Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
Yeah dude … I’ll join the lunar cosmonauts for god club, or geeks for god? Honestly, your ideas are so far fetched and out of the mainstream – this is like having a conversation with Scooby Doo
- Status
A
abucs
Guest
Antitheist, the question still remains, is love (or thinking) basically atomic particles obeying necessary laws or is there something else apart from matter and laws of physics ? Answering to say you don’t know might be honest I‘ll concede that but certainly evolution has nothing at all to do with the question. How DNA structures atoms is one thing, what happens during loving or thinking is another.
Either yes, all there is, is matter and laws or no there is something else. Atheists are extremely reluctant to answer this question directly. They don’t want to say that there is something more than matter and laws because then they will be forced to be open minded to an unknown immaterial ‘thing’ outside of physical laws. The atheist does not want to go there.
One the other hand the atheist (usually) does not want to say all there is, is matter and physical laws because that means there is in effect no self, no free will, no considering of life, no free giving of love, no reasoning based on an objective intelligence. All there is, is your brain made up of particles reacting in necessary, uncontrolled determinant ways. And logically what this means is any notion of someone thinking they are using reason objectively or loving out of free will has to be denied and because we all think we do these things then we all have to be severely deluded in everything we think and feel are done out of choice. The atheist does not want to go here either. He does not want to be confronted with the fact that his philosophy, in the name of logic and intelligence, is actually arguing that any idea of someone choosing logic and intelligence is a delusion - it is only atomic particles working in uncontrolled ways. Much better to say ‘I don’t know‘. But it has to be one of the other and everyone else knows this Antitheist.
So either the atheist must be open to some unknown immaterial force outside of physical laws, or he must give up the notion of appealing to someone’s intelligence, logic and reason in thinking when his philosophy leads to the conclusion that such things are only delusions. Everybody here sees the weakness of the atheist position , and everyone sees that so far you won’t answer the question ‘yes’ or ‘no‘.
(or provide any answers for the QM experiements presented).
Simply saying ‘you’re wrong dude’ because hey you believe in your own atheist world view without any intelligent defense with regards to the scientific experimentation presented, and that you are sure someone, somewhere must have an answer that fits with your worldview is obviously deficient in intellect.
I’m challenging your belief system Yankee - show some intelligence in defending it. (dude).
Either yes, all there is, is matter and laws or no there is something else. Atheists are extremely reluctant to answer this question directly. They don’t want to say that there is something more than matter and laws because then they will be forced to be open minded to an unknown immaterial ‘thing’ outside of physical laws. The atheist does not want to go there.
One the other hand the atheist (usually) does not want to say all there is, is matter and physical laws because that means there is in effect no self, no free will, no considering of life, no free giving of love, no reasoning based on an objective intelligence. All there is, is your brain made up of particles reacting in necessary, uncontrolled determinant ways. And logically what this means is any notion of someone thinking they are using reason objectively or loving out of free will has to be denied and because we all think we do these things then we all have to be severely deluded in everything we think and feel are done out of choice. The atheist does not want to go here either. He does not want to be confronted with the fact that his philosophy, in the name of logic and intelligence, is actually arguing that any idea of someone choosing logic and intelligence is a delusion - it is only atomic particles working in uncontrolled ways. Much better to say ‘I don’t know‘. But it has to be one of the other and everyone else knows this Antitheist.
So either the atheist must be open to some unknown immaterial force outside of physical laws, or he must give up the notion of appealing to someone’s intelligence, logic and reason in thinking when his philosophy leads to the conclusion that such things are only delusions. Everybody here sees the weakness of the atheist position , and everyone sees that so far you won’t answer the question ‘yes’ or ‘no‘.
(or provide any answers for the QM experiements presented).
Simply saying ‘you’re wrong dude’ because hey you believe in your own atheist world view without any intelligent defense with regards to the scientific experimentation presented, and that you are sure someone, somewhere must have an answer that fits with your worldview is obviously deficient in intellect.
I’m challenging your belief system Yankee - show some intelligence in defending it. (dude).
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
so you’re view of physics remains stuck in the early 20th century?
A
abucs
Guest
No, the view of QM has not changed, its actually been strengthened with all the new experiments that have been done to test it.
I referred to Einsteins thought experiment and Stuart Bell’s Inequality Theorem that were first tested in the 80’s and 90’s.
And up until today the results are all always the same.
Not a 19th century philosophy but (now) a 21st century set of scientific results.
Deal with the results Yankee. Deal with the science.
I referred to Einsteins thought experiment and Stuart Bell’s Inequality Theorem that were first tested in the 80’s and 90’s.
And up until today the results are all always the same.
Not a 19th century philosophy but (now) a 21st century set of scientific results.
Deal with the results Yankee. Deal with the science.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
fair enough. Yes, a wave packet (to express it simply) is a region, in quantum mechanics, expressed as a mathematical probability of information about the particle it represents (i.e. like momentum and location) – this is the probability wave. However, it is also a real wave. Every particle has a frequency, which is something only waves have (wave-particle duality). There is a phenomena called tunneling, where a particle actually passes through a seemingly impenetrable barrier. When a particle hits a barrier it either has enough energy to pass through or it doesn’t. But with a wave, part of it can pass through while part of it is reflected. Since a particle is a wave it simultaneously exists over a range of locations (this range is called the uncertainty of the particles position).
The narrower you want to make the range of the particles position, the more waves you have to add together. This creates a wider range of wavelengths for the wave packet, and since momentum (speed times mass) is related to its wavelength, a narrower range in position means a larger uncertainty in momentum.
Photons are the particle nature of light. In the experiment where the photon moving through the barrier jumps ahead of the unobstructed photon, in a small number of cases it tunnels in a way that reshapes the “front velocity” of its wave so the “wave” hits the detector before the unobstructed photon.
Wave packet reshaping at the single photon level is the spatial analog of time reshaping observed in tunneling experiments (or some sort of spacetime distortion). You’re conjectures of why this happens is your own invention, it’s not generally accepted in quantum physics.
At it’s root it’s the same old argument from incredulity that religion has always been based on.
A
abucs
Guest
When you say its a ‘real wave’ because only ‘real waves’ have frequency, this is not quite correct.
- There are frequencies of probabilities. The frequency of the probabilitiy for a coin toss for heads is 1 in 2. When we are talking about a wave frequency we are talking about the probability of where on that ‘wave’ the particle will be made ‘real’ or ‘physical’.
- Why, if we are talking about all matter as a probability wave do we never actually experience a probability wave on observation but always a hard particle - when we look under the microscope, when we kick the cat etc. If we are talking about matter as a probability wave - why on observation does it change to a particle ?
- Why, on all the experiements given, does the characteristic of matter change depending on whether there is conscious knowledge about it’s postion, speed etc ?
What is the mechanism for that ?
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
so you’re saying light particles aren’t also waves (with frequency and amplitude)? OK … better run that one by your physics professor. Or you can save yourself some embarrassment and study up on wave-partical duality.
I guess the coin toss analogy is useful when talking about electron spin (although in QM an electron doesn’t really spin exactly, it moves to an up or down position). But you’re still not understanding (although at this point I suspect you do, and you just won’t admit it).
Yes the probability wave is an expression of probability concerning the particle, however, every particle also has a wave (including light photons). This means a real physical wave with frequency and amplitutde.
This represents one of the two ways QM is often confused. It has nothing to do with conscience knowledge, or the particular device used to try and measure a particle like a photon. The uncertainty you’re referring to is something inherent in the systems themselves (as I briefly explained in my last post, and as I’ve been trying to explain all along).
I’m not saying I’m exactly Max Planck or anything like that … but it’s pretty obvious you don’t fully understand the uncertainty principal or the Schrödinger equasion; and the way modern quantum physics understands these principals (as opposed to how they were first conceived).
You’re just way off here & I guess you just won’t admit it (but whatever).
A
abucs
Guest
Yankee,
light acts as a wave on the macro scale when it’s individual particles are unobserved.
That is scientific orthodoxy. It is important to realise - ‘acts like a wave’ - and ‘is a wave’ are two different things.
We know also that light ‘acts like a particle’. And the difference of which way light (or any other matter) will act depends upon the knowledge of the observer.
Of course on the macro scale we can talk about wave frequencies and measure diffraction and reflection and the different spectra of light. It ACTS LIKE A WAVE on the macro scale when unobserved.
On the micro scale though, and that is what we are talking about here, we know that light (and all matter) constantly changes from particle (photons in the case of light) with a concrete presence to ‘acting like a wave’.
And the difference between ‘acting like a wave’ and being a concrete physical reality is always dependant about what a conscious observer KNOWS about its position and momentum.
At the micro level, the concrete particle still acts ‘like a wave’ when unobserved but doesn’t ‘act like a wave’ when observed. So at the macro level, when particles cannot be observed it will ‘act like a wave’.
If it is correct to talk about all matter (including light) being a wave, why do we never see a wave ? Why can we manipulate the experiments (such as previously posted) to move matter around every which way depending on our knowledge of the matter.
I don’t know how many times i can say this before it gets through - when we KNOW or even CAN KNOW the previous position of matter it acts as a physical particle and we never see wave like behaviour (of light or anything else), when WE CHOOSE NOT TO KNOW the previous postion it acts like a wave.
The DIFFERENCE is whether we choose to know or not know.
To go back to your post, if light is a wave, why do we only see individual particles and yet these individual particles will act like a wave at the macro level when the particles are UNOBSERVED.
That is, when UNOBSERVED the particles will behave in a wave like manner and it’s position, will upon observation made ‘concrete’ and the particle will be made real somewhere on the ‘wave like’ characterisitc depending on strict rules of probability.
YOU CANNOT KEEP THINKING ABOUT LIGHT AND MATTER AS A WAVE IN REALITY AS IT IS NEVER OBSERVED AS A WAVE BUT ONLY IT’S EMERGENT BEHAVIOUR WHEN IT’S INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS POSITION ARE NOT KNOWN TO AN OBSERVER.
Go back and look at the experiments again.
I understand it is difficult to get past your 19th century view of matter. But scientific orthodoxy is not with you here Yankee. It is your atheist faith that rebels at any suggestion that you are looking at things the wrong way. Your whole belief system wants to assume this is not regular science.
Go back and look at the experiments again.
light acts as a wave on the macro scale when it’s individual particles are unobserved.
That is scientific orthodoxy. It is important to realise - ‘acts like a wave’ - and ‘is a wave’ are two different things.
We know also that light ‘acts like a particle’. And the difference of which way light (or any other matter) will act depends upon the knowledge of the observer.
Of course on the macro scale we can talk about wave frequencies and measure diffraction and reflection and the different spectra of light. It ACTS LIKE A WAVE on the macro scale when unobserved.
On the micro scale though, and that is what we are talking about here, we know that light (and all matter) constantly changes from particle (photons in the case of light) with a concrete presence to ‘acting like a wave’.
And the difference between ‘acting like a wave’ and being a concrete physical reality is always dependant about what a conscious observer KNOWS about its position and momentum.
At the micro level, the concrete particle still acts ‘like a wave’ when unobserved but doesn’t ‘act like a wave’ when observed. So at the macro level, when particles cannot be observed it will ‘act like a wave’.
If it is correct to talk about all matter (including light) being a wave, why do we never see a wave ? Why can we manipulate the experiments (such as previously posted) to move matter around every which way depending on our knowledge of the matter.
I don’t know how many times i can say this before it gets through - when we KNOW or even CAN KNOW the previous position of matter it acts as a physical particle and we never see wave like behaviour (of light or anything else), when WE CHOOSE NOT TO KNOW the previous postion it acts like a wave.
The DIFFERENCE is whether we choose to know or not know.
To go back to your post, if light is a wave, why do we only see individual particles and yet these individual particles will act like a wave at the macro level when the particles are UNOBSERVED.
That is, when UNOBSERVED the particles will behave in a wave like manner and it’s position, will upon observation made ‘concrete’ and the particle will be made real somewhere on the ‘wave like’ characterisitc depending on strict rules of probability.
YOU CANNOT KEEP THINKING ABOUT LIGHT AND MATTER AS A WAVE IN REALITY AS IT IS NEVER OBSERVED AS A WAVE BUT ONLY IT’S EMERGENT BEHAVIOUR WHEN IT’S INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS POSITION ARE NOT KNOWN TO AN OBSERVER.
Go back and look at the experiments again.
I understand it is difficult to get past your 19th century view of matter. But scientific orthodoxy is not with you here Yankee. It is your atheist faith that rebels at any suggestion that you are looking at things the wrong way. Your whole belief system wants to assume this is not regular science.
Go back and look at the experiments again.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
Look, I’ve explained the physics in a nice simple format so anyone whose interested can understand the main points.
If anyone is seriously considering this guys hypothesis, I encourage you to do the research on the points I brought up & confirm the accuracy of my statements. I’ll simply restate the points that are important to understand:
*
a wave packet (to express it simply) is a region, in quantum mechanics, expressed as a mathematical probability of information about the particle it represents (i.e. like momentum and location) – this is the probability wave. However, it is also a real wave. Every particle has a frequency, which is something only waves have (wave-particle duality). There is a phenomena called tunneling, where a particle actually passes through a seemingly impenetrable barrier. When a particle hits a barrier it either has enough energy to pass through or it doesn’t. But with a wave, part of it can pass through while part of it is reflected. Since a particle is a wave it simultaneously exists over a range of locations (this range is called the uncertainty of the particles position).
The narrower you want to make the range of the particles position, the more waves you have to add together. This creates a wider range of wavelengths for the wave packet, and since momentum (speed times mass) is related to its wavelength, a narrower range in position means a larger uncertainty in momentum.
Photons are the particle nature of light. In the experiment where the photon moving through the barrier jumps ahead of the unobstructed photon, in a small number of cases it tunnels in a way that reshapes the “front velocity” of its wave so the “wave” hits the detector before the unobstructed photon.
Wave packet reshaping at the single photon level is the spatial analog of time reshaping observed in tunneling experiments (or some sort of spacetime distortion). *
Abucs, I’m just not going to continue to engage you on this (you don’t even challenge me point by point, you make broad statements that are mostly misrepresentations of the science involved). You don’t understand modern quantum physics (but I guess you’re a religious enthusiast whose interested in pushing some very eccentric theory that honestly any good physicist would laugh out of his laboratory).
If anyone is seriously considering this guys hypothesis, I encourage you to do the research on the points I brought up & confirm the accuracy of my statements. I’ll simply restate the points that are important to understand:
*
a wave packet (to express it simply) is a region, in quantum mechanics, expressed as a mathematical probability of information about the particle it represents (i.e. like momentum and location) – this is the probability wave. However, it is also a real wave. Every particle has a frequency, which is something only waves have (wave-particle duality). There is a phenomena called tunneling, where a particle actually passes through a seemingly impenetrable barrier. When a particle hits a barrier it either has enough energy to pass through or it doesn’t. But with a wave, part of it can pass through while part of it is reflected. Since a particle is a wave it simultaneously exists over a range of locations (this range is called the uncertainty of the particles position).
The narrower you want to make the range of the particles position, the more waves you have to add together. This creates a wider range of wavelengths for the wave packet, and since momentum (speed times mass) is related to its wavelength, a narrower range in position means a larger uncertainty in momentum.
Photons are the particle nature of light. In the experiment where the photon moving through the barrier jumps ahead of the unobstructed photon, in a small number of cases it tunnels in a way that reshapes the “front velocity” of its wave so the “wave” hits the detector before the unobstructed photon.
Wave packet reshaping at the single photon level is the spatial analog of time reshaping observed in tunneling experiments (or some sort of spacetime distortion). *
Abucs, I’m just not going to continue to engage you on this (you don’t even challenge me point by point, you make broad statements that are mostly misrepresentations of the science involved). You don’t understand modern quantum physics (but I guess you’re a religious enthusiast whose interested in pushing some very eccentric theory that honestly any good physicist would laugh out of his laboratory).
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
You know what … one more try. The best thing I can think of to illustrate the mistake you’re making is looking at the double-slit experiment. Light passing through slits strikes a screen. The wave nature of light creates an interference pattern on the screen even though on the screen the light is found as photons.
Under classic reasoning the number of particles that strike the screen should be the same as went through the slits (I’m simplifying quite a bit), meaning if you uncover the slits you would expect the screen to get brighter. Yet when uncovering the slits some points become brighter while others become darker. This can only be explained by wave-particle duality.
Sure, on the screen we can only observe discrete particles, but we know there’s real waves (in fact we know there must be some wave-particle duality).
To answer your above question, that is the uncertainty principal. In QM the position of a particle is where the wave amplitude is greatest (and the momentum is described by the wavelength). The position is uncertain to the degree the wave is spread out (well-defined wavelength), but the momentum is certain only to the degree the wavelength is well defined. Therefore, position and momentum for a particle have opposite requirements for good definition (which is why both momentum and position cannot be simultaneously well defined). I summarized this from an article (in case anyone is interested):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
A
abucs
Guest
Yankee, you have a wrong view of science and you will not even agree to engage with the scientific experiments that are presented.
That is being close minded.
Experiments results provided - discuss or not to discuss - you have chosen not to discuss.
You cannot have a scientific discussion if you won’t look at experimental results.
Please don’t give me your amateur view of science, one that you don’t even understand.
If you are truely open minded, rational, logical, scientific then you would engege with the scientific experimental results. Please don’t call yourself any of these things because you have demonstrated that you are not any of them.
You just refuse to engage with the provided scientific results.
There is nothing else a person can do if you retreat to your 19th century belief system, refusing to discuss the scientific results and simply believing that it somehow expresses orthodox science, while providing only one link in refutation that actually supports the view against you, and then try and re-interprate that link to agree with your incorrect view.
That is properly called a delusion yankee.
That is being close minded.
Experiments results provided - discuss or not to discuss - you have chosen not to discuss.
You cannot have a scientific discussion if you won’t look at experimental results.
Please don’t give me your amateur view of science, one that you don’t even understand.
If you are truely open minded, rational, logical, scientific then you would engege with the scientific experimental results. Please don’t call yourself any of these things because you have demonstrated that you are not any of them.
You just refuse to engage with the provided scientific results.
There is nothing else a person can do if you retreat to your 19th century belief system, refusing to discuss the scientific results and simply believing that it somehow expresses orthodox science, while providing only one link in refutation that actually supports the view against you, and then try and re-interprate that link to agree with your incorrect view.
That is properly called a delusion yankee.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
OK
funny how I always provide links and facts … and you bless us with temper tantrums and absurdities.
A
abucs
Guest
Yes, this was the STARTING point of the experiments. When we got to the stage of firing through ONE photon particle instead of millions of them, we found that this particle too exhibited wave length characterisitcs EXCEPT WHEN IT WAS MEASURED AT THE SLITS. If it was measures at the slits then it acted not in a wave manner but as a particle.
When we collected the data at the slits and decided to ‘LOOK OR NOT LOOK’ that is look at the results or destroy the results and then look at the back wall, the particle acted as a particle or a wave depending on what we CHOSE to do.
And the experiment could have been done yesterday or last year. The particles ending position on the back wall was ALWAYS either the trajectory of a particle or as a wave phenomena that then became concrete as a particle WHEN MEASURED.
AND AGAIN I SAY, WE NEVER SEE A WAVE, WE SEE THE WAVE LIKE DISTIBUTION OF LIGHT (and all matter). WHEN WE LOOK DIRECTLY WE ALWAYS SEE PARTICLES.
And the difference of the trajectory was ALWAYS a particle when we looked at the information on the slits and ALWAYS a wave like distribution when we chose to destroy the collected data first. (or not collect it in the first place).
That cannot be explained with your interpretation of science. And contempory physicists do not share your dated views.
You simply choose to believe that there is some physicist out there somewhere who can explain it as you think it is. Again i say - reference them if you think there are.
I don’t see any references Yankee - because they are not there.
It is your belief system that keeps you from realising this.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
Yet I continue to confirm these views from university and encyclopedia web sites, which explain the view of modern quantum physics in elaborate detail? Ahhh
A
abucs
Guest
Look at your own link Yankee.
“The only kind of wave with a definite position is concentrated at one point, and such a wave has an indefinite wavelength. Conversely, the only kind of wave with a definite wavelength is an infinite regular periodic oscillation over all space, which has no definite position”.
That is, a particle is either there at one point (when we observe it) or its position is spread out in a wave over ALL space.
That is, when not observed, all matter will be thought to have a position that can be described as a wave probaility SPREAD OUT OVER ALL SPACE.
Look again at your link Yankee -
"The uncertainty principle is often stated this way:
The measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle’s momentum, and vice versa
This makes the uncertainty principle a kind of observer effect.
This explanation is not incorrect, and was used by both Heisenberg and Bohr. But they were working within the philosophical framework of logical positivism. In this way of looking at the world, the true nature of a physical system, inasmuch as it exists, is defined by the answers to the best-possible measurements which can be made in principle. So when they made arguments about unavoidable disturbances in any conceivable measurement, it was obvious to them that this uncertainty was a property of the system, not of the devices.
Today, logical positivism has become unfashionable in many cases, so the explanation of the uncertainty principle in terms of observer effect can be misleading. For one, this explanation makes it seem to the non positivist that the disturbances are not a property of the particle, but a property of the measurement process— the particle secretly does have a definite position and a definite momentum, but the experimental devices we have are not good enough to find out what these are. This interpretation is not compatible with standard quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, states which have both definite position and definite momentum at the same time just don’t exist.".
The logical positivist view is not the current view. ‘Observation’ is in reality conscious knowledge. The word ‘observation’ was first used by Quantum physicists because they were in a scientific community of your Logical Positvist framework. As the article states, they knew that the way matter behaves is not in accordance to positivist theories. Go back and read the quotes i posted from Heisenberg and Bohr earlier. The system changes whether we KNOW or not KNOW, whether measuring tells us or doesn’t tell us a particles position.
Now look up Logical positivism, that is the exact philosophy you have that your link is telling you is not compatible with STANDARD quantum mechanics and has become unfashionable.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
To take some lines from the above link on logical positivism -
… attempted to explain reality by postulating metaphysical entities that did not have any empirical basis.[7] Logical positivists in response wanted to stop such metaphysical entities from being used as an explanation.
"Although the logical positivists held a wide range of views on many matters, they were all interested in science and skeptical of theology and metaphysics. Early on, most logical positivists took the view that all knowledge is based on logical inference from simple “protocol sentences” grounded in observable facts. Many logical positivists supported forms of materialism, metaphysical naturalism, and empiricism.
Perhaps the view for which the logical positivists are best known is the verifiability criterion of meaning, or verificationism. In one of its earlier and stronger formulations, this is the doctrine that a proposition is “cognitively meaningful” only if there is a finite procedure for conclusively determining whether it is true or false.[8] An intended consequence of this view, for most logical positivists, is that metaphysical, theological, and ethical statements fall short of this criterion, and so are not cognitively meaningful.[9] They distinguished cognitive from other varieties of meaningfulness (e.g. emotive, expressive, figurative), and most authors concede that the non-cognitive statements of the history of philosophy possess some other kind of meaningfulness. The positive characterization of cognitive meaningfulness varies from author to author. It has been described as the property of having a truth value, corresponding to a possible state of affairs, naming a proposition, or being intelligible or understandable in the sense in which scientific statements are intelligible or understandable."
That’s you Yankee.
you are linking to things that refute you and confidently asserting they are somehow a support. This shows that you do not understand the underlying concepts or where scientific thought is at the current day.
As i have been saying all along. you have a 19th century out of date philosophy Yankee.
Please do the research and look honestly - at the science.
Please study science and see for yourself WITHOUT ANY PRECONCEIVED FAITH SYSTEM.
“The only kind of wave with a definite position is concentrated at one point, and such a wave has an indefinite wavelength. Conversely, the only kind of wave with a definite wavelength is an infinite regular periodic oscillation over all space, which has no definite position”.
That is, a particle is either there at one point (when we observe it) or its position is spread out in a wave over ALL space.
That is, when not observed, all matter will be thought to have a position that can be described as a wave probaility SPREAD OUT OVER ALL SPACE.
Look again at your link Yankee -
"The uncertainty principle is often stated this way:
The measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle’s momentum, and vice versa
This makes the uncertainty principle a kind of observer effect.
This explanation is not incorrect, and was used by both Heisenberg and Bohr. But they were working within the philosophical framework of logical positivism. In this way of looking at the world, the true nature of a physical system, inasmuch as it exists, is defined by the answers to the best-possible measurements which can be made in principle. So when they made arguments about unavoidable disturbances in any conceivable measurement, it was obvious to them that this uncertainty was a property of the system, not of the devices.
Today, logical positivism has become unfashionable in many cases, so the explanation of the uncertainty principle in terms of observer effect can be misleading. For one, this explanation makes it seem to the non positivist that the disturbances are not a property of the particle, but a property of the measurement process— the particle secretly does have a definite position and a definite momentum, but the experimental devices we have are not good enough to find out what these are. This interpretation is not compatible with standard quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, states which have both definite position and definite momentum at the same time just don’t exist.".
The logical positivist view is not the current view. ‘Observation’ is in reality conscious knowledge. The word ‘observation’ was first used by Quantum physicists because they were in a scientific community of your Logical Positvist framework. As the article states, they knew that the way matter behaves is not in accordance to positivist theories. Go back and read the quotes i posted from Heisenberg and Bohr earlier. The system changes whether we KNOW or not KNOW, whether measuring tells us or doesn’t tell us a particles position.
Now look up Logical positivism, that is the exact philosophy you have that your link is telling you is not compatible with STANDARD quantum mechanics and has become unfashionable.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
To take some lines from the above link on logical positivism -
… attempted to explain reality by postulating metaphysical entities that did not have any empirical basis.[7] Logical positivists in response wanted to stop such metaphysical entities from being used as an explanation.
"Although the logical positivists held a wide range of views on many matters, they were all interested in science and skeptical of theology and metaphysics. Early on, most logical positivists took the view that all knowledge is based on logical inference from simple “protocol sentences” grounded in observable facts. Many logical positivists supported forms of materialism, metaphysical naturalism, and empiricism.
Perhaps the view for which the logical positivists are best known is the verifiability criterion of meaning, or verificationism. In one of its earlier and stronger formulations, this is the doctrine that a proposition is “cognitively meaningful” only if there is a finite procedure for conclusively determining whether it is true or false.[8] An intended consequence of this view, for most logical positivists, is that metaphysical, theological, and ethical statements fall short of this criterion, and so are not cognitively meaningful.[9] They distinguished cognitive from other varieties of meaningfulness (e.g. emotive, expressive, figurative), and most authors concede that the non-cognitive statements of the history of philosophy possess some other kind of meaningfulness. The positive characterization of cognitive meaningfulness varies from author to author. It has been described as the property of having a truth value, corresponding to a possible state of affairs, naming a proposition, or being intelligible or understandable in the sense in which scientific statements are intelligible or understandable."
That’s you Yankee.
you are linking to things that refute you and confidently asserting they are somehow a support. This shows that you do not understand the underlying concepts or where scientific thought is at the current day.
As i have been saying all along. you have a 19th century out of date philosophy Yankee.
Please do the research and look honestly - at the science.
Please study science and see for yourself WITHOUT ANY PRECONCEIVED FAITH SYSTEM.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
boy, you’re like a ranting child. But anyway, here’s one paragraph (the main point) from the article:
Today, logical positivism has become unfashionable in many cases, so the explanation of the uncertainty principle in terms of observer effect can be misleading. For one, this explanation makes it seem to the non positivist that the disturbances are not a property of the particle, but a property of the measurement process— the particle secretly does have a definite position and a definite momentum, but the experimental devices we have are not good enough to find out what these are. This interpretation is not compatible with standard quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, states which have both definite position and definite momentum at the same time just don’t exist."
They DON’T EXIST. Uncertainty is inherent in quantum systems. As the article states, position and momentum have opposite requirements for good definition.
I’ve explained what this means a half dozen times. I specifically said it’s not the measurement device (and I don’t apply logical positivism to quantum mechanics). The so called effect of observation is a quality of the system :whacky:
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
I was sitting in my car dealership waiting for my car to get serviced, when it struck me what the real problem is here (and why we’re continually talking past each other); and it’s something I should have caught earlier in this discussion (but unfortunately I didn’t).
I’ll start with an excerpt from an article from a Univ. of Oregon site:
Any attempt to measure precisely the velocity of a subatomic particle, such as an electron, will knock it about in an unpredictable way, so that a simultaneous measurement of its position has no validity. This result has nothing to do with inadequacies in the measuring instruments, the technique, or the observer; it arises out of the intimate connection in nature between particles and waves in the realm of subatomic dimensions.
abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec14.html
At first glance the average person might say, huh? And with good reason. I’ll quote the same article to provide perspective:
It is easy to measure both the position and the velocity of, say, an automobile, because the uncertainties implied by this principle for ordinary objects are too small to be observed.
Now, a few relevant facts:
To precisely measure the location of an electron you have to fire another particle at it. The problem is smaller wavelength = higher frequency, and higher frequency = higher momentum. For instance, when a photon hits an electron it increases its momentum in an unpredictable way (this is where the uncertainty enters in). The harder you hit the electron the more you know about its location, but the less you can know about its momentum.
So you cannot intelligbly say this phenomena has anything to do with conscience observation (although we also have to understand our language makes it difficult to accurately describe the quantum world, because it was designed to depict the only world it knew – the macro world; so it’s very easy to become confused).
Nor can we say it has anything to do with technical limitations (of things like our measuring instruments). It’s a fundamental property of quantum mechanics. Solving one problem makes another worse.
These are very basic principals in quantum mechanics (and I guess I took it for granted that you were familiar with them).
We also have to consider the non-local nature of quantum physics, and the concept of entanglement (and other concepts like wave-function collapse); but I’ll leave it here for now.
I’ll start with an excerpt from an article from a Univ. of Oregon site:
Any attempt to measure precisely the velocity of a subatomic particle, such as an electron, will knock it about in an unpredictable way, so that a simultaneous measurement of its position has no validity. This result has nothing to do with inadequacies in the measuring instruments, the technique, or the observer; it arises out of the intimate connection in nature between particles and waves in the realm of subatomic dimensions.
abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec14.html
At first glance the average person might say, huh? And with good reason. I’ll quote the same article to provide perspective:
It is easy to measure both the position and the velocity of, say, an automobile, because the uncertainties implied by this principle for ordinary objects are too small to be observed.
Now, a few relevant facts:
- the state of motion of a particle can be described as a wave function
- all matter and radiation possess a duality of character – they sometimes exhibit properties of a wave, and other times particles (they transform depending on context).
- the wave-function must satisfy the fundamental law of motion expressed by the Schroedinger equation.
- if you want to measure the position of any particle, say an electron or photon, you must disturb its momentum.
To precisely measure the location of an electron you have to fire another particle at it. The problem is smaller wavelength = higher frequency, and higher frequency = higher momentum. For instance, when a photon hits an electron it increases its momentum in an unpredictable way (this is where the uncertainty enters in). The harder you hit the electron the more you know about its location, but the less you can know about its momentum.
So you cannot intelligbly say this phenomena has anything to do with conscience observation (although we also have to understand our language makes it difficult to accurately describe the quantum world, because it was designed to depict the only world it knew – the macro world; so it’s very easy to become confused).
Nor can we say it has anything to do with technical limitations (of things like our measuring instruments). It’s a fundamental property of quantum mechanics. Solving one problem makes another worse.
These are very basic principals in quantum mechanics (and I guess I took it for granted that you were familiar with them).
We also have to consider the non-local nature of quantum physics, and the concept of entanglement (and other concepts like wave-function collapse); but I’ll leave it here for now.
A
abucs
Guest
Yankee, let me use your own words to show how off the mark you are. You still seem to want to believe that the quantum wave phenomena are real and base ‘your fundamental reality’ in matter.
You’ve given two links both that support what I am saying. Your second encyclopedia link, which you say is authoritative, also links to its own article on the Copenhagen Interpretation (3 clicks down the page under Historical Introduction). Let me quote you the first two sentences under the heading - ACCEPTANCE AMONG PHYSICISTS (3 clicks down page) …………
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
“According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997 the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, followed by the many-worlds interpretation. Although current trends show substantial competition from alternative interpretations, throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had strong acceptance among physicists………………….
Now let me quote from the first two sentences of your source from under the heading MEANING OF THE WAVE FUNCTION (2 clicks down page) ………….
The Copenhagen Interpretation denies that any wave function is anything more than an abstraction, or is at least non-committal about its being a discrete entity or a discernible component of some discrete entity. There are some who say that there are objective variants of the Copenhagen Interpretation that allow for a “real” wave function, but it is questionable whether that view is really consistent with positivism and/or with some of Bohr’s statements………………………"
So from your own links, which you claim as support, it is pretty clear that the scientific consensus for most of the 20th century is that the wave function of quantum physics is not to be thought of as real, but that it is an abstract (secondary) concept.
Will you concede that the links you are claiming for authoritarian support actually are not compatible with your own interpretation ?
You’ve given two links both that support what I am saying. Your second encyclopedia link, which you say is authoritative, also links to its own article on the Copenhagen Interpretation (3 clicks down the page under Historical Introduction). Let me quote you the first two sentences under the heading - ACCEPTANCE AMONG PHYSICISTS (3 clicks down page) …………
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
“According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997 the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, followed by the many-worlds interpretation. Although current trends show substantial competition from alternative interpretations, throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had strong acceptance among physicists………………….
Now let me quote from the first two sentences of your source from under the heading MEANING OF THE WAVE FUNCTION (2 clicks down page) ………….
The Copenhagen Interpretation denies that any wave function is anything more than an abstraction, or is at least non-committal about its being a discrete entity or a discernible component of some discrete entity. There are some who say that there are objective variants of the Copenhagen Interpretation that allow for a “real” wave function, but it is questionable whether that view is really consistent with positivism and/or with some of Bohr’s statements………………………"
So from your own links, which you claim as support, it is pretty clear that the scientific consensus for most of the 20th century is that the wave function of quantum physics is not to be thought of as real, but that it is an abstract (secondary) concept.
Will you concede that the links you are claiming for authoritarian support actually are not compatible with your own interpretation ?
A
abucs
Guest
Now let me quote your words from post #109 giving your personal scientific interpretation.
“…….a wave packet (to express it simply) is a region, in quantum mechanics, expressed as a mathematical probability of information about the particle it represents (i.e. like momentum and location) – this is the probability wave. However, it is also a real wave. Every particle has a frequency, which is something only waves have (wave-particle duality). There is a phenomena called tunneling, where a particle actually passes through a seemingly impenetrable barrier. When a particle hits a barrier it either has enough energy to pass through or it doesn’t. But with a wave, part of it can pass through while part of it is reflected. Since a particle is a wave it simultaneously exists over a range of locations (this range is called the uncertainty of the particles position)…………”
Now apart from contradicting your source quoted above, it also contradicts your source link on THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE. Let me quote from the third paragraph in your link ……………………
“……………. Conversely, the only kind of wave with a definite wavelength is an infinite regular periodic oscillation over all space, which has no definite position".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
If the wavelength has an ‘INFINITE regular periodic oscillation OVER ALL SPACE’ then it doesn’t make sense to say the wave passes through a barrier because the wave is already infinitely spread out over all space. What I am saying changes (and regular science says) is the probability of the particle appearing beyond the barrier increases as the ’particle’ moves towards the barrier. THERE IS NO REGULAR PHYSICAL WAVE, it is an abstract probability function. If you want to think of it as ’real’ then according to your encyclopaedia resource you have to think about all matter spread out over the whole space. So the matter in your arm is then also simultaneously spread out to China, the moon, Alpha Centauri and actually everywhere 15 billion light years in each direction. Even if you go down that non scientific interpretation you still end up with the conclusion that matter is secondary !
Will you concede that the links you are claiming for authoritarian support actually are not compatible with your own interpretation ?
“…….a wave packet (to express it simply) is a region, in quantum mechanics, expressed as a mathematical probability of information about the particle it represents (i.e. like momentum and location) – this is the probability wave. However, it is also a real wave. Every particle has a frequency, which is something only waves have (wave-particle duality). There is a phenomena called tunneling, where a particle actually passes through a seemingly impenetrable barrier. When a particle hits a barrier it either has enough energy to pass through or it doesn’t. But with a wave, part of it can pass through while part of it is reflected. Since a particle is a wave it simultaneously exists over a range of locations (this range is called the uncertainty of the particles position)…………”
Now apart from contradicting your source quoted above, it also contradicts your source link on THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE. Let me quote from the third paragraph in your link ……………………
“……………. Conversely, the only kind of wave with a definite wavelength is an infinite regular periodic oscillation over all space, which has no definite position".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
If the wavelength has an ‘INFINITE regular periodic oscillation OVER ALL SPACE’ then it doesn’t make sense to say the wave passes through a barrier because the wave is already infinitely spread out over all space. What I am saying changes (and regular science says) is the probability of the particle appearing beyond the barrier increases as the ’particle’ moves towards the barrier. THERE IS NO REGULAR PHYSICAL WAVE, it is an abstract probability function. If you want to think of it as ’real’ then according to your encyclopaedia resource you have to think about all matter spread out over the whole space. So the matter in your arm is then also simultaneously spread out to China, the moon, Alpha Centauri and actually everywhere 15 billion light years in each direction. Even if you go down that non scientific interpretation you still end up with the conclusion that matter is secondary !
Will you concede that the links you are claiming for authoritarian support actually are not compatible with your own interpretation ?
A
abucs
Guest
Now let me quote your words from post #110 giving your personal scientific interpretation……………
……………………In QM the position of a particle is where the wave amplitude is greatest (and the momentum is described by the wavelength). The position is uncertain to the degree the wave is spread out (well-defined wavelength), but the momentum is certain only to the degree the wavelength is well defined. Therefore, position and momentum for a particle have opposite requirements for good definition (which is why both momentum and position cannot be simultaneously well defined). I summarized this from an article (in case anyone is interested):…"
Now let me quote from the same article you posted to show you that your summary contradicts the linked encyclopaedia posting you give. I’m quoting from 4 clicks down the page a couple of paragraphs after the heading Uncertainty Principle and Observer Effect
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
“………………. Today, logical positivism has become unfashionable in many cases, so the explanation of the uncertainty principle in terms of observer effect can be misleading. For one, this explanation makes it seem to the non positivist that the disturbances are not a property of the particle, but a property of the measurement process— the particle secretly does have a definite position and a definite momentum, but the experimental devices we have are not good enough to find out what these are. This interpretation is not compatible with standard quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, states which have both definite position and definite momentum at the same time just don’t exist.…………”
You are giving an explanation of why momentum and position cannot be simultaneously defined based on ‘suitable requirements not being present’ in the measuring process of each definition at the same time. The encyclopaedia link you actually gave says this interpretation is not compatible with STANDARD quantum mechanics because it’s not that the definition of both position and momentum cannot be made - it is that they do not exist. Now this was the basis of your post #117. Let me quote you back your sentence for point number 4 of your latest post that you have asked me to focus on
“… 4. if you want to measure the position of any particle, say an electron or photon, you must disturb its momentum…’
You then go on to give a definition of what you (or the place you copied it from ) are saying as an explanation.
“… To precisely measure the location of an electron you have to fire another particle at it. The problem is smaller wavelength = higher frequency, and higher frequency = higher momentum. For instance, when a photon hits an electron it increases its momentum in an unpredictable way (this is where the uncertainty enters in). The harder you hit the electron the more you know about its location, but the less you can know about its momentum…
Now Yankee, please stop and think. This is EXACTLY the misconception the article you linked to is warning is not compatible with standard quantum mechanics. You are saying, when you go and measure the location of a particle (the measurement process), you necessarily disturb that particle and so it is impossible to know the momentum. THIS IS THE PROBLEM OF MEASUREMENT PROCESS that the article speaks of. The act of measurement changes the system, This is what you are saying. You are assuming that the particle does have a position and a momentum but that both cannot be measured because when you go and measure one, in doing that process, you change the characteristic of the other. Your encyclopaedia article that you quoted as an authority is contradicting this and saying it is a wrong interpretation (and i quote again)
“…In quantum mechanics, states which have both definite position and definite momentum at the same time just don’t exist…”
It’s not that it is impossible to measure both because we disturb the system upon measurement, but they just don’t exist at the same time.
It is true that when we go to measure the system we disturb it, that part is true. But as the article you posted says, it is a misconception to say that is the sole reason why we can’t know the position and momentum. As the article says, these attributes just don’t exist to begin with. It is a misconception to use the limitations of the measurement process to explain why we can’t know both. You are assuming both characteristics exist and the article says they don’t. It’s not that they both can’t be measured together (your view) its that they both don’t exist together (your linked article’s view, and my view and standard science’s view).
Will you concede that the links you are claiming for authoritarian support actually are not compatible with your own interpretation ?
……………………In QM the position of a particle is where the wave amplitude is greatest (and the momentum is described by the wavelength). The position is uncertain to the degree the wave is spread out (well-defined wavelength), but the momentum is certain only to the degree the wavelength is well defined. Therefore, position and momentum for a particle have opposite requirements for good definition (which is why both momentum and position cannot be simultaneously well defined). I summarized this from an article (in case anyone is interested):…"
Now let me quote from the same article you posted to show you that your summary contradicts the linked encyclopaedia posting you give. I’m quoting from 4 clicks down the page a couple of paragraphs after the heading Uncertainty Principle and Observer Effect
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
“………………. Today, logical positivism has become unfashionable in many cases, so the explanation of the uncertainty principle in terms of observer effect can be misleading. For one, this explanation makes it seem to the non positivist that the disturbances are not a property of the particle, but a property of the measurement process— the particle secretly does have a definite position and a definite momentum, but the experimental devices we have are not good enough to find out what these are. This interpretation is not compatible with standard quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, states which have both definite position and definite momentum at the same time just don’t exist.…………”
You are giving an explanation of why momentum and position cannot be simultaneously defined based on ‘suitable requirements not being present’ in the measuring process of each definition at the same time. The encyclopaedia link you actually gave says this interpretation is not compatible with STANDARD quantum mechanics because it’s not that the definition of both position and momentum cannot be made - it is that they do not exist. Now this was the basis of your post #117. Let me quote you back your sentence for point number 4 of your latest post that you have asked me to focus on
“… 4. if you want to measure the position of any particle, say an electron or photon, you must disturb its momentum…’
You then go on to give a definition of what you (or the place you copied it from ) are saying as an explanation.
“… To precisely measure the location of an electron you have to fire another particle at it. The problem is smaller wavelength = higher frequency, and higher frequency = higher momentum. For instance, when a photon hits an electron it increases its momentum in an unpredictable way (this is where the uncertainty enters in). The harder you hit the electron the more you know about its location, but the less you can know about its momentum…
Now Yankee, please stop and think. This is EXACTLY the misconception the article you linked to is warning is not compatible with standard quantum mechanics. You are saying, when you go and measure the location of a particle (the measurement process), you necessarily disturb that particle and so it is impossible to know the momentum. THIS IS THE PROBLEM OF MEASUREMENT PROCESS that the article speaks of. The act of measurement changes the system, This is what you are saying. You are assuming that the particle does have a position and a momentum but that both cannot be measured because when you go and measure one, in doing that process, you change the characteristic of the other. Your encyclopaedia article that you quoted as an authority is contradicting this and saying it is a wrong interpretation (and i quote again)
“…In quantum mechanics, states which have both definite position and definite momentum at the same time just don’t exist…”
It’s not that it is impossible to measure both because we disturb the system upon measurement, but they just don’t exist at the same time.
It is true that when we go to measure the system we disturb it, that part is true. But as the article you posted says, it is a misconception to say that is the sole reason why we can’t know the position and momentum. As the article says, these attributes just don’t exist to begin with. It is a misconception to use the limitations of the measurement process to explain why we can’t know both. You are assuming both characteristics exist and the article says they don’t. It’s not that they both can’t be measured together (your view) its that they both don’t exist together (your linked article’s view, and my view and standard science’s view).
Will you concede that the links you are claiming for authoritarian support actually are not compatible with your own interpretation ?
- Status