's just that man cannot understand it being a mortal. Man complains about the double talk and walks away -- hence Quantum Mechanics.
    Last edited by forrest noble; July 1st, 2013 at 08:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,657
    Spell check checks (and this may surprise you) spelling, not correctly-spelt words used inadvertently.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    it is not because we complain but because we don't have the required mathematical formulation to understand too much. and thats not because we are mortals but because we are still working our way through!
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    it is not because we complain but because we don't have the required mathematical formulation to understand too much. and thats not because we are mortals but because we are still working our way through!
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    it is not because we complain but because we don't have the required mathematical formulation to understand too much. and that's not because we are mortals but because we are still working our way through!
    It's not the math that we are missing. I think we are at, or close to, the highest possible level that we can achieve for the math of Quantum Mechanics without acquiring more fundamental knowledge about the quantum world, if there are in-fact still unknown aspects to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    And you think our logical reasoning is incomplete?
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    And you think our logical reasoning is incomplete?
    No, I think Quantum Bayesianism may be as close to logic or reasoning as they are going to get in the foreseeable future. There are now also four other mainstream quantum theoretical choices to choose from, named above. What I think they are still missing is additional knowledge. For instance if there is dark matter or a Higgs Field, some other kind of physical field(s), or dark energy, the Zero Point Field, etc. -- we are missing the knowledge how these entities effect the quantum world. Additional knowledge gained from future experiments, for instance, could change our understandings and therefore formulations relating to particle measurements and interactions in the Quantum World.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    How can everything appear logical when God does not only play dice but throws some where we cannot find them!
    God cannot play dice, first of all, if "he" does not exist. It was Einstein who said God does not play dice, of course that was his belief. Einstein's idea of course was that he believed that Quantum Theory, that proposed that things can happen by chance without cause, was invalid theory. The debate still continues today.

    Even worse might be playing dice with god for money. You win a few throws, god tells you, but in a few hours god tells you that you lost the game and takes all your paycheck. You complain to him that you did not see any of the dice roles, and god says that the dice are real but you cannot see them because they relate to a non-physical wave collapse and they therefore cannot be physically seen, but in fact they are real. You shake your head. Next time you look for a better dice game for your paycheck, where the game is not rigged and the dice are not loaded

    "Einstein's idea of course was that he believed that Quantum Theory, that proposed that things can happen by chance without cause, was invalid theory." Well I would hope that at least on some level Einstein is wrong, otherwise if it is the case everything always needs a cause 'on every level' then it seems there isn't much room for any real free will as we would all just be acting out the next step in a very long and complex predetermined sequence for which rules that have existed since time began are governing the outcome at every stage and point along the way.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    How can everything appear logical when God does not only play dice but throws some where we cannot find them!
    God cannot play dice, first of all, if "he" does not exist. It was Einstein who said God does not play dice, of course that was his belief. Einstein's idea of course was that he believed that Quantum Theory, that proposed that things can happen by chance without cause, was invalid theory. The debate still continues today.

    Even worse might be playing dice with god for money. You win a few throws, god tells you, but in a few hours god tells you that you lost the game and takes all your paycheck. You complain to him that you did not see any of the dice roles, and god says that the dice are real but you cannot see them because they relate to a non-physical wave collapse and they therefore cannot be physically seen, but in fact they are real. You shake your head. Next time you look for a better dice game for your paycheck, where the game is not rigged and the dice are not loaded

    "Einstein's idea of course was that he believed that Quantum Theory, that proposed that things can happen by chance without cause, was invalid theory." Well I would hope that at least on some level Einstein is wrong, otherwise if it is the case everything always needs a cause 'on every level' then it seems there isn't much room for any real free will as we would all just be acting out the next step in a very long and complex predetermined sequence for which rules that have existed since time began are governing the outcome at every stage and point along the way.
    Yes, that's the hard part, trying to justify free will if the universe were strictly mechanical in nature. Of course Einstein did not believe in any background field as would exist in the dark matter, Higgs Field, or dark energy hypothesis. Nor does any foundation models of quantum mechanics account for these fields or any other so-called background physical particle or energy field, as a physical reference frame, as being a part of the quantum domain. Although the Zero Point Field is also a known entity, how it interacts in the quantum domain is unpredictable and therefore would also seem to fall into the domain of statistical probability. With the inclusion of any or many such background fields, including all forms of radiation, neutrinos, etc. it seemingly will forever be beyond our ability to predict precise results, other than subtracting more future "knowns" from the same or similar statistical type equations.

    To argue for or against "free will" if the quantum world is strictly mechanistic, would also depend on an exact definition of free will, which might be more involved than some people might expect. Even in such a mechanistic micro-world I think good arguments could be made for both positions.

    In the meantime, regardless of what the condition of the macro or micro worlds, I think everybody should lead their lives as if free will were totally valid, since it might be realized that the mental attitude of being able to overcome obstacles concerning ones goals, for instance, can be the one thing in one's character that almost entirely determines one's future and happiness, regardless of how that persevering attitude was obtained. For some people such new inspiration might come from reading something inspiring somewhere that might change their mental attitude, optimism, and as a result maybe change their entire future life for the better via possibly just one paragraph of inspiration. Other big changes of one's potentially negative future could come from learning from others successes and mistakes, improving one's education and improved interest in learning, develop other positive life changing abilities, attitudes, relationships, etc. that can be cultivated, or realized.
    Last edited by forrest noble; July 9th, 2013 at 02:40 PM.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Einstein believed in determinism and was a strong supporter of principle of locality. He saw quantum theory as an incomplete theory.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Of course Einstein did not believe in any background field as would exist in the dark matter, Higgs Field, or dark energy hypothesis.
    Evidence?

    Nor does any foundation models of quantum mechanics account for these fields any other so-called background physical particle of energy field, as a physical reference frame, as being a part of the quantum domain.
    What? Of course the Higgs field is part of the "quantum domain"; where on earth do you think the idea comes from? Dark matter and dark energy are likely to be, when we know what they are. (I have no idea what you mean by "a physical reference frame" - sounds like another one of your made up terms that you accuse science of not explaining.)

    Although the Zero Point Field is also a known entity, how it interacts in the quantum domain is unpredictable and therefore would also seem to fall into the domain of statistical probability.
    How can its quantum interactions be unpredictable when it is a result of quantum theory? Of course it is only predictable statistically, that is what quantum theory does. That is not the same as unpredictable.

    You love the "zero point field" don't you. And yet it only exists as a result of the statistical nature of quantum mechanics, which you don't like. Get rid of the latter and the "zero point field" goes away.

    With the inclusion of any or many such background fields, including all forms of radiation, neutrinos, etc. it seemingly will forever be beyond our ability to predict precise results, other than subtracting more future "knowns" from the same or similar statistical type equations.
    Again, you seem confused. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is fundamental, not the result of the existence of neutrinos, fields, etc. Those particles, fields, etc. can only be described by probabilities.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quantum Mechanics never proves such things, These are just interpretations that are subjective. Quantum Mechanics is possibly best way at the time to judge reality at quantum level Einsteins did not believe in, if it is could denied But he was wrong because how it is possible to make such perfect calculations when he does not have such a advance technology Quantum Mechanics is more about measurement , and also says about it In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle "known" as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously Why there "known" word is used, Why law does not say at a point there is no certain position of X and Y simultaneously (Known or unknown )
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quantum Mechanics never proves such things, These are just interpretations that are subjective.
    Quantum Mechanics is possibly best way at the time to judge reality at quantum level
    Einsteins did not believe in, if it is could denied
    But he was wrong because how it is possible to make such perfect calculations when he does not have such a advance technology

    Quantum Mechanics is more about measurement , and also says about it

    In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle "known" as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously

    Why there "known" word is used,
    Why law does not say at a point there is no certain position of X and Y simultaneously (Known or unknown )
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Quantum Mechanics never proves such things,
    Never proves what things? (Who/what are you responding to?)

    These are just interpretations that are subjective.
    What are? (The lack of context makes your post difficult to follow; try using the reply with Quote function.)

    Quantum Mechanics is more about measurement
    Not really, no.

    , and also says about it In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle "known" as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously Why there "known" word is used, Why law does not say at a point there is no certain position of X and Y simultaneously (Known or unknown )
    The uncertainty principle puts limits on the values of complementary pairs; not just a limit on how accurately they are known or measured. It is not that we don't "know" the value but rather that the value is not defined any more accurately.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    "Einstein's idea of course was that he believed that Quantum Theory, that proposed that things can happen by chance without cause, was invalid theory." Well I would hope that at least on some level Einstein is wrong
    It certainly appears that he was wrong about that.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    information about the position of photon is available in nature
    No law of quantum disprove it
    Practically it gives method to calculate its position with probability which is most suited way to do it as per available technology

    At a particular point of time , photon has a unique position & a unique speed (No matter we are not able to know it due to our physical/technical limits)
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quantum is working in right way as per available resources ,But some gives wrong interpretations of its current working model
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    No law of quantum disprove it
    Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?

    At a particular point of time , photon has a unique position & a unique speed (No matter we are not able to know it due to our physical/technical limits)
    Wrong.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Quantum is working in right way as per available resources ,But some gives wrong interpretations of its current working model
    Are you Forrest's agent in India? Or just a member of his fan club?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,657
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    At a particular point of time , photon has a unique position & a unique speed (No matter we are not able to know it due to our physical/technical limits)
    Please provide evidence to support this claim.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    At a particular point of time , photon has a unique position & a unique speed (No matter we are not able to know it due to our physical/technical limits)
    Please provide evidence to support this claim.
    A physical thing does not disappear and again appear
    If it exists it also has a position
    No law of physics disprove it
    Is it not evidence

    Tell me any law of science that show a physical thing may not have position in space at a time
    If there is thing, it would also has a place in space
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    information about the position of photon is available in nature
    No law of quantum disprove it
    Practically it gives method to calculate its position with probability which is most suited way to do it as per available technology
    At a particular point of time , photon has a unique position & a unique speed (No matter we are not able to know it due to our physical/technical limits)
    Raj, yet again you are showing you don't understand anything about QM.
    Certain positional data does not exist until an observation is made it is not always "available in nature". It is not an issue with technology the probabilities are an inherent part of reality (this has been pointed out to you MANY times).
    Photons always have the same speed (c) and uncertainty in the position before measurement is NOT AN ISSUE WITH PHYSICAL/TECHNICAL LIMITS, THE PROBABILITIES ARE AN INHERENT PART OF REALITY.
    You pointed out it many times although I already know it , but you never prove it
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,657
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    A physical thing does not disappear and again appear
    If it exists it also has a position
    No law of physics disprove it
    Is it not evidence

    Tell me any law of science that show a physical thing may not have position in space at a time
    If there is thing, it would also has a place in space
    So basically all you've got is your unsupported belief 1 and an empty claim.

    1 In fact it's somewhat worse than "unsupported" - it's contrary to the facts.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,638
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    At a particular point of time , photon has a unique position & a unique speed (No matter we are not able to know it due to our physical/technical limits)
    Please provide evidence to support this claim.
    A physical thing does not disappear and again appear
    If it exists it also has a position
    No law of physics disprove it
    Is it not evidence

    Tell me any law of science that show a physical thing may not have position in space at a time
    If there is thing, it would also has a place in space
    Study some physics first. Read about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Learn about the Fourier transform and classical uncertainty.

    You have strong opinions that are based on utter ignorance of physics. Quit being so arrogant. You look foolish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    No law of physics disprove it
    Wrong. The laws of quantum mechanics disprove it.

    Tell me any law of science that show a physical thing may not have position in space at a time
    The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    If a photon is at a particular position , why it is at that particular position at that time
    Why not another ?
    These interpretations does not able to prove it logically

    Secondly, during every experiment related to proving these interpretations
    "there is presence of Physical/Technical limit in each experiment "
    So it is never proved experimentally that there is built in uncertainty in quantum level
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,657
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    If a photon is at a particular position , why it is at that particular position at that time
    Why not another ?
    These interpretations does not able to prove it logically
    Inane and irrelevant.

    Secondly, during every experiment related to proving these interpretations
    "there is presence of Physical/Technical limit in each experiment "
    So it is never proved experimentally that there is built in uncertainty in quantum level
    Ignorant grasping at straws.

    You persist in thinking that the universe and reality should conform to your uninformed beliefs.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    So it is never proved experimentally that there is built in uncertainty in quantum level
    Bell's theorem (Bell's theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and Alain Aspect's experimental verification of the theorem (http://qudev.ethz.ch/content/courses...s/Aspect81.pdf) provide proof.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    A physical thing does not disappear and again appear
    If it exists it also has a position
    It doesn't matter how often you repeat it, it still won't be true.

    No law of physics disprove it
    HEISENBERG'S UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE DISPROVES IT.

    Is it not evidence
    No. It is an untrue statement. As you keep saying it after repeatedly having the facts and evidence explained to you, it begins to look a bit like deliberate dishonesty.

    Tell me any law of science that show a physical thing may not have [fixed] position in space at a time
    Hello! Hello! Turn your hearing aid on! HEISENBERG'S UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE! Can You Hear Me? Hello?
    No, I think he's too far gone.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    So it is never proved experimentally that there is built in uncertainty in quantum level
    Bell's theorem (Bell's theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and Alain Aspect's experimental verification of the theorem (http://qudev.ethz.ch/content/courses...s/Aspect81.pdf) provide proof.
    Bell 's Theorem itself is not a proof for me to believe that there quantum behavior is uncertain
    Secondly, there is no experiment that is free from technical limit
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,657
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Bell 's Theorem itself is not a proof for me to believe that there quantum behavior is uncertain
    So you're being dishonest.

    Secondly, there is no experiment that is free from technical limit
    Which has nothing to do with the point whatsoever.
    You may as well claim that "there is no mechanical device that is free from friction therefore nothing can move".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Every one can believe but he want he is free
    And you may be right


    After deep thinking & experience I believe there is enough reasons in nature for for answer why a photon has a this place not another
    I do not faith on any thing blindly

    When I find it has enough reasons for me to believe there is built in universality in quantom behaviour I will take no time to accept it
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Bell 's Theorem itself is not a proof for me to believe that there quantum behavior is uncertain
    So you're being dishonest.

    Secondly, there is no experiment that is free from technical limit
    Which has nothing to do with the point whatsoever.
    You may as well claim that "there is no mechanical device that is free from friction therefore nothing can move".
    But we have enough resources to observe accurate information with mechanical device
    Why would I say if there is friction nothing can move
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    So it is never proved experimentally that there is built in uncertainty in quantum level
    Bell's theorem (Bell's theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and Alain Aspect's experimental verification of the theorem (http://qudev.ethz.ch/content/courses...s/Aspect81.pdf) provide proof.
    Bell 's Theorem itself is not a proof for me to believe that there quantum behavior is uncertain
    Secondly, there is no experiment that is free from technical limit
    Before going any further, I suggest you actually read both links, because it's obvious you haven't.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,657
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    But we have enough resources to observe accurate information with mechanical device
    Why would I say if there is friction nothing can move
    Because your claim is the equivalent.
    Simply because technical limits exist does NOT mean that indeterminacy is due entirely or solely to those limits.

    You really should learn how to think. Preferably before your next post (don't worry though, take as much time as you need learning, we're not in any particular rush to read anything you have to say).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    [QUOTE=Dywyddyr;438365]
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Bell 's Theorem itself is not a proof for me to believe that there quantum behavior is uncertain
    So you're being dishonest.

    Why I am dishones
    Bell's Theorem says about locality
    If we do not not able to find exact information, this does not mean information does not exist
    Bell Theorem says you cannot find as accurate information as quantum through locality theories

    and practically no one could find better or as accurate information as quantum calculations
    But this never shows we can not find better information than current quantum methods (through probabilities )
    even when technical/physical limit is removed & have enough resources to measure
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    If we do not not able to find exact information, this does not mean information does not exist
    But that is what Bell's theorem says, and it was experimentally confirmed by Aspect in 1981.

    Now, you may (and I predict will) simply refuse to accept that. In which case, your entire position reduces to argument by incredulity. In which case, there's really no further point in debating it with you, as your mind is closed.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Quantum mechanics
    By Garrett M in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 19th, 2013, 06:51 PM
  2. what is quantum mechanics?
    By ASTROPHYSICIST137 in forum Physics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: April 20th, 2009, 03:32 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 11th, 2008, 02:36 PM
  4. quantum mechanics
    By shawngoldw in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 17th, 2007, 03:41 PM
  5. quantum mechanics???
    By pyrofreak2 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 13th, 2006, 08:29 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •