Solving the metaphysical dilemma proposed by Quantum Mechanics
143 replies, posted
this is what katt williams meant when he said smart dumb n****
for fucks sake just be a plain old dumb N****
[QUOTE=Meader;28683557]If we want to apply it well, yes. But for the physics to work? It's un-important.[/QUOTE]
It's not important to get a result but it matters because the result informs us as to the scientific nature of the universe which is what physics is ABOUT.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683529]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]
Okay, now I have to ask about Schroedinger's cat. Why does our knowledge of the outcome essentially CREATE the outcome?[I][/I]
[QUOTE=Meader;28683587]Okay, now I have to ask about Schroedinger's cat. Why does our knowledge of the outcome essentially CREATE the outcome?[I][/I][/QUOTE]
This is precisely why the interpretation is important. Schrödinger came up with that thought experiment as a way to point out how absurd the Copenhagen interpretation is, but nothing physically disallows it. Also, we don't know! That's the idea of wavefunction collapse. When a system isn't being observed, it has a certain wavefunction and the probability that the cat is in a certain state is given by the superposition of those states. It's both dead and alive at once. But when the cat is observed it picks a state and becomes it. When we have a clue why, we'll get back to you on that.
[editline]19th March 2011[/editline]
Also, interpretation has definite scientific and physical meaning in that certain interpretations, like Copenhagen, are probabilistic, while others, like many-worlds, are deterministic.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683529]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?[/QUOTE]
:irony: I'm not making an argument? [i]You're[/i] not making an argument, [i]you're[/i] the one making the positive claim (apropos scientific method and hypothesis testing, which [i]is[/i] what sets science apart from mathematics). [i]You're[/i] the one asserting that theories like the multiverse theory is making a concrete, physical difference without providing any justification whatsoever. You need to define a multiverse in a falsifiable way before it makes any sense whatsoever.
[QUOTE=Lenni;28683639]:irony: I'm not making an argument? [i]You're[/i] not making an argument, [i]you're[/i] the one making the positive claim (apropos scientific method and hypothesis testing, which [i]is[/i] what sets science apart from mathematics). [i]You're[/i] the one asserting that theories like the multiverse theory is making a concrete, physical difference without providing any justification whatsoever. You need to define a multiverse in a falsifiable way before it makes any sense whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683617]Also, interpretation has definite scientific and physical meaning in that certain interpretations, like Copenhagen, are probabilistic, while others, like many-worlds, are deterministic.[/QUOTE]
[editline]19th March 2011[/editline]
I don't know if you knew this but the field of mathematics has hypotheses and testing in the same way physics does. They don't need the scientific method, however, because the scientific method is an implicit set of rules for good inference whereas mathematic has explicit laws.
i was reading the OP and it didn't make any real sense so i wanted to post "are you high?" and then i saw it was the drug discussion forums and then i made a pretty useless post
:downs:
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683617]Also, interpretation has definite scientific and physical meaning in that certain interpretations, like Copenhagen, are probabilistic, while others, like many-worlds, are deterministic.[/QUOTE]
Stop beating around the bush and make a concrete example of how the existence of multiverses changes physical reality that we can perceive. Oh wait.. you can't I guess.
[QUOTE=Lenni;28683714]Stop beating around the bush and make a concrete example. Oh wait.. you can't I guess.[/QUOTE]
Describe to me what your idea of a concrete example is. Also, snarky comments like that do nothing except make me think less of you.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683724]Describe to me what your idea of a concrete example is. Also, snarky comments like that do nothing except make me think less of you.[/QUOTE]
I got snarky the minute you called my posts useless. Also, I edited my post to be more specific.
i love it when johnnymo1 posts about meta-physics, i always get to learn something new and he doesn't bother with giant run-on sentences about minute details like wikipedia
[QUOTE=Lenni;28683735]I got snarky the minute you called my posts useless. Also, I edited my post to be more specific.[/QUOTE]
No, just no, without even so much as a "prove that assertion" is utterly useless. It gives no information other than that you disagree. There's a button for that.
[QUOTE=Lenni;28683714]Stop beating around the bush and make a concrete example of how the existence of multiverses changes physical reality that we can perceive. Oh wait.. you can't I guess.[/QUOTE]
My quote describes that. It wasn't beating around the bush. If Copenhagen is correct, it means quantum mechanics operates on a purely probabilistic basis. We can't describe anything except by the likelihood of its occurrence. It makes a physical and mathematical difference in terms of the nature of the universe and how and how precisely we can describe it and its time evolution. Multiverse theory posits that it's not probabilistic at all. Each possible outcome described by the wavefunction of a particle is contained in some separate universe somewhere. If we can study the mechanism by which the multiverse "chooses" which universe to put us in, which choice it took, we can, in principle, derive the entire time evolution of the universe with perfect accuracy, which is utterly impossible if it's fundamentally probabilistic. Determinism isn't just the jurisdiction of philosophy.
[editline]19th March 2011[/editline]
Whether the description of a particle's behavior stops at the wavefunction being a probability or there's some hidden deterministic mechanism and hidden variables guiding its behavior (which is predicted in more interpretations than just many-worlds) has absolute physical significance in that there can be laws more fundamental to how a particle behaves than the wave equation. (or equally as fundamental)
[QUOTE=thisispain;28683704]i was reading the OP and it didn't make any real sense so i wanted to post "are you high?" and then i saw it was the drug discussion forums and then i made a pretty useless post
:downs:[/QUOTE]
i've been doing that for the past hour or two
except im so much more higher in the clouds than anyone here. and most people have to use drugs to get there.
why can't people be more like me off in their own little place instead of trying to get up in everyone else's :sigh:
[QUOTE=thisispain;28683737]i love it when johnnymo1 posts about meta-physics, i always get to learn something new and he doesn't bother with giant run-on sentences about minute details like wikipedia[/QUOTE]
Wiki is hit or miss in how useful it is for understanding stuff. It's annoying.
Can you guys dumb this down just a smidge? It sounds realy interesting but I cant seem to understand a whole lot...
I'm not gonna go back and rewrite everything I've written in the simplest possible terms but if you'd like to ask questions I'd be more than happy to answer simply.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28684014]I'm not gonna go back and rewrite everything I've written in the simplest possible terms but if you'd like to ask questions I'd be more than happy to answer simply.[/QUOTE]
Ok, Sweet.Back when meader was talking about how a pariticle or somthing could heat up to a certain temprature without passing through the lower numbers. Isnt that impossible because it would have to go through them for at least a milisecond. Godamn this is confusing.
EDIT
Man, I cant sound sciencey at all :(
I think quantum mechanics initially arose because of the realization that certain values are "discrete" - basically that some things are digital and not analog.
[QUOTE=tugnbud;28684075]Ok, Sweet.Back when meader was talking about how a pariticle or somthing could heat up to a certain temprature without passing through the lower numbers. Isnt that impossible because it would have to go through them for at least a milisecond. Godamn this is confusing.
EDIT
Man, I cant sound sciencey at all :([/QUOTE]
I'm not quite sure where he got that info from, I misinterpreted his post apparently in my response, but it's possible if temperature is quantized, meaning that there is a smallest possible unit of temperature. You could increase temperature only by adding some number of those units to the total temperature. It would jump up in steps rather than a smooth curve like we'd expect.
[editline]19th March 2011[/editline]
Still not sure if I have any idea what he was talking about for this response either.
[editline]19th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Barblunder;28684089]I think quantum mechanics initially arose because of the realization that certain values are "discrete" - basically that some things are digital and not analog.[/QUOTE]
Precisely what quantum means. Yes.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28684228]I'm not quite sure where he got that info from, I misinterpreted his post apparently in my response, but it's possible if temperature is quantized, meaning that there is a smallest possible unit of temperature. You could increase temperature only by adding some number of those units to the total temperature. It would jump up in steps rather than a smooth curve like we'd expect.
[editline]19th March 2011[/editline]
Still not sure if I have any idea what he was talking about for this response either.
[editline]19th March 2011[/editline]
Precisely what quantum means. Yes.[/QUOTE]
I guess if you had some sort of instant freeze or oven it would be possible but if so, You would need the worlds most acurrate timepeice to record it. Doesnt really seem worth the effort to me.
I don't think a quantum of solace is real though I think they made it up.
the smallest amount of something that can exist.
well if you take out the part that says "can exist physically" it can totally be used that way.
[QUOTE=tugnbud;28684255]I guess if you had some sort of instant freeze or oven it would be possible but if so, You would need the worlds most acurrate timepeice to record it. Doesnt really seem worth the effort to me.[/QUOTE]
you need to think on a slightly more abstract scale.
temperature is just a measure of movement in the most basic sense. and with what you said about an accurate timepiece - there's also a limit to how accurate you can make a timepiece. that's another basis to quantum mechanics. we can't really know how things work beyond the possible methods (theoretically) of measuring them, but they're trying to figure it out a method to do so.
[editline]19th March 2011[/editline]
Although it's entirely possible that some properties ARE "analog" and others are digital, and it just so happens that our measuring stick (light) is digital so it really can't figure it out for sure either way. (not sure if you can tell but I did just get baked so I'll be a lot less coherent and accurate from here on out)
[editline]19th March 2011[/editline]
and quantum doesn't necessarily refer to the smallness of something but it's indivisability so I guess a quantum of solace could exist if you defined solace in physical terms, maybe referring to a certain combination of brain-chemicals or something.
I do agree on the acuracy of a timepeice thing sort of but I think time is just somthing we thought of to be able to map what happens and stuff. It wouldnt really make a difference if there was no concept of "time"
wow you really think that?
I only go by time because its the aceptable system. It works but I wouldnt really care if it didnt exist.
I'm not very clear on the idea of time itself but it seems that it's just another co-ordinate, physical dimension, of an object whereby we determine its place in the universe. Time is just another axis that material exists on and determines cause and effect as much as any other dimensional property.
So yeah, it does map what happens. It just so happens that consciousness only exists/develops linearly through time and that causes us to perceive it this way.
[QUOTE=Barblunder;28684332]
and quantum doesn't necessarily refer to the smallness of something but it's indivisability so I guess a quantum of solace could exist if you defined solace in physical terms, maybe referring to a certain combination of brain-chemicals or something.[/QUOTE]
god damn you must have half a brain.
the smallest amount of something is inherently indivisible because it's the smallest amount of something that can exist before the fact that dividing it further would deconstruct it into it's basic components
[editline]19th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=tugnbud;28684430]I only go by time because its the aceptable system. It works but I wouldnt really care if it didnt exist.[/QUOTE]
"you got my sack?"
"yeah, meet me in twenty minutes behind the 7-11"
[editline]19th March 2011[/editline]
when i said meta physicist crock pot in that other thread i wasn't kidding.
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;28684434]god damn you must have half a brain.
the smallest amount of something is inherently indivisible because it's the smallest amount of something that can exist before the fact that dividing it further would deconstruct it into it's basic components
[editline]19th March 2011[/editline]
"you got my sack?"
"yeah, meet me in twenty minutes behind the 7-11"[/QUOTE]
Man, Without time we wouldnt have 7-11. We would have some other generic brand named store.
Wooooooow I am fucking ripped. Each individual moment in our consciousness, each "quanta", I guess, exists simultaneously, each having it's own experience at once and forever, and our experience of moving through time is an illusion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.