Notices
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 499
Like Tree29Likes

Thread: How to debunk new age Quantum physics crankery

  1. #1 How to debunk new age Quantum physics crankery 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Hi,

    I know very little about quantum physics so I need some help here, but recently I have seen lots of new agers claiming work on Quantum physics "refutes" materialism and either supports dualism or that mind is the basis of reality, they cite people like gowami or even Bohr or Heisenberg in their defence. I think this is pure wrong, i dont see how work in QM reveals anything mystical but then I know little about this area, but lots of new agers keep mentioning the uncertainty principle which supports their "spiritual" world view, they claim this uncertainty principle proves that quantum physics is influenced by mind and that changes rely on the mind of the observer? and that particles and objects don't even exist without being observed??

    any help with debunking this would be good by any experienced users educated in this area.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    Hi,

    I know very little about quantum physics so I need some help here, but recently I have seen lots of new agers claiming work on Quantum physics "refutes" materialism and either supports dualism or that mind is the basis of reality, they cite people like gowami or even Bohr or Heisenberg in their defence. I think this is pure wrong, i dont see how work in QM reveals anything mystical but then I know little about this area, but lots of new agers keep mentioning the uncertainty principle which supports their "spiritual" world view, they claim this uncertainty principle proves that quantum physics is influenced by mind and that changes rely on the mind of the observer? and that particles and objects don't even exist without being observed??

    any help with debunking this would be good by any experienced users educated in this area.
    Quantum physics and consciousness is actually my own speciality.

    You have to be careful about physics related conscious articles, they often do not have the proper grasp of physics or that they ignore the important aspects. I'd be careful listening to anyone who considers any kind of conscious-related physics as woo woo or psuedoscientific. I've been able to prove over the years that discussions on such subjects are actually highly relevant in physics so much so that consciousness may necesserily have a place in physics investigations. To end this, as I need to head soon, be careful what you hear and not only this, warey of those who pronounce those who investigate consicousness as being woo woo if it involves physics.

    But programmes like ''What the bleep do we know,'' is highly unscientific. They have some scientific points but this is an example of new age-ists trying to present idea's in the format of unbelievable physics to masses who know no better - the producers are to blame for this, as they edited the entire show for their woo woo beliefs. This is well known.


    Last edited by Geometrogenesis; February 25th, 2012 at 11:32 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    scientific... that should be unscientific... there is my taxi, bye.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    10
    in my experience quantum new-agers tend to base what they're saying largely on the observer effect. They just ignore or are unaware that it doesn't refer to a conscious observer. I think that they think that it literally requires a person rather than being a consequence of the experiment. And if you assume that, then it makes sense that consciousness could reach out to the world, since otherwise how would the particles (or whatever you're experimenting on) know that they are being observed.


    I think some people are also reasoning something along these lines:
    "classical physics says that the mind is a product of the brain"
    "qm contradicts classical physics"
    "therefore classical physics is wrong, so my ideas must be right since they also contradict classical physics"

    Also I've seen some lines of reasoning similar to god of the gaps. i.e. "I don't understand qm therefore new age ideas are right"


    So, basically, to debunk, bring up the observer effect, and ask lots of questions, ask them why they are calling it quantum if quantization doesn't come into it, stuff like that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    Hi,

    I know very little about quantum physics so I need some help here, but recently I have seen lots of new agers claiming work on Quantum physics "refutes" materialism and either supports dualism or that mind is the basis of reality, they cite people like gowami or even Bohr or Heisenberg in their defence. I think this is pure wrong, i dont see how work in QM reveals anything mystical but then I know little about this area, but lots of new agers keep mentioning the uncertainty principle which supports their "spiritual" world view, they claim this uncertainty principle proves that quantum physics is influenced by mind and that changes rely on the mind of the observer? and that particles and objects don't even exist without being observed??

    any help with debunking this would be good by any experienced users educated in this area.
    Quantum physics and consciousness is actually my own speciality.

    You have to be careful about physics related conscious articles, they often do not have the proper grasp of physics or that they ignore the important aspects. I'd be careful listening to anyone who considers any kind of conscious-related physics as woo woo or psuedoscientific. I've been able to prove over the years that discussions on such subjects are actually highly relevant in physics so much so that consciousness may necesserily have a place in physics investigations. To end this, as I need to head soon, be careful what you hear and not only this, warey of those who pronounce those who investigate consicousness as being woo woo if it involves physics.

    But programmes like ''What the bleep do we know,'' is highly unscientific. They have some scientific points but this is an example of new age-ists trying to present idea's in the format of unbelievable physics to masses who know no better - the producers are to blame for this, as they edited the entire show for their woo woo beliefs. This is well known.
    I really do not see any relationship between physics and consciousness, you may know alot in this area, would you be able to give some examples. One thing that I found interesting is that some quantum physicists such as Werner Heisenberg dabbled in a bit of philosophical idealism, indeed Heisenberg himself was questioning that if the moon is not being observed then does it exist or not, he even wrote a philosophical book before his death. Interestingly the Soviets who were fond of materialism banned his work and dubbed his work pseudoscientific idealism.

    I would describe myself as a materialist, philosophical idealism has no place in material science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by clonus View Post
    in my experience quantum new-agers tend to base what they're saying largely on the observer effect. They just ignore or are unaware that it doesn't refer to a conscious observer. I think that they think that it literally requires a person rather than being a consequence of the experiment. And if you assume that, then it makes sense that consciousness could reach out to the world, since otherwise how would the particles (or whatever you're experimenting on) know that they are being observed.


    I think some people are also reasoning something along these lines:
    "classical physics says that the mind is a product of the brain"
    "qm contradicts classical physics"
    "therefore classical physics is wrong, so my ideas must be right since they also contradict classical physics"

    Also I've seen some lines of reasoning similar to god of the gaps. i.e. "I don't understand qm therefore new age ideas are right"


    So, basically, to debunk, bring up the observer effect, and ask lots of questions, ask them why they are calling it quantum if quantization doesn't come into it, stuff like that.
    Very good post, thanks for this. I have spoken to lots of new agers and they all say the observer effect debunks materialism and proves that mind is not a property of matter, or proves idealism etc, as the observer seems to shape the outcome of the experiment, but this observer effect can not be falsified so is it really science??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    There is experimental evidence that the "random" behavior of electrons models or mimics the "free will" behavior of humans. The significance of this is still unknown but it is enough to make one cautious abou labeling things "woo-woo".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    There is experimental evidence that the "random" behavior of electrons models or mimics the "free will" behavior of humans. The significance of this is still unknown but it is enough to make one cautious abou labeling things "woo-woo".
    Is there ? News to me. Could you post a link to that experimental evidence so that we may take a look ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    There is experimental evidence that the "random" behavior of electrons models or mimics the "free will" behavior of humans. The significance of this is still unknown but it is enough to make one cautious abou labeling things "woo-woo".
    It looks like the jury is still out on this one.

    "Under the assumption of physicalism it has been argued that the laws of quantum mechanics provide a complete probabilistic account of the motion of particles, regardless of whether or not free will exists.[51] Physicist Stephen Hawking describes such ideas in his 2010 book The Grand Design. According to Hawking, these findings from quantum mechanics suggest that humans are sorts of complicated biological machines; although our behavior is impossible to predict perfectly in practice, "free will is just an illusion."[48] In other words, he thinks that only compatibilistic (deterministic) free will is possible based on the data.Erwin Schrödinger, a nobel laureate in physics and one of the founders of quantum mechanics, came to a different conclusion than Hawking. Near the end of his 1944 essay titled "What Is Life?" he says that there is "incontrovertible direct experience" that we have free will. He also states that the human body is wholly or at least partially determined, leading him to conclude that "...'I' -am the person, if any, who controls the 'motion of the atoms' according to the Laws of Nature." He explains this position on free will by appealing to a notion of self that is emergent from the entire collection of atoms in his body, and other convictions about conscious experience. However, he also qualifies the conclusion as "necessarily subjective" in its "philosophical implications." Contrasting the views of Hawking and Schrödinger, it is clear that even among eminent physicists there is not unanimity regarding free will "

    Free will - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    There is experimental evidence that the "random" behavior of electrons models or mimics the "free will" behavior of humans. The significance of this is still unknown but it is enough to make one cautious abou labeling things "woo-woo".
    Is there ? News to me. Could you post a link to that experimental evidence so that we may take a look ?

    Indeed. I second this remark. I would like to see this evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    Hi,

    I know very little about quantum physics so I need some help here, but recently I have seen lots of new agers claiming work on Quantum physics "refutes" materialism and either supports dualism or that mind is the basis of reality, they cite people like gowami or even Bohr or Heisenberg in their defence. I think this is pure wrong, i dont see how work in QM reveals anything mystical but then I know little about this area, but lots of new agers keep mentioning the uncertainty principle which supports their "spiritual" world view, they claim this uncertainty principle proves that quantum physics is influenced by mind and that changes rely on the mind of the observer? and that particles and objects don't even exist without being observed??

    any help with debunking this would be good by any experienced users educated in this area.
    Quantum physics and consciousness is actually my own speciality.

    You have to be careful about physics related conscious articles, they often do not have the proper grasp of physics or that they ignore the important aspects. I'd be careful listening to anyone who considers any kind of conscious-related physics as woo woo or psuedoscientific. I've been able to prove over the years that discussions on such subjects are actually highly relevant in physics so much so that consciousness may necesserily have a place in physics investigations. To end this, as I need to head soon, be careful what you hear and not only this, warey of those who pronounce those who investigate consicousness as being woo woo if it involves physics.

    But programmes like ''What the bleep do we know,'' is highly unscientific. They have some scientific points but this is an example of new age-ists trying to present idea's in the format of unbelievable physics to masses who know no better - the producers are to blame for this, as they edited the entire show for their woo woo beliefs. This is well known.
    I really do not see any relationship between physics and consciousness, you may know alot in this area, would you be able to give some examples. One thing that I found interesting is that some quantum physicists such as Werner Heisenberg dabbled in a bit of philosophical idealism, indeed Heisenberg himself was questioning that if the moon is not being observed then does it exist or not, he even wrote a philosophical book before his death. Interestingly the Soviets who were fond of materialism banned his work and dubbed his work pseudoscientific idealism.

    I would describe myself as a materialist, philosophical idealism has no place in material science.
    Sure. My moniker there is reiku. That is my name. No true scientist can deny my statements.

    My Final Theory of Consciousness - SciForums.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    There is experimental evidence that the "random" behavior of electrons models or mimics the "free will" behavior of humans. The significance of this is still unknown but it is enough to make one cautious abou labeling things "woo-woo".
    Is there ? News to me. Could you post a link to that experimental evidence so that we may take a look ?
    I think Sealeaf might be talking about this:
    Free will theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Very good post, thanks for this. I have spoken to lots of new agers and they all say the observer effect debunks materialism and proves that mind is not a property of matter, or proves idealism etc, as the observer seems to shape the outcome of the experiment, but this observer effect can not be falsified so is it really science??
    thanks=D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,620
    Moderator repeats:Please do not nest quotes. If you don't understand what this means, it is the practice of quoting quotes ad infinitum. First it wastes bandwidth and makes the discussion hard to follow

    And also please do not quote entire posts - it is rarely necessary, and obscures the point you are responding to (Ugh - grammar!)

    this is my last polite request. Henceforward editorial action will be taken
    Chrispen Evan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    No true scientist can deny my statements.
    I'll deny them! But then, I'm not a scientist. So you must be right. Wow!
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    No true Scotsman can deny my statements.
    Presumably, only the false need apply.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    I am a scot, ironically. You can refute my idea's but they are based on scientific disciplines. Models of consciousness can be placed into quantum physics. Perhaps my greatest enlightenment was the realization that consciousness is a low energy phenomenon which can be linked to the emergance of space and the ability to sense time in a geometry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    This is important because some scientists, like Fred Alan Wolf associate consciousness to things like the big bang ---- this cannot be done when you understand my reasons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    Hi,

    I know very little about quantum physics so I need some help here, but recently I have seen lots of new agers claiming work on Quantum physics "refutes" materialism and either supports dualism or that mind is the basis of reality, they cite people like gowami or even Bohr or Heisenberg in their defence. I think this is pure wrong, i dont see how work in QM reveals anything mystical but then I know little about this area, but lots of new agers keep mentioning the uncertainty principle which supports their "spiritual" world view, they claim this uncertainty principle proves that quantum physics is influenced by mind and that changes rely on the mind of the observer? and that particles and objects don't even exist without being observed??

    any help with debunking this would be good by any experienced users educated in this area.
    Quantum physics and consciousness is actually my own speciality.

    You have to be careful about physics related conscious articles, they often do not have the proper grasp of physics or that they ignore the important aspects. I'd be careful listening to anyone who considers any kind of conscious-related physics as woo woo or psuedoscientific. I've been able to prove over the years that discussions on such subjects are actually highly relevant in physics so much so that consciousness may necesserily have a place in physics investigations. To end this, as I need to head soon, be careful what you hear and not only this, warey of those who pronounce those who investigate consicousness as being woo woo if it involves physics.

    But programmes like ''What the bleep do we know,'' is highly unscientific. They have some scientific points but this is an example of new age-ists trying to present idea's in the format of unbelievable physics to masses who know no better - the producers are to blame for this, as they edited the entire show for their woo woo beliefs. This is well known.
    I really do not see any relationship between physics and consciousness, you may know alot in this area, would you be able to give some examples. One thing that I found interesting is that some quantum physicists such as Werner Heisenberg dabbled in a bit of philosophical idealism, indeed Heisenberg himself was questioning that if the moon is not being observed then does it exist or not, he even wrote a philosophical book before his death. Interestingly the Soviets who were fond of materialism banned his work and dubbed his work pseudoscientific idealism.

    I would describe myself as a materialist, philosophical idealism has no place in material science.
    You won't be aware of this experiment then: Physics and philosophy: I'm not looking, honest! | The Economist

    According to these scientists, reality is still there, but it get's even stranger... it turns up in places it shouldn't be. I have even speculated whether a missing mass in the universe could be under similar principles, the idea that in spacetime there is a lot of matter which is not being observed and turning up in places it shouldn't causing anomalous gravitational distortions in places we are not expecting it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    forests, for goodness sake, don't take Geometrogenesis' nonsense seriously. Consciousness does not have an effect on reality. This has been a simple question by you and has instead changed into a chance for Geometrogenesis to campaign for his nonsense. What does have an effect is the act of observing, which inevitably means having to interact with the system.


    reiku
    You were here before and were banned Reiku. Do you remember that? As Manynames? Tut tut.

    I am putting you on suspension while we discuss this in the mod section.
    Last edited by KALSTER; February 28th, 2012 at 04:25 AM.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Thanks for your post kalster
    That is all very true and what I was looking for, I know consciousness does not have an effect on physics but I wanted to know why so may new agers and spiritual folk seem to think so, it appears they misunderstand the observer effect, and regarding Geometrogenesis I have clicked on his stuff and it appears he is quite well educated and hes got an interest in physics but it appears hes been banned on another forum and he is himself going into some new age speculation quoting fred alan wolf etc saying it is factual, last time I checked fred alan wolf was pumping out new age hindu books saying physics reveals maya illusion. I dont want to insult the man as I am not a physicst, but this is clear silly talk and has no basis in physics.

    The only question that I have left is about the double slit experiment - according to new agers this experiment proves the mind is the basis of reality and disproves material science. - can anyone explain this to me? another major misunderstanding by new agers i take it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    The only question that I have left is about the double slit experiment - according to new agers this experiment proves the mind is the basis of reality and disproves material science. - can anyone explain this to me? another major misunderstanding by new agers i take it?
    Yes, a total misunderstanding.

    It is not about the human mind being the basis of reality, it is about whether the information about which slit the photon took exists in the universe, or not. If that information exists, then we find no interference pattern. If that information does not exist, we find an interference pattern. It doesn't matter whether a human mind is party to that information, or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    There is experimental evidence that the "random" behavior of electrons models or mimics the "free will" behavior of humans. The significance of this is still unknown but it is enough to make one cautious abou labeling things "woo-woo".
    Ask yourself whether a fire burning in a fire place exhibits free will.

    If it does, then naturally QM should mimic "free will" in humans, because "free will" is probably just a result of QM effects occurring in the synapses of your brain anyway. There are, after all, a lot of photons moving around in there. That interpretation, of course, denies the human soul. .... either that.... or maybe it affirms that inanimate objects also have souls at the quantum level. Take your pick.

    If it doesn't exhibit free will, then I will need someone to please come up with or find a clearer definition so I can understand the phenomenon we're trying to explain here.
    JoshuaL likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2
    This is a really interesting topic, and its something I've pondered myself about the claims associated with the new age movement. I'm no physicist but my laymen's understanding of quantum mechanics is that it deals primarily with the measurement of probability to understand the strange almost chaotic world of sub-atomic particals and the way they interact to create the physical world. (Atoms and electrons etc)Scientific equations in relation to quantum mechanics has from my knowledge proved accurate in articulating and predicting the patterns of probability in relation to quantum mechanics. Now according to the infamous double slit experiment: quantum particals were shot through a double slit created the interference ( wave pattern ) however when these quantum particals were measured to see which of the slit the partical passed the original experiment interference pattern was ruined.. in effect the measurement of the partical had inadvertantly changed the experiment.Although probability of quantum mechanics Can accurately predict the wave interference on the quantum level the act of observing these Particals changed the experiment results.So as result new age thinkers have taken this experiment and ascertained that this proves that our experience of reality ( consciousness ) can change the world in the quantum level like the observation of the particals changed the experiment. Although I don't believe The experiment justifies the new age conclusions I do see how they might bridge that conclusion. While I'm not supporting their theory, I'm curious if my Assessment of this is accurate? What am I missing? What have I misunderstood. (p.s. I apologize for the grammer and spelling, writing this off my smart phone)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    It's all a load of mystic bullshit I'm afraid. And LOL, those New Agers aren't much better.

    Check out Jeff Lundeen's website. He and the team demonstrated that wavefunction is real. They demonstrated that the Copenhagen Interpretation is wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Whoah there farsight, back up just a little. This is not about which interpretation of quantum mechanics you use. The "act of measurement" in the copenhagen interpretation does not mean measurement by a conscious entity anyway! (I agree with the mystic bullshit part, on the part of the New Agers, but not on the part of the copenhagen interpretation)

    Here are the facts:

    If we set up an experiment where there is a method to detect which slit a photon passed through, then that photon does not form part of an interference pattern on the final screen. If we do not have a method to detect which slit the photon passed through, that photon does indeed form part of an interference pattern.

    The method of detection doesn't need to involve a human being. A human doesn't have to know the information of which path the photon passed through, for there to be no interference pattern. All that matters is if that "which path" information exists, or not. The experiment can be completely automatic, without any human intervention.

    If the "which path" information is contained within the experimental apparatus by some method, there is no inteference pattern.
    If there is no "which path" information contained with the system, there is an interference pattern.

    Consciousness has nothing to do with the results of the experiment.
    JoshuaL likes this.
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by TriforceV View Post
    This is a really interesting topic, and its something I've pondered myself about the claims associated with the new age movement. I'm no physicist but my laymen's understanding of quantum mechanics is that it deals primarily with the measurement of probability to understand the strange almost chaotic world of sub-atomic particals and the way they interact to create the physical world. (Atoms and electrons etc)Scientific equations in relation to quantum mechanics has from my knowledge proved accurate in articulating and predicting the patterns of probability in relation to quantum mechanics. Now according to the infamous double slit experiment: quantum particals were shot through a double slit created the interference ( wave pattern ) however when these quantum particals were measured to see which of the slit the partical passed the original experiment interference pattern was ruined.. in effect the measurement of the partical had inadvertantly changed the experiment.Although probability of quantum mechanics Can accurately predict the wave interference on the quantum level the act of observing these Particals changed the experiment results.So as result new age thinkers have taken this experiment and ascertained that this proves that our experience of reality ( consciousness ) can change the world in the quantum level like the observation of the particles changed the experiment. Although I don't believe The experiment justifies the new age conclusions I do see how they might bridge that conclusion. While I'm not supporting their theory, I'm curious if my Assessment of this is accurate? What am I missing? What have I misunderstood. (p.s. I apologize for the grammar and spelling, writing this off my smart phone)

    Your posting was today, but the last posting on this subject was March the 2nd. Never the less, it remains an interesting topic.

    Einstein, Shroedinger, De Broglie, and many others frankly thought that Quantum Theory in general was simply hokum, especially the Copenhagen interpretation of it.

    In recent news there are reports that one of the primary principles of QM may be wrong, which has long been the belief of the many that find fault in the foundations of QM.

    http://www.scienceda...21004121638.htm


    Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle may be wrong. The Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics is intuitive to a certain extent and is only one of a few primary foundation principles of Quantum Theory. Maybe its wording and formulations may need to be changed in the future.

    Other principles of QM are the Either Or, but not both at once, wave particle duality Principle of EM radiation, the Indeterminacy of particle state before observation, relating to Shroedingers Cat and quantum Entanglement. The Lack of Causality Principle: that events can happen by pure chance, their probability determined by statistics.

    These results beg the question that: if this principle is wrong then are any of the other principles wrong, or are they all wrong as described above?

    If so one might expect there will eventually be other tests invented, like in the link, trying to find fault with each and every principle of quantum mechanics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle may be wrong.
    As I pointed out in the other thread, that is not the case. They incorrectly call the observer effect "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle". They even acknowledge they are doing so.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Whoah there farsight, back up just a little.
    Sorry, I was just having a little dig at the "it's not classical, it surpasseth all hiuman understanding" thing. Check out Jeff Lundeen's semi technical explanation and see this:

    "We hope that the scientific community can now improve upon the Copenhagen Interpretation, and redefine the wavefunction so that it is no longer just a mathematical tool, but rather something that can be directly measured in the laboratory."

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    This is not about which interpretation of quantum mechanics you use. The "act of measurement" in the copenhagen interpretation does not mean measurement by a conscious entity anyway!
    Agreed. The corruption of Schrodinger's cat is something amazing. He proposed it to highlight an issue, and now it's touted as an example of quantum weirdness.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    (I agree with the mystic bullshit part, on the part of the New Agers, but not on the part of the copenhagen interpretation)
    No comment!

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Here are the facts:

    If we set up an experiment where there is a method to detect which slit a photon passed through, then that photon does not form part of an interference pattern on the final screen. If we do not have a method to detect which slit the photon passed through, that photon does indeed form part of an interference pattern.

    The method of detection doesn't need to involve a human being. A human doesn't have to know the information of which path the photon passed through, for there to be no interference pattern. All that matters is if that "which path" information exists, or not. The experiment can be completely automatic, without any human intervention.

    If the "which path" information is contained within the experimental apparatus by some method, there is no inteference pattern.
    If there is no "which path" information contained with the system, there is an interference pattern.

    Consciousness has nothing to do with the results of the experiment.
    I agree that consciousness has nothing to do with it. But I don't think it's all down to probability either. If wavefunction is real and photodetectors employ electrons that could have been created from photons in pair production, you've got two extended-entity wavefunctions interacting. It feels like the act of detection is something like performing an optical Fourier transform (see this) on the photon wavefunction, collapsing it to a point so that it then goes through one slit rather than both. In similar vein it ends up as a dot on the screen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    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 Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle may be wrong.
    As I pointed out in the other thread, that is not the case. They incorrectly call the observer effect "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle". They even acknowledge they are doing so.
    Yes, I missed that point. The question then becomes, what is the next QM principle they might try to debunk. It would seem by this same process they might debunk the uncertainty principle by finding a particle's "exact" position without interfering with it, while retaining total knowledge of its momentum.

    The next QM principle I expect could be debunked might that light cannot be a wave and particle at the same time. A conceivable experiment: A variation on the double slit experiment.

    Send a photon through a single slit while having both slits open with some angle of photon entry. The screen photon detector would be partially reflective so that only have the time the photon will register a hit. Within a very short interval thereafter fire another photon through the same slit so that second photon will be reaching the screen while the first photon is being reflected. I would expect to see an interference pattern in the resulting screen pattern.

    The point would be for those cases, designed to be about half the time, that the first photon would register on the screen, I would then expect to see the same interference pattern with the second photon since the parcial wave from the first photon would still be reflected even if the photon itself were absorbed. If so this seemingly would be interpreted as the same photon produces both a wave and particle at the same time. Such a test might debunk this principle of QM.

    For a third test of Determinacy of state. Proposed test:

    If anyone is interested I will explain an experiment concerning how I think this Indeterminacy principle might be debunked.

    If they ever prove the existence of a particulate background field such as gravitons, dark matter, Higgs particle field, or any type of background particulate field, then I think the hidden variables hypothesis can be shown to be valid, and then maybe all the illogical aspects of QM might simply disappear based upon replacing discredited principles with new logically based ones.
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 4th, 2012 at 10:40 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman Deno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    forests, for goodness sake, don't take Geometrogenesis' nonsense seriously. Consciousness does not have an effect on reality.
    Honest question here, do you have proof that consciousness has no effect on reality? or are you just saying that because how you were raised made you think it impossible?

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    The method of detection doesn't need to involve a human being. A human doesn't have to know the information of which path the photon passed through, for there to be no interference pattern. All that matters is if that "which path" information exists, or not. The experiment can be completely automatic, without any human intervention.

    If the "which path" information is contained within the experimental apparatus by some method, there is no inteference pattern.
    If there is no "which path" information contained with the system, there is an interference pattern.
    Can you link experiments that have done what you are claiming they have done?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    122
    Honest question here, do you have proof that consciousness has no effect on reality? or are you just saying that because how you were raised made you think it impossible?
    I agree with you, Kalster says consciousness has no effect on reality but note on his profile he admits he is not a scientist. Nothing is impossible, so to dismiss something as impossible seems quite anti-scientific, he and other users seem to be offering nothing more than an opinion. There are scientists out there who claim consciousness can effect reality and yes there are some who claim it cannot. Science is open on this subject and there is no conclusive answer becuase further research needs to be done.

    Here is an example of the influence of consciousness on material objects:

    Telekinesis - YouTube

    of course skeptics will shout fraud, but many other cases are on record, and even experiments etc.
    Deno likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman Deno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Nothing is impossible, so to dismiss something as impossible seems quite anti-scientific, he and other users seem to be offering nothing more than an opinion.
    That's exactly how it is. I do not mean to insult anyone, but people can be limited by their beliefs. Most people today have grown up in such a way that such things are impossible. But how much are you told as you are growing up that is complete nonsense? Lots. People tell you their opinions like fact, and you in term shape your beliefs around those things. At a young age you never think "now could they be wrong about this?", we have the capacity to do this as we grow up, but still many of those things we are told are impossible as a child stick with us throughout our lives. Then people go on to be 'scientists' and carry these beliefs with them, hell even people that aren't scientists are fine with coming out and saying something is impossible. Well, where is the proof?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Nothing is impossible,
    This is simply not true. It is however, a favorite saying among those who don't know any better.
    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  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman Deno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Nothing is impossible,
    This is simply not true. It is however, a favorite saying among those who don't know any better.
    It may not be true, but it's a better way to think than thinking things you don't even know for sure aren't true
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2
    First, I'm happy I commented on this really interesting phenomena. Although my knowledge in this field of science is limited as previously discussed I'm actually more inclined to the arts (History specifically) I nevertheless am fascinated with theoretical questions pertaining to science.

    So if you don't mind I'd like to play the devil's advocate and question some of the rhetoric in order to augment my understanding.
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    The method of detection doesn't need to involve a human being. A human doesn't have to know the information of which path the photon passed through, for there to be no interference pattern. All that matters is if that "which path" information exists, or not. The experiment can be completely automatic, without any human intervention.

    If the "which path" information is contained within the experimental apparatus by some method, there is no inteference pattern.
    If there is no "which path" information contained with the system, there is an interference pattern.

    Consciousness has nothing to do with the results of the experiment.
    SpeedFreek, Thanks for the reply. However I'm not convinced with your argument, i feel it is somewhat redundant. While its true that the 'measurement' might alter the "Uncertainty principal" automatically without human intervention, by its very nature human observation is needed to prove this is valid. This I assume goes back to the "Schroeder's cat argument" If instruments measure the experiment and nobody is around to observe than it can still be one or the other? Who after all will know the results. It's just like philosophical question, "If a tree falls and nobody is around to hear it...". In other words automatic measurement is a human conscious interpretation, it is meaningless without human perception or interaction.

    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post

    Einstein, Shroedinger, De Broglie, and many others frankly thought that Quantum Theory in general was simply hokum, especially the Copenhagen interpretation of it.

    In recent news there are reports that one of the primary principles of QM may be wrong, which has long been the belief of the many that find fault in the foundations of QM.
    http://www.scienceda...21004121638.htm
    Forrest noble, I took a look at the website, Very interesting!
    But I'm not sure this discounts the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle". This research demonstrates that these scientists where able to have moderate measurement by tip-toeing around this catch 22 of observation through limited observation. This is interesting and helps explain how certain methods can be used to measure the quantum level through weak observation. While this does a good job at explaining the How, the real question I'm concerned with is the Why. Why does merely observing and measuring the quantum experiment change the experiment? whats the connection if any? I do not believe this article address this fundamental question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deno View Post

    That's exactly how it is. I do not mean to insult anyone, but people can be limited by their beliefs. Most people today have grown up in such a way that such things are impossible. But how much are you told as you are growing up that is complete nonsense? Lots. People tell you their opinions like fact, and you in term shape your beliefs around those things. At a young age you never think "now could they be wrong about this?", we have the capacity to do this as we grow up, but still many of those things we are told are impossible as a child stick with us throughout our lives. Then people go on to be 'scientists' and carry these beliefs with them, hell even people that aren't scientists are fine with coming out and saying something is impossible. Well, where is the proof?


    I concur with this assessment, It's been my philosophy to keep an open mi
    nd on everything; even theories of new age gibberish with a substantial claim. Nevertheless I avoid being gullible because I equally question everything and investigate. Ultimately we can never truly know something to be FACT, Truth or merely a fallacy. Science is a great example of this; while certainly it is more logical and backed by evidence than religion for example, it nevertheless can never be proven as 100% correct. It is always a work in progress. As new understandings in the frontiers of science like Quantum Physics or Astro physics delve into theories of black-holes - dark energy and matter, M theory, String Theory etc.. The deeper we delve the more questions and anomalies we encounter.

    So what is the truth? are scientists in the liberal fashion augmenting knowledge? It's easy to assume this to be the case, but as historian dealing with our own anomalies (Post-modernism for example) these types of inherent beliefs in liberal ideological principals are counter-productive.
    In other words, a pessimism might conclude that we truly know very little and maybe nothing at all. although the illusion of belief gives us comfort in the tangible logical world of reality that we experience on a daily basis (we develop belief systems).
    Taking this all into consideration, our current paradigm on the understanding of consciousness may inadvertently limit our approach to an alternative and equally persuasive understanding of consciousness, thus diminishing potential beneficial questions. (For example, nobody truly contemplated gravity before the apple fell on Newtons head.)

    In conclusion, while I'm not convinced consciousness has any effect on matter in the sub-atomic world, the "uncertainty principle" has nevertheless intrigued my curiosity to continue this inquiry.





    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The question then becomes, what is the next QM principle they might try to debunk.
    I would reserve "debunk" for non-scientific claims of things that don't exist (bunk). "Test" might be a better word in science. And, of course, every aspect of quantum theory has been heavily tested ever since it was invented. Especially as many of the people involved in developing it were not happy about the implications. People have always worked out subtler and cleverer ways to test the predictions (such as this test and confirmation of HUP, delayed quantum erasure, etc). So far, these have all behaved exactly as predicted.

    Which is, of course, a little disappointing ...
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Deno View Post
    Honest question here, do you have proof that consciousness has no effect on reality? or are you just saying that because how you were raised made you think it impossible?
    There is no evidence that invisible winged unicorns have no effect on reality either. Should we remain open minded about them as well?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    [Here is an example of the influence of consciousness on material objects:
    Oooh! A video. That couldn't possibly be faked.

    of course skeptics will shout fraud, but many other cases are on record, and even experiments etc.
    Care to provide a link to a scientific paper that shows this?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Deno View Post
    Well, where is the proof?
    Personally, I would save my credulity for things for which there is evidence rather than believing everything until it is proved to be impossible.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by TriforceV View Post
    Why does merely observing and measuring the quantum experiment change the experiment?
    Measurement always affects the object being measured. If we take a photograph of a banana we have to expose it to light which will have some immeasurably small effect on it.

    In the case of quantum phenomena, measuring something usually destroys the thing being measured. For example to detect a photon, the photon has to be absorbed. Afterwords, there is no photon. In this experiment, they have used statistical "weak measurement" techniques which only slightly perturb the photon being measured (but only gives you approximate data). By accumulating many such weak measurements you can extract some meaningful data - without having destroyed any specific photon.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    There is experimental evidence that the "random" behavior of electrons models or mimics the "free will" behavior of humans. The significance of this is still unknown but it is enough to make one cautious abou labeling things "woo-woo".
    Is there ? News to me. Could you post a link to that experimental evidence so that we may take a look ?
    I can't post a link because I don't know if it was documented, but I was a member of the team that did the experimental work. In graduate school we were asked to test a machine which was supposed to predict the behavior of large groups of people. The machine consists of a cork board to which a sheet of carbon paper can be attached, a variable and finely controled source of electric current and a sensitive multimeter to read teh current. A map of the territory underinvestigation is drawn on the carbon paper in #2 pencil. Current in amouts proportional to the population of towns is inputed at their locations on the map and the fraction of that current that reaches other points on the map can be read as proportional to the human use of shopping or other "central place functions" at that location.
    We used the out patient records of two hospitals and the non winning but filled out entry slips from the "moon light madness" mid summer sales that the two chambers of commerace put together. It was very labor intencive but that's what grad students are for. But we determined that the machine correctly predicted human Free will behavior. Electrons behave like humans making free choices.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    But we determined that the machine correctly predicted human Free will behavior.
    Sounds more like the machine gave a reasonably accurate (how accurate? I guess we don't know) simulation of the statistical behaviour of large numbers of people. I don't see where free will comes into this. (Mind you, I don't think the term "free will" has much meaning; unless you define it.)

    Electrons behave like humans making free choices.
    Sounds more like an analog computer can be programmed to simulate the behaviour of crowds under certain circumstances. Not too surprising. Electrons are irrelevant. You could do the same with water or gas or a digital computer or a Turing machine or ...
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Honest question here, do you have proof that consciousness has no effect on reality? or are you just saying that because how you were raised made you think it impossible?
    I agree with you, Kalster says consciousness has no effect on reality but note on his profile he admits he is not a scientist. Nothing is impossible, so to dismiss something as impossible seems quite anti-scientific, he and other users seem to be offering nothing more than an opinion. There are scientists out there who claim consciousness can effect reality and yes there are some who claim it cannot. Science is open on this subject and there is no conclusive answer becuase further research needs to be done.

    Here is an example of the influence of consciousness on material objects:

    Telekinesis - YouTube

    of course skeptics will shout fraud, but many other cases are on record, and even experiments etc.
    Oh great. One second you call my take unscientific and the next you post a video of telekenesis? Show me strong, rigorous scientific experiments that indicate telekinesis and I might look twice. Are you not aware of the vast collection of nonsense out there that have supposed video and eyewitness "evidence" for it? Claiming something, no matter who makes the claim, without a rigorous application of the scientific method to back it up means nothing.

    Look, science is not about proof. That's for mathematics. When I say consciousness has no effect on reality, I mean there is no reason to believe that it does, i.e. no verified, scientifically rigorous set of experiments have ever shown it to be the case and there is no known mechanism that could possibly even allow for something like that. It is not simply my willy nilly opinion, it is a tentative, but strong conclusion I have come to after researching the subject. Saying things like "nothing is impossible' should be reserved for those who know nothing about the world they live in. One day something might come up to challenge that view, but nothing substantial has yet.

    If I had grown up believing everything I had been told, I would believe in things like evil animal spirits, god, ghosts, creation, etc. As someone who takes science seriously, I tend to let the evidence direct me.
    Strange and epidecus like this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Deno View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    The method of detection doesn't need to involve a human being. A human doesn't have to know the information of which path the photon passed through, for there to be no interference pattern. All that matters is if that "which path" information exists, or not. The experiment can be completely automatic, without any human intervention.

    If the "which path" information is contained within the experimental apparatus by some method, there is no inteference pattern.
    If there is no "which path" information contained with the system, there is an interference pattern.
    Can you link experiments that have done what you are claiming they have done?
    [quant-ph/9903047] A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser

    http://strangepaths.com/the-quantum-eraser-experiment/2007/03/20/en/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser


    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by TriforceV View Post
    SpeedFreek, Thanks for the reply. However I'm not convinced with your argument, i feel it is somewhat redundant. While its true that the 'measurement' might alter the "Uncertainty principal" automatically without human intervention, by its very nature human observation is needed to prove this is valid. This I assume goes back to the "Schroeder's cat argument" If instruments measure the experiment and nobody is around to observe than it can still be one or the other? Who after all will know the results. It's just like philosophical question, "If a tree falls and nobody is around to hear it...". In other words automatic measurement is a human conscious interpretation, it is meaningless without human perception or interaction.
    Knowing the results of the experiment I posted above - i.e. knowing that we either found an interference pattern in the data, or not, does not mean that our "knowing" is the cause of those results.

    It would be a simple matter to set up an automatic system that decides, at random (using some algorithm for instance) whether to erase the "which path" information or not, and have all the data at the final detector screen collected and archived. Three months later a human comes along and assesses the data and finds out whether there was an interference pattern or not.

    Do you think this can mean consciousness caused the results of the experiment?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    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 Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The question then becomes, what is the next QM principle they might try to debunk.
    "Test" might be a better word in science. I would reserve "debunk" for non-scientific claims of things that don't exist (bunk).
    I agree the wording is not scientific, maybe a little harsh, but I consider the present interpretations and Principles of QM to be not a lot better than bunk.

    And, of course, every aspect of quantum theory has been heavily tested ever since it was invented. Especially as many of "the people involved in developing it were not happy about the implications."
    (quotes added)

    In this I think the part that I quoted, from your quote, might be more accurately stated in this way: Some of the people involved in developing QM disagreed with the accepted interpretations of its implications and doubted the validity of its so-called Principles.

    People have always worked out subtler and cleverer ways to test the predictions (such as this test and confirmation of HUP, delayed quantum erasure, etc). So far, these have all behaved exactly as predicted. Which is, of course, a little disappointing ...
    You're right, lots of tests, but I would guess few if any were designed by true skeptics. I expect young post-grad students like the ones who conducted the experiment in the link I presented, and another group in Canada, seem to be set up to start better testing these principles.

    I believe when hidden variables are finally discovered in the form of dark matter, Higgs particles, gravitons, etc. etc., that within 20 years thereafter QM will finally acquire a logical foundation and principles similar to the other sciences.
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 5th, 2012 at 09:59 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    60
    it is all bullshit. go ask these new agers to get an education.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I agree the wording is not scientific, maybe a little harsh, but I consider the present interpretations and Principles of QM to be not a lot better than bunk.
    And yet it works. So it is good science. (I'm not keen on some interpretions such as Copenhagen but that is irrelevant as they are just words on top of the theory. They add nothing of value anyway.)

    You're right, lots of tests, but I would guess few if any were designed by true skeptics. I expect young post-grad students like the ones who conducted the experiment in the link I presented, and another group in Canada, seem to be set up to start better testing these principles.
    All scientists are sceptical by nature and training. There have been several generations of young graduates desperate to make a name by overthrowing the established order and developing new physics, including some of the most brilliant scientists ever. Andy yet ...

    Also, many tests and refinements of theory were developed based on the ideas of some of the old codgers (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen come to mind).

    when hidden variables are finally discovered in the form of dark matter, Higgs particles, gravitons, etc. etc.,
    Comments like that just make it clear that you have no idea what "hidden variables" means.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    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 Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Comments like that just make it clear that you have no idea what "hidden variables" means.
    Hidden variables:


    • Hidden variable theory in physics: the proposition that statistical models of physical systems (such as Quantum Mechanics) are inherently incomplete, and that the apparent randomness of a system depends not on collapsing wave functions, but rather due to unseen or unmeasurable (and thus "hidden") variables -- in sharp contrast to the generally accepted Copenhagan Interpretation.


    Hidden variable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Hidden variables: unseen influences such as undiscovered particles, forces, or energies.

    In later years, Einstein held fast to his belief that something was missing from quantum physics. He said there must be hidden quantum variables, and that the quantum theories would not be complete until those hidden variables were found.
    Einstein's Hidden Variables

    It has been alleged from time to time that hidden variables have been found, but I believe the primary hidden variable is yet undiscovered, specifically a particulate background field, but I believe this field's energies of motion have been discovered at the quantum level, in the form of the Zero Point Field/ Energy.
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 5th, 2012 at 11:22 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Hidden variables:


    • Hidden variable theory in physics: the proposition that statistical models of physical systems (such as Quantum Mechanics) are inherently incomplete, and that the apparent randomness of a system depends not on collapsing wave functions, but rather due to unseen or unmeasurable (and thus "hidden") variables -- in sharp contrast to the generally accepted Copenhagan Interpretation.

    Hidden variable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Hidden variables: unseen entities such as unknown particles, forces, or energies.
    Note that "unknown particles, forces, or energies" does not appear in the quotation you cite. Even if they were, things like the Higgs boson are not "unknown particles, forces, or energies"; they are part of the standard model (which does not allow hidden variables).

    And there is no point quoting Einstein on this as he has been repeatedly and thoroughly shown to be wrong in this case. He was obviously one of those hidebound, narrow-minded, unimaginative scientists who was unable to accept new ideas (as various people with fringe ideas like to say).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Hidden variables:


    • Hidden variable theory in physics: the proposition that statistical models of physical systems (such as Quantum Mechanics) are inherently incomplete, and that the apparent randomness of a system depends not on collapsing wave functions, but rather due to unseen or unmeasurable (and thus "hidden") variables -- in sharp contrast to the generally accepted Copenhagan Interpretation.

    Hidden variable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Hidden variables: unseen entities such as unknown particles, forces, or energies.
    Note that "unknown particles, forces, or energies" does not appear in the quotation you cite. Even if they were, things like the Higgs boson are not "unknown particles, forces, or energies"; they are part of the standard model (which does not allow hidden variables).

    And there is no point quoting Einstein on this as he has been repeatedly and thoroughly shown to be wrong in this case. He was obviously one of those hidebound, narrow-minded, unimaginative scientists who was unable to accept new ideas (as various people with fringe ideas like to say).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    double post
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 6th, 2012 at 02:31 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    TriforceV,

    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    ..... the real question I'm concerned with is the Why. Why does merely observing and measuring the quantum experiment change the experiment? what's the connection if any? I do not believe this article addresses this fundamental question.
    I think there is a simple answer to your question. Let's take an electron for instance. To observe it in a classical way one needs to have information about the electron's location, momentum or other characteristics, which usually involves photons as the messenger. Any messenger, like a photon by reflection or refraction, somewhat interferes with the electron's location and/ or momentum. This, I think, is the simple logical point of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle.

    Can such a new observation procedure as in this link, finally overcome this interference problem thereby requiring Hessenberg's Uncertainty principle to be changed or reworded? Perhaps.
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 6th, 2012 at 02:31 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Can such a new observation procedure as in this link, finally overcome this interference problem thereby requiring Hessenberg's Uncertainty principle to be changed or reworded? Perhaps.
    The "interference" you describe is the measurement or observer effect and has nothing to do with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which therefore does not need to be changed.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    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 Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Can such a new observation procedure as in this link, finally overcome this interference problem thereby requiring Hessenberg's Uncertainty principle to be changed or reworded? Perhaps.

    The "interference" you describe is the measurement or observer effect and has nothing to do with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which therefore does not need to be changed.
    Uncertainty Principle defined: 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, such as position x and momentum p can be known simultaneously.

    Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    They are now able to simultaneously measure velocity and momentum with lesser interference and more accuracy.

    Quotes from link below:

    Because measurements disturb the system, increased certainty in the first measurement leads to increased uncertainty in the second.
    Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems.
    (underline added)

    http://www.scienceda...21004121638.htm

    By making constant but weak measurements of a quantum system, physicists have managed to probe a delicate quantum state without destroying it......
    Kennard's formulation is therefore totally different from Heisenberg's. But many physicists, probably including Heisenberg himself, have been under the misapprehension that both formulations describe virtually the same phenomenon. The one that physicists use in everyday research and call Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is in fact Kennard's formulation. It is universally applicable and securely grounded in quantum theory.

    If it were violated experimentally, the whole of quantum mechanics would break down. Heisenberg's formulation, however, was proposed as conjecture, so quantum mechanics is not shaken by its violation.
    More certainty on uncertainty's quantum mechanical role

    Heisenberg's formulation was shown to be wrong. Kennard's formulation is still applicable. Kennard's formulation says:
    ........you cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position σ(q) and momentum σ(p) lower than a certain limit simultaneously.
    Since the full extent of all quantum fluctuations for any given experiment must be estimated, Kennard's formulation presently seems pretty secure.

    One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead: Scientific American

    This was the question:

    Why does merely observing and measuring the quantum experiment change the experiment?
    My answer:

    ....Any messenger, like a photon by reflection or refraction, somewhat interferes with the electron's location and/ or momentum. This, I think, is the simple logical .....
    (explanation for your question)

    my conjecture:

    Can such a new observation procedure as in this link, finally overcome this interference problem thereby requiring Hessenberg's Uncertainty principle to be changed or reworded? Perhaps.
    I think there is a good chance that the Uncertainty Principle as typically indicated above, will be reworded

    The question was about how measurement can effect the outcome of the experiment, not specifically about how the measurement might effect quantum fluctuations. My answer also did not mention quantum fluctuations.
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 7th, 2012 at 08:41 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    They are now able to simultaneously measure velocity and momentum with lesser interference and more accuracy.
    Yes. But still within the limits of the uncertainty principle. They have just reduced the measurement effect. Which, as the article says, "has been confused with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect". I am simply trying to make sure that no one thinks this experiment challenges the "uncertainty principle" (it doesn't).

    But thanks for the clarification that what we call Heisneberg's uncertainty principle is actually Kennard's.

    I think there is a good chance that the Uncertainty Principle as typically indicated above, will be reworded
    Three things:

    1. This experiment has nothing to do with challenging the uncertainty principle, which remains a fundamental limit on observables.
    2. The idea that the uncertainty principle might have to be "reworded" is pretty meaningless as it is not defined in words (it may be crudely and inaccurately explained in words but that is all).
    3. As the Sci Am articles says, it has been "reworded" as: ε(q)η(p) + σ(q)η(p) + σ(p)ε(q) ≥ h/4π

    The question was about how measurement can effect the outcome of the experiment, not specifically about how the measurement might effect quantum fluctuations. My answer also did not mention quantum fluctuations.
    I don't know why you now bring quantum fluctuations into it .... Just to add more confusion, perhaps.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    It's worth looking at an old version of the wikipedia article on the Uncertainty Principle. You get a better idea that the HUP relates to the wave nature of matter:

    "In quantum physics, a particle is described by a wave packet, which gives rise to this phenomenon...

    The only kind of wave with a definite position is concentrated at one point, and such a wave has an indefinite wavelength (and therefore an indefinite momentum).

    Conversely, the only kind of wave with a definite wavelength is an infinite regular periodic oscillation over all space, which has no definite position..."

    The current article isn't bad, but IMHO contains more "point-particle" sentences like this:

    "The Born rule states that this should be interpreted as a probability density function in the sense that the probability of finding the particle between a and b is..."

    Note though that the Fourier transform is mentioned a lot. I think this is very important. If you say "detection effectively performs a Fourier transform", the double-slit experiment doesn't seem at all mysterious.
    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
    Strange,

    .....But still within the limits of the uncertainty principle.
    As I said in my last posting, Kennard's formulation says that one .......cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position and momentum lower than a certain limit. Kennard's inequalities are unrelated to observations or measurement of the system. The principle one more time is:

    During the transit of a particle one cannot suppress the quantum fluctuations of both the particle's position σ(q) and momentum σ(p) lower than a certain limit simultaneously.
    Most that use Kennard's formulation also generally refer to it as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The Kennard-Robertson principle might never be testable since all quantum fluctuations within any particular test can never be known. This seemingly could always be a valid argument against anyone ever claiming that the lower limits of the inequality were exceeded.

    The fluctuation exists regardless whether it is measured or not, and the inequality does not say anything about what happens when a measurement is performed. Therefore, Kennard’s formulation is totally different from Heisenberg’s.
    Violation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - Hamsn

    My point was/is that although many in QM consider Kennard's Principle the same as Heisenberg's Principle, in reality its basis is instead quantum fluctuations relating to a particle's position and momentum, rather than the exact position and momentum themselves.
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 7th, 2012 at 01:38 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    As I said in my last posting, Kennard's formulation says that one .......cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position and momentum lower than a certain limit. Kennard's inequalities are unrelated to observations or measurement of the system.
    It may be that we largely agree. Note that the important word in there is both. In other words, you can measure one of them to whatever accuracy you want, but the other will become increasingly uncertain (the quantum fluctuations will become larger, if you prefer to think of it that way.

    Kannard's principle is unrelated to an exact location or momentum.
    I'm not quite sure what that means.

    Most that use Kennard's formulation also generally refer to it as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
    It is the only Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle I'm aware of.

    The Kennard-Robertson principle might never be testable
    I'm pretty sure it is both testable and has been tested. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head. I'll have to look it up. But in fact, the article you referenced is effectively a test of the uncertainty principle; the limits on the accuracy to which momentum and position remains even when the eliminate the observer effect.

    since all quantum fluctuations within any particular test can never be known. This will always be a valid argument against anyone ever claiming that the lower limits of the inequality were exceeded.
    I don't really understand that.

    My point was/is that although many in QM consider Kennard's Principle the same as Heisenberg's Principle, in reality its basis is instead quantum fluctuations relating to a particle's position and momentum, rather than the exact position and momentum themselves.
    The quantum fluctuations introduce an uncertainty in position or momentum. Interestingly, it is often described as the fluctuations being allowed because of the uncertainty principle.

    By the way, did you notice that this (Violation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - Hamsn) is the same Sci Am article you linked to earlier. I think I'll let Sci Am know that some crooks are violating their copyright....
    Last edited by Strange; October 7th, 2012 at 01:42 PM.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    .
    Last edited by Strange; October 7th, 2012 at 01:42 PM. Reason: duplicate
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Strange,

    ......if you prefer to think of it that way.
    I certainly do not prefer it that way. After reading about how to measure quantum fluctuations from several sources, I still question the value of it. I could understand, I think, the difficulty in doing such measurements. Accordingly the measurable extent of quantum fluctuations will always be less than the total that occur. Like I said before, it seems like really nothing relevant is being measured that could have application of the information, or confirmation as to its validity. Maybe not a complete waste of time, but the distinction alludes me -- or even any reason for thinking this principle relating to quantitative quantum fluctuations should be a foundation principle of QM.

    By the way, did you notice that this (Violation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - Hamsn) is the same Sci Am article you linked to earlier. I think I'll let Sci Am know that some crooks are violating their copyright.
    I know you're joking here. I guess I did notice it now that you mentioned it. Was one link quoting S.A. without giving credit, maybe so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Maybe not a complete waste of time, but the distinction alludes me -- or even any reason for thinking this principle relating to quantitative quantum fluctuations should be a foundation principle of QM.
    I suppose it is important because it puts lower bounds on what we can measure with pairs of conjugate variables (position/momentum, time/energy, etc). It also allows (or is because of) quantum fluctuations, which is important for all sorts of reasons, such as your beloved zero point field.

    I know you're joking here.
    No, the scumbags at the that Hamsn site had just copied the text from Sci Am. (I don't have a lot of time for thieves.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Farsight

    "The Born rule states that this should be interpreted as a probability density function in the sense that the probability of finding the particle between a and b is..."

    Note though that the Fourier transform is mentioned a lot. I think this is very important. If you say "detection effectively performs a Fourier transform", the double-slit experiment doesn't seem at all mysterious.
    I agree with your comments.

    I think the Uncertainty Principle should be expressed as a probability function concerning position within a range, and momentum within another range. But then there might not be any reverence attached to it since then it could never be violated
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I agree with your comments. I also think this "principle" should be expressed as a probability function concerning position within a range, and momentum within another range. But then there might not be any reverence attached to it
    I don't think probabilty is anything to do with it, forrest. It's like feeling the wavefunction with hands made of wavefunction. It reminds me of hurricanes on a cloudy planet. Take a look at some pictures of hurricanes. You see dots which are the eye of the storm. But that isn't where the hurricane is. The eye of the storm is a calm spot. That's where the hiurricane isn't!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Doublepost deleted.
    Last edited by Farsight; October 7th, 2012 at 04:27 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I think the Uncertainty Principle should be expressed as a probability function concerning position within a range, and momentum within another range. But then there might not be any reverence attached to it since then it could never be violated
    You still seem to be missing the point that it is about the relationship between pairs of values (they are not just random), which is why the original Fourier transform formulation of QM is so relevant.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    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 Farsight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I agree with your comments. I also think this "principle" should be expressed as a probability function concerning position within a range, and momentum within another range. But then there might not be any reverence attached to it
    I don't think probability is anything to do with it, forrest. It's like feeling the wavefunction with hands made of wavefunction. It reminds me of hurricanes on a cloudy planet. Take a look at some pictures of hurricanes. You see dots which are the eye of the storm. But that isn't where the hurricane is. The eye of the storm is a calm spot. That's where the hurricane isn't!
    You'te probably right, I don't have a clear picture of it. I would have to see a statistical picture of a combination of a few hundred runs to have a clear picture if such calculated locations and momentums inverse corrolation falls within the tolerances of a statistical normal curve. If the data does not conform I still think they could come up with something better than expressing such results in terms of quantum fluctuations
    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 Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I think the Uncertainty Principle should be expressed as a probability function concerning position within a range, and momentum within another range. But then there might not be any reverence attached to it since then it could never be violated
    You still seem to be missing the point that it is about the relationship between pairs of values (they are not just random), which is why the original Fourier transform formulation of QM is so relevant.
    Yes, I understand it is all about the statistical inverse correlation between knowing the position or momentum more precisely which results in knowing the other less precisely.
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 7th, 2012 at 08:38 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    You'te probably right, I don't have a clear picture of it. I would have to see a statistical picture of a combination of a few hundred runs to have a clear picture if such calculated locations and momentums inverse corrolation falls within the tolerances of a statistical normal curve. If the data does not conform I still think they could come up with something better than expressing such results in terms of quantum fluctuations.
    I'm not sure about that. But if it helps any have a look at this article about the optical Fourier transform by Steven Lehar. Scroll down until you get to this image:



    Now imagine that the input image is the wavefunction of a photon, whilst the lens is the wavefunction of an electron in a photodetector. The output is some little dotty thing that goes through one slit only. The Fourier transform has taken something that was spread out in position space, which is ordinary space, and turned it into something that isn't. See this re position space and momentum space and how the Fourier transform flips one into the other. Note the "previous page" concerns the HUP.
    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 Farsight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    You'te probably right, I don't have a clear picture of it. I would have to see a statistical picture of a combination of a few hundred runs to have a clear picture if such calculated locations and momentums inverse corrolation falls within the tolerances of a statistical normal curve. If the data does not conform I still think they could come up with something better than expressing such results in terms of quantum fluctuations.
    I'm not sure about that. But if it helps any have a look at this article about the optical Fourier transform by Steven Lehar. Scroll down until you get to this image:



    Now imagine that the input image is the wavefunction of a photon, whilst the lens is the wavefunction of an electron in a photodetector. The output is some little dotty thing that goes through one slit only. The Fourier transform has taken something that was spread out in position space, which is ordinary space, and turned it into something that isn't. See this re position space and momentum space and how the Fourier transform flips one into the other. Note the "previous page" concerns the HUP.

    Sorry Farsight. I know you put some effort into this posting but via matrix transforms I've studied Fourier Transforms and don't have the slightest clue how this might apply to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, or quantum mechanics in general. I have never taken classes in QM even though I have the background math, primarily because I have no respect for QM as a science. I have, however, designed experiments to accordingly disprove "all" of the underlying principles of it. I simply believe there is still an undiscovered aether. I have designed an experiment to "find it." Obviously none of these things are easy, if so it would have long ago been discovered. Many great experiments have been conducted to do so and so far have failed.

    Still, I think when/if it is discovered QM as we now know it will be "blown away."
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 7th, 2012 at 11:29 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I've studied Fourier Transforms and don't have the slightest clue how this might apply to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, or quantum mechanics in general.
    What!? But how is that possible?

    I have never taken classes in QM even though I have the background math, primarily because I have no respect for QM as a science.
    Oh I see.

    That is a bizarre attitude; I don't like it so I'm not going to learn about it. The intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la".

    This does explain a lot though. I was struggling to understand how little you appeared to know. You seem almost proud of this wilful ignorance rather than deeply ashamed.

    I have, however, designed experiments to accordingly disprove "all" of the underlying principles of it.
    It would be interesting to have a new thread where you described these. Although, I'm not sure how you can come up with anything other a trivial test based on total ignorance. The experiments that you (and Einstein) hope would show a crack in QM (like the "uncertainty principle" one) require a deep understanding of the theory in order to come up with a test that might "break" it.

    Many great experiments have been conducted to do so and so far have failed.
    Weird. It's almost like it isn't there...
    KALSTER and pyoko like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I have never taken classes in QM even though I have the background math, primarily because I have no respect for QM as a science.
    Oh I see.

    That is a bizarre attitude; I don't like it so I'm not going to learn about it. The intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la".

    This does explain a lot though. I was struggling to understand how little you appeared to know. You seem almost proud of this wilful ignorance rather than deeply ashamed.

    Weird. It's almost like it isn't there...
    Very revealing indeed.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I have never taken classes in QM even though I have the background math, primarily because I have no respect for QM as a science.
    This Sunday's Dilbert:



    I have no respect for QM as a science. I have, however, designed experiments to accordingly disprove "all" of the underlying principles of it.
    Hang on a minute! If you can define experiments to disprove it then: it is science. Duh.
    JoshuaL likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Strange,

    I don't like it so I'm not going to learn about it. The intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la".
    I don't think Quantum Theory is science, period. Just like a lot of people don't want to learn about alternative theory, because they think there is a lot more to learn that all agree is science. I think almost the entire field of Quantum Theory is hokum. I agree with Einstein and Shroedinger who thought that QM is purely a statistical system of the quantum world, and the rest it is a system and equations based upon a long history of observations. This aspect of it I agree with. All of the verbal aspects of the theory, better called Quantum Theory, is where I have the problem, things like the Copenhagen interpretation and its so-called "Principles."

    If something sounds fantastic to me, I believe that there is a good chance that it is either wrong, or that the explanation of it is wrong. In QM I simply think the explanation of it is wrong. The primary reason that I think Quantum Theory is wrong is because I believe there are hidden variables in the form of a particulate background field of some kind.

    It would be interesting to have a new thread where you described these. Although, I'm not sure how you can come up with anything other a trivial test based on total ignorance.
    Glad to start a thread if you or anyone were interested. Remember, I already have an entire book (for 15 years), about 380 pages long, of my own theoretical cosmology, theoretical physics, my own theory of Pushing Gravity (look up Forrest Noble's pushing gravity), a simpler but different theory of relativity, and a relatively simple but extended string theory of the quantum world, my own model of quantum theory. All theories have the theoretical equations to support them, collectively called the Pan Theory. Look it up.
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 8th, 2012 at 11:36 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    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 Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I have never taken classes in QM even though I have the background math, primarily because I have no respect for QM as a science. I have no respect for QM as a science. I have, however, designed experiments to accordingly disprove "all" of the underlying principles of it.
    Hang on a minute! If you can define experiments to disprove it then: it is science. Duh.
    There is an underlying science to QM. It is the science of the quantum world. My thinking has kinship with opinions expressed by Eistein, Shroedinger, De Broglie, concerning its assertions, tenets, and Principles. QM's interpretation of Entanglement, for instance, I think is almost laughable.
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 8th, 2012 at 11:49 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I agree with Einstein and Shroedinger who thought that QM is purely a statistical system of the quantum world, and the rest it is a system and equations based upon a long history of observations.
    And they have been proved to be wrong.

    All of the verbal aspects of the theory
    I have no idea what that means. There are no "verbal aspects"; it is a scientific theory. It is described in mathematics, not words.

    , better called Quantum Theory, is where I have the problem, things like the Copenhagen interpretation and its so-called "Principles."
    I don't like the Copenhagen interpretation. I think it is pretty meaningless. So what?

    If something sounds fantastic to me, I believe that there is a good chance that it is either wrong, or that the explanation of it is wrong.
    There are other possibilities: you haven't understood it or you are just plain wrong. I don't know why we should rely on your judgement about what is "fantastic" or not.

    Pan Theory. Look it up.
    Been there. Done that. It is badly written, meaningless drivel (he says, trying to sound positive). But lets not rehash that again.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Interesting stuff, forrest. I don't share your view on push gravity, but I do share your view on the hokum surrounding quantum mechanics. Other people do too, and I'm pleased to say that "quantum mysticism" typified by the Copenhagen Interpretation and Many-Worlds now has a stake through its heart. See Jeff Lundeen's home page, where you can read "Our paper on the measurement of the wavefunction was chosen as 2nd most important Physics Breakthrough of 2011 by Physicsworld." First place went to another team performing weak measurement, wherein the photon wavefunction was "gingerly felt out" and established as something real rather than something associated with mere probability. Note that this doesn't mean that quantum mechanics is hokum, but it does mean that the it surpasseth all human understanding and you can never hope to understand it sentiment is at last on the way out.

    When it comes to aether, note the quote here by Robert Laughlin, Nobel prizewinner:

    "It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . ."

    Also see arXiv re papers concerning aether and ether. Sadly many people who consider themselves somewhat knowledgeable about physics labour under the misapprehension that Einstein did away with the aether, when he didn't. See his 1920 Leyden Address. The aether is space, the vacuum. It sustains fields, and waves run through it. It isn't the luminiferous aether of old, but it isn't nothing either. In hindsight, it was arguably detected by Ehrenberg and Siday in 1949, who predicted what is now known as the Aharonov-Bohm effect in their classical paper The Refractive Index in Electron Optics and the Principles of Dynamics .

    There is much to look forward to in 21st Century physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Other people do too, and I'm pleased to say that "quantum mysticism" typified by the Copenhagen Interpretation and Many-Worlds now has a stake through its heart.
    None of those experiments change anything about quantum mechanics though. If it helps people come up with a better interpretation, that is good but largely irrelevant.

    The aether is space, the vacuum. It sustains fields, and waves run through it. It isn't the luminiferous aether of old, but it isn't nothing either.
    Unicorns are not the mythical beasts of old, they are four-legged equine beasts commonly used as beasts of burden and for sport. Therefore unicorns exist.

    You are just redefining what the word "aether" means and then saying it exists. The word is being applied to so many concepts it has become meaningless.

    There is much to look forward to in 21st Century physics.
    At least we can all agree on that.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    (QM).....is a scientific theory. It is described in mathematics, not words.
    (parenthesis added)

    If you look up quantum theory on a search engine you will find mostly words. When you study it they will be talking about its principles verbally. Quantum Entanglement is a verbal principle, a particle's state are measurements, generally without the need for quantum calculations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    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 Farsight View Post
    ......... I do share your view on the hokum surrounding quantum mechanics. Other people do too, and I'm pleased to say that "quantum mysticism" typified by the Copenhagen Interpretation and Many-Worlds now has a stake through its heart. See Jeff Lundeen's home page, where you can read "Our paper on the measurement of the wavefunction was chosen as 2nd most important Physics Breakthrough of 2011 by Physicsworld."
    That's really cool

    First place went to another team performing weak measurement, wherein the photon wavefunction was "gingerly felt out" and established as something real rather than something associated with mere probability.
    I have my own non-quantum ideas about "gingerly felt out"

    Note that this doesn't mean that quantum mechanics is hokum, but it does mean that the it surpasseth all human understanding and you can never hope to understand it sentiment is at last on the way out.
    I understand that in our mutual opinion some of QM's tenets are hokum.

    When it comes to aether, note the quote here by Robert Laughlin, Nobel prizewinner:
    "It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . ."
    I totally agree

    Also see arXiv re papers concerning aether and ether. Sadly many people who consider themselves somewhat knowledgeable about physics labour under the misapprehension that Einstein did away with the aether, when he didn't. See his 1920 Leyden Address. The aether is space, the vacuum. It sustains fields, and waves run through it. It isn't the luminiferous aether of old, but it isn't nothing either. In hindsight, it was arguably detected by Ehrenberg and Siday in 1949, who predicted what is now known as the Aharonov-Bohm effect in their classical paper The Refractive Index in Electron Optics and the Principles of Dynamics .
    Almost any kind of aether might explain the proposed hidden variables of QM. My preference is a particulate background field, something like dark matter, Higgs particles, gravitons, etc, only in my own theory such sting-like entities (no-extra dimensions) go down in size to quantum lengths or smaller. And yes, mine is a gravity-centered luminiferous aether -- so in this our opinions differ.

    There is much to look forward to in 21st Century physics.
    I'm hoping for the replacement of theory concerning QM, SM, SR, GR, BB theory. In many ways theoretically I think the 20th century was a step backwards. I think all of these problems relate to discarding the aether ideas of Maxwell, Lorentz, and many others. The M & M experiment was not designed to find a gravity centered aether, for instance. This is not a new idea, at the time before M & M did their experiments, others had proposed an "aether drag" of gravity and of the Earth -- thereby being undetectable by such an experiment.

    Yes, I'm a big optimist believing that by the close of this century that the aether will be finally discovered and that the theories of the last century will be re-written and reformulated.
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 8th, 2012 at 11:28 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    If you look up quantum theory on a search engine you will find mostly words. When you study it they will be talking about its principles verbally. Quantum Entanglement is a verbal principle, a particle's state are measurements, generally without the need for quantum calculations.
    Even for you, that is such a profoundly ignorant statement, I will leave the discussion there. There is no point in any sort of dialogue with you.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,832
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    If you look up quantum theory on a search engine you will find mostly words. When you study it they will be talking about its principles verbally.
    Yes, if you restrict your searching methods to text-based terms, not surprisingly you will get text-based results. But what do you infer from this limited research? You come up with this howler:

    Quantum Entanglement is a verbal principle, a particle's state are measurements, generally without the need for quantum calculations.
    As Strange observed, this is idiotic, even in light of your other idiotic positions. You have obviously never studied QM. It is highly mathematical. You can't figure out the outcome of experiments without doing a lot of mathematics. Only in a few cases can you even come up with qualitative outlines of outcomes without having done calculations. To claim that engtanglement is a "verbal principle" merely shows that you haven't a clue about what you're talking about.

    At least you're consistent. Yet you still manage to surprise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You are just redefining what the word "aether" means and then saying it exists. The word is being applied to so many concepts it has become meaningless.
    I'm telling it how it is. Go read what Einstein said and what Loughlin said and look at those arXiv papers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    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 tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quantum Entanglement is a verbal principle, a particle's state are measurements, generally without the need for quantum calculations.
    (bold and underline added)

    As Strange observed, this is idiotic, even in light of your other idiotic positions. You have obviously never studied QM. It is highly mathematical. You can't figure out the outcome of experiments without doing a lot of mathematics. Only in a few cases can you even come up with qualitative outlines of outcomes without having done calculations. To claim that entanglement is a "verbal principle" merely shows that you haven't a clue about what you're talking about.
    Quantum Entanglement of electrons can most easily be demonstrated by spin. When two electrons are brought very close together under the right conditions they accordingly become entangled. Send them off in two different directions. After many miles the spin of one can be detected by a filter. The spin of the other will accordingly automatically be known as being the opposite and can also be checked by another filter. One electron will have spin up and the other spin down. No calculations concerning spin are needed to determine entanglement.

    Filter construction:
    ....after an electron has passed through the magnet, we know the z-component of its spin. We have constructed a spin analyzer. Now consider an arrangement of three magnets in series with the polarity of the middle, longer magnet reversed. The paths of spin-up or spin-down electrons through the arrangement are different, but both spin orientations emerge undeflected. If we insert a beam block, only spin-up particles can pass
    Spin

    Entangled photon spin is similarly measured with filters, No calculations are needed to determine spin quantum entanglement of photons.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_entanglement

    To determine entanglement based upon spin no calculations are needed, just spin analyzers or filters are needed which is what I said.
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 9th, 2012 at 01:48 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,832
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    To determine entanglement based upon spin no calculations are needed, just spin analyzers or filters are needed to determine entanglement which is what I said.
    And how were the necessary experimental conditions determined? What's a "good enough" filter? How were the expected outcomes computed? How were the observations reconciled with those predictions to verify that the observations were, in fact, dispositive of entanglement, and not some other mechanism?

    Without math, you're left with quite a mess. The "simple" demonstrations you cite are only simple demonstrations ex post facto a long set of calculations, Forrest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    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 tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    To determine entanglement based upon spin no calculations are needed, just spin analyzers or filters are needed to determine entanglement which is what I said.
    And how were the necessary experimental conditions determined? What's a "good enough" filter? How were the expected outcomes computed? How were the observations reconciled with those predictions to verify that the observations were, in fact, dispositive of entanglement, and not some other mechanism?

    Without math, you're left with quite a mess. The "simple" demonstrations you cite are only simple demonstrations ex post facto a long set of calculations, Forrest.
    I gave the links. No calculations are needed to determine spin entanglement. Only measurements are required which is what I said:

    I showed my links concerning how such quantum measurements of spin are made without calculation. Please provide reference links for your own future statements.
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 9th, 2012 at 02:09 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    The trouble is that Forrest reads a description of entanglement and thinks he understands it (and therefore concludes that only a verbal description is needed). There are several problems with this, of course.

    One major one is that I have never seen a purely verbal description of entanglement that is accurate.

    A second one is that it is obvious that Forrest does not always understand what he reads; he has provided many examples where he quotes something and derives a totally contrary meaning from the words.

    Finally, the sort of fuzzy and inaccurate summary provided above is practically useless. Unless it is made quantitative it cannot be tested or used.

    But, sadly, Forrest will never be able to understand any of that.
    tk421 likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    IMHO it's worth looking at some of Joy Christian's papers on arXiv.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Almost any kind of aether might explain the proposed hidden variables of QM. My preference is a particulate background field, something like dark matter, Higgs particles, gravitons, etc, only in my own theory such string-like entities (no-extra dimensions) go down in size to quantum lengths or smaller.
    I think it's the wrong approach to think that space is made out of particles. Space is what it is, waves run through it, and pair production and electron diffraction demonstrate that we can make particles out of those waves. Note that the virtual particles of QED are virtual, they aren't real particles. They're "field quanta", and they aren't the same thing as vacuum fluctuations as per the Casimir effect. Think in terms of of dividing a field up into little squares and saying each square is a virtual particle. The space where that field is isn't full of photons flitting back and forth. A hydrogen atom doesn't twinkle, and magnets don't shine. Yes, a field can fluctuate just as the surface of the ocean is covered with tiny ripplets. But the ocean is not made of those tiny ripplets.

    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I'm hoping for the replacement of theory concerning QM, SM, SR, GR, BB theory. In many ways theoretically I think the 20th century was a step backwards. I think all of these problems relate to discarding the aether ideas of Maxwell, Lorentz, and many others.
    There are certainly some issues, but I'd say it's in the interpretation of the theory rather than the theory itself. Stuff like relativity and quantum mechanics aren't wrong per se, it's just that people don't understand them, and lap up the mystic baggage. As for your aims I'd say it's good to think for yourself, but you can't do it all yourself. So I think it's better to contribute to understanding rather than trying to be a "my theory" guy. You can do that by finding out about things that are already out there, but which struggle to get publicity. For example, you know how I said wavefunction is real? Now take a look at The other meaning of special relativity by Robert Close.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Farsight,

    I think it's the wrong approach to think that space is made out of particles. Space is what it is, waves run through it, and pair production and electron diffraction demonstrate that we can make particles out of those waves.
    In my opinion a particulate/string-like background field best explains an aether. A particulate aether can be luminiferous and explain EM radiation. It can totally explain the ZPF via the energy of motion of these particles. It can be the source of gravity via pushing gravity, and it can be the hidden variables of QM.

    Space, in my view, also contains particulates/strings within it to explain the Casimir effect just as you have described , but by itself , devoid of any constituents, would accordingly just be the distance between matter and nothing more. It could not expand, warp or accordingly have any characteristics at all

    (re QM)... I'd say it's in the interpretation of the theory rather than the theory itself. Stuff like relativity and quantum mechanics aren't wrong per se, it's just that people don't understand them, and lap up the mystic baggage. As for your aims I'd say it's good to think for yourself, but you can't do it all yourself. So I think it's better to contribute to understanding rather than trying to be a "my theory" guy. You can do that by finding out about things that are already out there, but which struggle to get publicity. For example, you know how I said wavefunction is real? Now take a look at The other meaning of special relativity by Robert Close.
    My belief is that reality is "simple" in every possible respect excepting that it has an almost infinite amount of intricacies to it. In my opinion the quantum world is impossible to properly explain without an aether. In my view this is why QM seems illogical and has so many mystical explanations.

    As for me, I have been a theoretician as an avocation for over 50 years now with much related writings, technical papers and theory. I would like to be part of a team concerning experiments, or those having common goals and/or theoretical interests

    IMHO it's worth looking at some of Joy Christian's papers on arXiv.
    Looked at the Abstracts but didn't see enough detail in them to make appropriate comments since the papers were unavailable. Sounds like she also is not very fond of Quantum Theory the way that it is presently presented
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 9th, 2012 at 04:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    Hi,

    I know very little about quantum physics .
    You are in a good place, Sir. Stay there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    For anyone interested in why there cannot be (local) hidden variables, here is a brilliantly simple explanation of Bell's Theorem: Bell's Theorem with Easy Math (even Forrest could understand it - if he was willing to take his fingers out of his ears).

    Edit: A bit more background from the same author here: http://www.drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem.htm

    Nicely, it points out how essential the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paper was to confirming QM.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Strange,

    The flaw with Bell's Theorem is simply that it is based upon the validity of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

    Below are some of the fundamental principles by which many of the QM predictions are made.

    Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has problems. Maybe its wording and formulations may need to be changed in the future.

    Other principles of QM are the Either Or, but not both at once, wave particle duality Principle of EM radiation, the Indeterminacy of particle state before observation, relating to Shroedingers Cat and quantum Entanglement. The Lack of Causality Principle: that events can happen by pure chance, their probability determined by statistics; Qunatum Entaglement principle.
    If some or all of these principles are wrong then Bell's Theorem would also be wrong. It assumes that all of the above tenets of QM are valid, attempting to prove that hidden variable cannot explain all the tenets/predictions of quantum mechanics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    For anyone interested in why there cannot be (local) hidden variables, here is a brilliantly simple explanation of Bell's Theorem: Bell's Theorem with Easy Math (even Forrest could understand it - if he was willing to take his fingers out of his ears).
    Alas, the finger criterion will never be satisfied, based on well-established patterns.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The flaw with Bell's Theorem is simply that it is based upon the validity of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
    Only in as much as those predictions can be tested. In other words it can be based on measurements. It doesn't assume QM is correct. In fact it starts by assuming EPR is correct; i.e. there is no "spooky action at a distance" and the underlying states of reality could be determined if we knew the appropriate hidden variables. And then looks at the results predicted by that model.

    We can then compare reality (i.e. measurements) with the predictions of the "wrong" theory (QM) and the predictions of the "correct" theory (EPR). Guess what happens ....

    And before you say, "oh but those measurement results are biased because they are based on assumptions of QM" (although, how that could be when they are measurements is beyond me), it is worth pointing out that many of the tests of this have been done by people who support an EPR theory. They want the results to support the "correct" theory. Guess what happens ....

    I am going to assume you haven't bothered to read either of the articles (presumably there is too great a risk you might learn something). But I think you should. Apart from anything else, you could (if you opened your mind for a few minutes) learn what "hidden variables" actually means (rather than your made up version).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Strange: you're on the wrong side of the quantum mysticism fence I'm afraid. You know how in the article you linked to A is 0 degree, B is 120 degrees, and C is 240 degrees? Those are rotations. And rotations do not commute. Google on "rotations do not commute". The whole thing is one big straw man.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Strange: you're on the wrong side of the quantum mysticism fence I'm afraid. You know how in the article you linked to A is 0 degree, B is 120 degrees, and C is 240 degrees? Those are rotations. And rotations do not commute. Google on "rotations do not commute". The whole thing is one big straw man.
    Why don't you actually demonstrate the problem?

    Oh, I remember, because you don't actually know how to do any mathematics or physics relevant to quantum mechanics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    And rotations do not commute.
    Isn't that only in 3 or more dimensions?

    It's not clear to me why commutation would be relevant to the calculation of the probabilities anyway; they are calculated as if they are independent (hidden) variables. Could you expand on that?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    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 Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The flaw with Bell's Theorem is simply that it is based upon the validity of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
    Only in as much as those predictions can be tested. In other words it can be based on measurements. It doesn't assume QM is correct. In fact it starts by assuming EPR is correct; i.e. there is no "spooky action at a distance" and the underlying states of reality could be determined if we knew the appropriate hidden variables. And then looks at the results predicted by that model.

    We can then compare reality (i.e. measurements) with the predictions of the "wrong" theory (QM) and the predictions of the "correct" theory (EPR). Guess what happens ....

    And before you say, "oh but those measurement results are biased because they are based on assumptions of QM" (although, how that could be when they are measurements is beyond me), it is worth pointing out that many of the tests of this have been done by people who support an EPR theory. They want the results to support the "correct" theory. Guess what happens ....

    I am going to assume you haven't bothered to read either of the articles (presumably there is too great a risk you might learn something). But I think you should. Apart from anything else, you could (if you opened your mind for a few minutes) learn what "hidden variables" actually means (rather than your made up version).
    Bell's Theorem:
    No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
    .......it is true only for genuinely "two-outcome" systems, not for the "three-outcome" ones (with possible outcomes of zero as well as +1 and −1) encountered in real experiments. For another, it applies only to a very restricted set of hidden variable theories, namely those for which the outcomes on both sides of the experiment are always exactly anti-correlated........
    The original inequality that Bell derived was:

    where C is the "correlation" of the particle pairs and a, b and c settings of the apparatus. This inequality is not used in practice (for the above reasons).....
    (bold, parenthesis added)

    Bell's theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 13th, 2012 at 12:18 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    ...
    I don't really know why you bother as you have made it quite plain you don't actually have the slightest understanding of any of that.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Question about quantum physics?
    By eric0728 in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 5th, 2010, 09:56 PM
  2. physics and new age humanisn
    By nlwright in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 19th, 2009, 08:47 AM
  3. Quantum Entanglement - A New Age Thang
    By Vexer in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 21st, 2008, 11:15 PM
  4. Coming out of the quantum theory dark age
    By davidsf in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 31st, 2008, 07:56 PM
  5. Quantum physics video
    By newspaper in forum Physics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: December 15th, 2007, 01:16 AM
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
  •