• Solving the metaphysical dilemma proposed by Quantum Mechanics
    143 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683181]Inertia is a property of matter.[/QUOTE] you might as well be saying blenders and bricks make good bidet ducks, also quarks
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683139] Imagine you have a particle and you want to find where it is. To observe it you have to look at it. To see it, photons have to bounce off of it and go back to your eye. The act of bouncing photons off the particle gives it some momentum you don't know.[/QUOTE] If left unobserved, though, there is no uncertainty and therefore it does have a fixed location/speed, no? I'm sorry, I've just been trying to read a lot about qm lately but I haven't had much opportunity to talk with anybody who has formally studied it or anything like that.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683139]Sorry. Einstein said the same thing but I was just trying to be thorough in my explanation. Imagine you have a particle and you want to find where it is. To observe it you have to look at it. To see it, photons have to bounce off of it and go back to your eye. The act of bouncing photons off the particle gives it some momentum you don't know.[/QUOTE] Einstein hated Quantum Mechanics. He didn't like the idea at all, and yet still helped us make great leaps in the field. That's pro right there. So basically we can't tell where something IS, but we can tell where it WAS. We need a way to see it, without bouncing anything off of it or moving it in the process.
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;28683230]you might as well be saying blenders and bricks make good bidet ducks, also quarks[/QUOTE] I was referencing the intro to Bill Nye because you called me science guy. BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Meader;28683239]Einstein hated Quantum Mechanics. He didn't like the idea at all, and yet still helped us make great leaps in the field. That's pro right there. So basically we can't tell where something IS, but we can tell where it WAS. We need a way to see it, without bouncing anything off of it or moving it in the process.[/QUOTE] That's true, there's always some lag time between where a particle is an where you think it is because you can get that information at the speed of light at the fastest. But you can't possibly observe a particle without disturbing it somehow. Otherwise it's completely disconnected from the universe.
why did you go from agreeing with me to disagreeing man those little red X's cause so much pain
[QUOTE=Barblunder;28683235]If left unobserved, though, there is no uncertainty and therefore it does have a fixed location/speed, no?[/QUOTE] Not sure about that.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683262]That's true, there's always some lag time between where a particle is an where you think it is because you can get that information at the speed of light at the fastest. But you can't possibly observe a particle without disturbing it somehow. Otherwise it's completely disconnected from the universe.[/QUOTE] Okay, now we also can't predict where it's going to go in any given situation, but we can get the probability, correct? [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Barblunder;28683273]why did you go from agreeing with me to disagreeing man those little red X's cause so much pain[/QUOTE] Sorry, I can't see my ratings, it's rather annoying.
[QUOTE=Barblunder;28683235]I'm sorry, I've just been trying to read a lot about qm lately but I haven't had much opportunity to talk with anybody who has formally studied it or anything like that.[/QUOTE] Well I haven't really studied it formally either. I get an introduction to it in modern physics, which I'm in now, but I don't actually take a quantum mechanics course until a year from now.
[QUOTE=Meader;28670510]I'm not sure how black body radiation works yet[/QUOTE] oh my god [img]http://www.orijinculture.com/community/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/blackface.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Meader;28683298]Okay, now we also can't predict where it's going to go in any given situation, but we can get the probability, correct?[/QUOTE] True. We can calculate its momentum to arbitrary accuracy though, but then we have no fucking clue where it is.
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;28683310]oh my god [img_thumb]http://www.orijinculture.com/community/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/blackface.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Do you have a problem because I don't claim to know everything, or are you just looking to be stupid?
I think he was making a pun on "black body."
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683319]True. We can calculate its momentum to arbitrary accuracy though, but then we have no fucking clue where it is.[/QUOTE] Right, because even if the same exact situation is done 100 times, it could be in X number of places each time, and most times will be different. The theory right now is that it is in ALL places at once, correct?
If the universe is discrete and there is a smallest possible distance then isn't movement more like the "movement" on a computer screen, pixels turning on and off simultaneously to make an object/arrangement of pixels appear to move? There's something kind of essentially horrifying about that.
[QUOTE=Meader;28683356]Right, because even in the same exact situation, it could be in X number of places. The theory right now is that it is in ALL places at once, correct?[/QUOTE] Well its wavefunction extends everywhere. It's not everywhere at once, but there's a probability of finding a particle anywhere in the universe at any given time. [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Barblunder;28683364]If the universe is discrete and there is a smallest possible distance then isn't movement more like the "movement" on a computer screen, pixels turning on and off simultaneously to make an object/arrangement of pixels appear to move? There's something kind of essentially horrifying about that.[/QUOTE] Very theoretical, however. We can't yet probe energies like that.
[QUOTE=Meader;28683356]Right, because even if the same exact situation is done 100 times, it could be in X number of places each time, and most times will be different. The theory right now is that it is in ALL places at once, correct?[/QUOTE] Scientific theories are falsifiable. You can't falsify that claim. You can't falsify parallel universes either. In fact, that's the problem with this entire thread, it's totally meaningless to claim something that doesn't make any concrete difference.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683378]Very theoretical, however. We can't yet probe energies like that.[/QUOTE] Well, given some of the limitations suggested by QM we might never be able to. Feeling depressed that there's a limit to our possible knowledge imposed by our existence as part of the system.
[QUOTE=Lenni;28683396]Scientific theories are falsifiable. You can't falsify that claim. You can't falsify multiverses. In fact, that's the problem with this entire thread, it's totally meaningless to claim something that doesn't make any concrete difference.[/QUOTE] It makes a difference. We're trying to interpret the wavefunction and its collapse physically. It hasn't been done yet. The multiverse theory is one of the proposed ideas to explain wavefunction collapse.
[QUOTE=Barblunder;28683364]If the universe is discrete and there is a smallest possible distance then isn't movement more like the "movement" on a computer screen, pixels turning on and off simultaneously to make an object/arrangement of pixels appear to move? There's something kind of essentially horrifying about that.[/QUOTE] Which is more horrifying? The fact that we'd be in a computer-like world, or that we created something that works exactly like our universe without understanding it?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683351]I think he was making a pun on "black body."[/QUOTE] for a smart person you sure are wrong i have the mindset of a child right now, i hardly ever think so i blurt whatever comes to mind, even more so now for the odd couple of reasons black body reminded me of blackface which in turn is hilarious, which is all that matters in my little world.
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;28683424]for a smart person you sure are wrong i have the mindset of a child right now, i hardly ever think so i blurt whatever comes to mind, even more so now for the odd couple of reasons black body reminded me of blackface which in turn is hilarious, which is all that matters in my little world.[/QUOTE] Yeah that's what I meant, wasn't really a pun but whatever.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683413]It makes a difference. We're trying to interpret the wavefunction and its collapse physically. It hasn't been done yet. The multiverse theory is one of the proposed ideas to explain wavefunction collapse.[/QUOTE] okay, so you at least understand what I'm talking about. Good. I mean, I don't fully to be honest, which is why I'm asking as many questions as I'm trying to answer. Glad you came in here Johnny :D
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683413]It makes a difference. We're trying to interpret the wavefunction and its collapse physically. It hasn't been done yet. The multiverse theory is one of the proposed ideas to explain wavefunction collapse.[/QUOTE] You're just asserting that it makes a difference, but how? How is it falsifiable? And science is analytical, not interpretive. Interpretations are meant to make it easier to learn.
[QUOTE=Lenni;28683449]You're just asserting that it makes a difference, but how? How is it falsifiable? And science is analytical, not interpretive. Interpretations are meant to make it easier to learn.[/QUOTE] Because we're discussing the METAPHYSICS. The science is already solved man, the math is all there and makes sense and works. We just don't understand WHY it works, which is what we're discussing.
[QUOTE=Lenni;28683449]You're just asserting that it makes a difference, but how? How is it falsifiable? And science is analytical, not interpretive. Interpretations are meant to make it easier to learn.[/QUOTE] Interpretation is exactly what sets science apart from pure mathematics. It makes a difference because one interpretation rules out all the others. We may not be able to go to other universes (although there's nothing that suggests that has to be so, I don't know why you took it as fiat) but if we can prove it exists, it rules out the Copenhagen interpretation, and decoherence and everything else. And no, interpretation is not just a tool to make it easier to understand, in this case. It's one of the central problems of quantum mechanics and concerns the physical meaning of the wavefunction, what it actually represents. Up through classical physics I would agree with you but QM is a game changer. We know how to calculate the wavefunction. What the fuck it is is a different story and frankly is somewhat more important.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683489]Interpretation is exactly what sets science apart from pure mathematics. It makes a difference because one interpretation rules out all the others. We may not be able to go to other universes (although there's nothing that suggests that has to be so, I don't know why you took it as fiat) but if we can prove it exists, it rules out the Copenhagen interpretation, and decoherence and everything else. And no, interpretation is not just a tool to make it easier to understand, in this case. It's one of the central problems of quantum mechanics and concerns the physical meaning of the wavefunction, what it actually represents.[/QUOTE] So particles act like waves, unless we observe them, and then they act as particles, or vice-versa?
You know what is fucking bullshit? The term "graviton". Some people actually believe now that there is a tiny particle that carries force between bodies. Science needs to start saying "we can't explain this" rather than offering up proxy explanations and not making much effort to distinguish them from reality. Ditto with QM. Nobody makes it very clear that QM is a system we use to deal with inherent uncertainties in our knowledge regarding properties of a particle - it's just said that particles are inherently uncertain and have a fuzzy location within space and time when you really can't say.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683489]Interpretation is exactly what sets science apart from pure mathematics.[/QUOTE] No, just no.
[QUOTE=Meader;28683502]So particles act like waves, unless we observe them, and then they act as particles, or vice-versa?[/QUOTE] Basically. They act like both waves and particles, but not both at once. Although Feynman was a proponent of describing them entirely as particles and came up with his path integral formulation of quantum mechanics as a way to do that. [QUOTE=Meader;28683467]Because we're discussing the METAPHYSICS. The science is already solved man, the math is all there and makes sense and works. We just don't understand WHY it works, which is what we're discussing.[/QUOTE] Even so, the interpretation is important even to the pure physics. [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Lenni;28683528]No, just no.[/QUOTE] You're not offering any substantive argument whatsoever and you don't seem to know how important and central the problem of quantum mechanics' interpretation is to modern physics so I'm just going to ignore your posts until you can offer something useful, okay? In fact you seem to have misconceptions about what exactly I mean by interpretation since you seem to think it's just a learning tool, so you might as well stop arguing until you sort that out.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683529]Even so, the interpretation is important even to the pure physics.[/QUOTE] If we want to apply it well, yes. But for the physics to work? It's un-important.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.