137 replies to this topic

[Adam Nagy]

What's the deal with Quantum Mechanics? Are we really witnessing rational irrationality or are we just not getting the order?

[jason78]

Try and answer the following question:

Take a black body that has a temperature of 5500 Kelvin. Why does it radiate its energy at specific power levels in a specific band of frequencies? Why does it not radiate all its energy away in one energetic gamma ray to place itself in equilibrium with its surroundings?

[Adam Nagy]

Honestly, before I can even think about your question. We should talk about the assumptions and dilemmas revolving around Quantum sciences.

[A.Sphere]

Honestly, before I can even think about your question. We should talk about the assumptions and dilemmas revolving around Quantum sciences.

Actually what Jason is starting with was the motivation that opened up the can of worms that became the underlying principles of QM. Its a good exercise to explore it in a historical context.

You must realize that trying to make QM an incomplete theory in order to resolve it with our classical picture of the world is exactly what Einstein was trying to do with his buddies Podolksy and Rosen. Bell came along and destroyed their arguments in a very well written paper. The following is worth a quick glance:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.html

[jason78]

Actually what Jason is starting with was the motivation that opened up the can of worms that became the underlying principles of QM.  Its a good exercise to explore it in a historical context.

You must realize that trying to make QM an incomplete theory in order to resolve it with our classical picture of the world is exactly what Einstein was trying to do with his buddies Podolksy and Rosen.  Bell came along and destroyed their arguments in a very well written paper.  The following is worth a quick glance:

Thanks for the link. That's really interesting stuff.

[CTD]

From the link

A well known example is position and momentum.  You can put a subatomic particle into a state of well-defined momentum, but then you cannot know where it is.  It's not just a matter of your inability to measure, but rather, an intrinsic property of the particle.

Of course I expect Adam 777 to spot the problem right off: how do you know you can't know, and how do you know your inability to know is due to intrinsic properties.

Answer: in quantum philosophy, it is assumed.

(Just as it was happily assumed the inability to construct a device capable of measuring quantities of light less than 1 "photon" meant that such quantities could not exist.)

However, QM prohibits the simultaneous knowledge of more than one mutually noncommuting observable of either system.

A system that prohibits learning has what relation to science?

And lest there be any question on that matter,

Quantum mechanics does not allow making assumptions about where a particle is between detections.  We cannot know when a particle traverses a polarizer unless we detect the particle at the polarizer.

Note that one would never make assumptions about such a thing. What they're prohibiting is the performance of the calculations.

This philosophy openly resides in the unknown, and seeks to expand its territory by continually claiming more and more things can't be known.

[Adam Nagy]

Very interesting, CTD, it sounds like the same old theory as evolution. Base your conclusions on what you don't know rather then what you know. This sounds like a bunch of hand waving. We might have the working model of what evolutionary thinking produces right here in the bizarre philosophy of Quantum Mechanics.

We know that we can't know.

[jason78]

From the link
Of course I expect Adam 777 to spot the problem right off:  how do you know you can't know, and how do you know your inability to know is due to intrinsic properties.

Answer: in quantum philosophy, it is assumed.

No, it's tested and confirmed by experiment.

Double slit experiment

The experimental facts are so highly reproducible that there is virtually no argument about them

[Adam Nagy]

You know there is a difference between the tests and demonstrations and the philosophy behind it, right?

[CTD]

No, it's tested and confirmed by experiment.

Double slit experiment

I better let Adam tackle this one. My threshold for sillyness is too low. Sometimes I think people try to exploit it.

[jason78]

You know there is a difference between the tests and demonstrations and the philosophy behind it, right?

Yes, I get the difference. You're talking about the Copenhagen interpretation versus the consistent histories approach aren't you? Or do you favour some other interpretation?

Regardless of how you interpret the results, you can't deny that the results have been produced.

[CTD]

Not to branch off, just pointing this out, okay?

Quantum mechanics does not allow making assumptions about where a particle is between detections.  We cannot know when a particle traverses a polarizer unless we detect the particle at the polarizer.

The double-slit experiment(s) violate this very rule by assuming the particle travels through the slits.

When you have whacky rules, you have to apply them selectively.

[Adam Nagy]

Jason,

I'm just trying to look at the implication of the assumption:

You can put a subatomic particle into a state of well-defined momentum, but then you cannot know where it is.

What is the model of testing that reveals that we know that we cannot know where it is?

Honestly, I haven't even dug into this subject that far yet but a lack of capacity for detection does not equal incapability of detection. This concept is trying to establish the certainty of the unknowability of something.

[jason78]

Jason,

I'm just trying to look at the implication of the assumption:
What is the model of testing that reveals that we know that we cannot know where it is?

Honestly, I haven't even dug into this subject that far yet but a lack of capacity for detection does not equal incapability of detection. This concept is trying to establish the certainty of the unknowability of something. 

You can read up about it here Heisenberg uncertainty principle

I particular, you should read the section on Heisenberg's microscope which might give you a better idea on what I'm trying to explain here.

[jason78]

Not to branch off, just pointing this out, okay?

The double-slit experiment(s) violate this very rule by assuming the particle travels through the slits.

When you have whacky rules, you have to apply them selectively.

It doesn't assume it. The particle has to travel through both slits in order to interfere with itself. A particles wave form is quite capable of travelling through both slits at the same time as it does not have a discretely defined position and momentum. It has a definite probability of passing though either slit and in fact, does. This has been confirmed again and again by experiment.

[CTD]

From the Heisenberg link:

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the values of certain pairs of conjugate variables (position and momentum, for instance) cannot both exist with arbitrary precision.

That's what we call in English, an 'assumption'.

[CTD]

Anyone care for another?

Within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, there is no fundamental reality which the quantum state is describing, just a prescription for calculating experimental results.

Hence the universal appeal of quantum philosophy to those who deny reality. Why anyone else would find it appealing is beyond me.

[CTD]

Somebody stop me!

The beloved uncertainty assumption implies a promise NOT to pursue learning about particles too far.

Although it may not require it dogmatically, quantum philosophy enthusiastically encourages a belief in the ancient superstition of infinite regression of smaller and smaller particles. Now then! It may turn out that one of these smaller particles could be used instead of photons to observe Heisenberg's imaginary electron. It might turn out that such an imaginary particle wouldn't alter the course or speed of the electron appreciably.

But one would be duty bound NOT to discover such a particle, lest another come along and discover the application and blow the whole field of antiscience to bits.

I really do need to get this junk out of my head for a while...

[Adam Nagy]

Somebody stop me!

Not going to happen... I want to hear what you have to say. I know very little about this subject.

[CTD]

http://www.commonsen...rg/atomism.html

Try that. I heard about it some years ago. Theory was published by a boy in high school, although he got some of it from his father. A real world chemist tried the model and was very successful with it.

I never got around to learning too many details myself. Not sure if the rings are drawn to scale. Guessing not.

I'll tell you something. I never looked too deeply into quantum philosophy myself. I've looked at the standard junk they trot out, and it's just nasty. But after ferreting out hidden assumptions in evolutionism for a while, it's not even a game with this stuff. The very first sentence is an in-your-face assumption, big as day. Guess the strategy is to blow it past you quickly before they think you're paying attention - shoot, who knows?

It's just too easy to see how OBVIOUSLY quantum philosophy is antiscientific.