Schrodinger's Box, and why you should scare people with too much time on their hands.
226 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lankist;32186424]Alternatively, knowing that the set of Prime Numbers is infinite, but having no idea what all of the Prime Numbers are.[/QUOTE]
There we go, that's a better analogy.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32186303]When it comes to Quantum Theory?
Yes.
Our Laws of Physics only explain the things we see, not the things we are incapable of seeing. At some point we'll figure out the constants for quantum physics as well, but not today.[/QUOTE]
Alright, now that I have to speak agaisn't. If that were true, Quantum physics would be wrong, and then there would be no problem agaisnt regular math and logic. Which creates a paradox, which claiming to be right would create a whirlwind of other paradoxes and shatter every single fucking thought
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186440]I would not believe that either, because it's impossible to prove the output of a 'black box'. You'd have to prove that for EVERY input it gave a correct output.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, now you're just going into the bullshit Philosophy 101 "nothing is provable" argument.
GB2 Philosophy 102. Solipsism. Simulated reality. Keanu Reeves. Fucking GO.
[editline]8th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32186475]Alright, now that I have to speak agaisn't. If that were true, Quantum physics would be wrong, and then there would be no problem agaisnt regular math and logic. Which creates a paradox, which claiming to be right would create a whirlwind of other paradoxes and shatter every single fucking thought[/QUOTE]
I mean to say that our understanding of the universe, and therefore our logic as it has evolved, does not apply to the world of the subatomic. Sometimes they obey our laws. Sometimes they don't give a shit. Sometimes they make sense, sometimes they lose their shit. Sometimes they are constant, sometimes they pop in-and-out of existence all together.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186359]It is grounds to not base any of your beliefs on any of the current quantum physics models, and no it's not wrong to assume we're wrong because we have TONS of question marks all over the place.
[/QUOTE]
It's wrong to assume we're wrong when it's the most proved theory. A lot of the stuff has been PROVEN experimentally. Including this.
aVoN is lurking the thread now, this shit just got real.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32186489]I'm sorry, now you're just going into the bullshit Philosophy 101 "nothing is provable" argument.
GB2 Philosophy 102. Solipsism. Simulated reality. Keanu Reeves. Fucking GO.[/QUOTE]
No, you idiot, it's impossible to prove the output of something you don't know the workings of.
If I have a black box with an LCD and a button, and every time you've ever tried pressing the button the screen displayed "1". This doesn't prove it only outputs 1.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186554]No, you idiot, it's impossible to prove the output of something you don't know the workings of.
If I have a black box with an LCD and a button, and every time you've ever tried pressing the button the screen displayed "1". This doesn't prove it only outputs 1.[/QUOTE]
You don't have to know what caused the spark to know your house is on fire.
Quick get out go ask your philosophy 102 teacher to bring a hose.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186554]No, you idiot, it's impossible to prove the output of something you don't know the workings of.
If I have a black box with an LCD and a button, and every time you've ever tried pressing the button the screen displayed "1". This doesn't prove it only outputs 1.[/QUOTE]
That's why it's theory and not fact. If out of 30 million button presses, I never got another number I'd be pretty fucking sure that the box only outputted the number "one". It's impossible to prove it will always produce a "one", but as a theory it actually has pretty solid basis. There's no reason to assume that after so many tests the box would suddenly output a "two". We don't understand entirely how gravity works but we still know that it is an attraction between objects. We've tested it and always gotten that result. It doesn't necessarily mean that will always be the case, but seeing as that's the only outcome we've ever witnessed it's pretty safe to assume that it will always act that way.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32186569]You don't have to know what caused the spark to know your house is on fire.
Quick get out go ask your philosophy 102 teacher to bring a hose.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm:
This has nothing to do with philosophy.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186554]No, you idiot, it's impossible to prove the output of something you don't know the workings of.
If I have a black box with an LCD and a button, and every time you've ever tried pressing the button the screen displayed "1". This doesn't prove it only outputs 1.[/QUOTE]
I don't know how my TV works so it obviously doesn't
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;32186627]That's why it's theory and not fact. If out of 30 million button presses, I never got another number I'd be pretty fucking sure that the box only outputted the number "one". It's impossible to prove it will always produce a "one", but as a theory it actually has pretty solid basis. There's no reason to assume that after so many tests the box would suddenly output a "two". We don't understand entirely how gravity works but we still know that it is an attraction between two objects. We've tested it and always gotten that result. It doesn't necessarily mean that will always be the case, but seeing as that's the only outcome we've ever witnessed it's pretty safe to assume that it will always act that way.[/QUOTE]
But unless you understand the inner workings of the box you are not actually working off proof.
It could be a psuedorandom number generator that outputs something between 1-30 billion and unless this number was "7" it displayed 1. If you pressed it 30 million times the chances of it displaying nothing are EXTREMELY low.
[editline]8th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;32186648]I don't know how my TV works so it obviously doesn't[/QUOTE]
This is not at all what I'm saying.
Lankist, I've gotta say mate, I had you on my idiot list because of yesterday's 9/11 fight. You have redeemed yourself. :v:
Anyhow, what happens if a gas system meets a solid system? I'm tired of saying defined and not-defined.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186667]This is not at all what I'm saying.[/QUOTE]
No actually it's pretty much exactly what you're saying.
You're saying empirical evidence based upon observation of phenomena is irrelevant if we do not have a water-tight theory as to what is causing the phenomena.
Whether the phenomena happen tomorrow or not is irrelevant. Shit has happened. We have seen it happen. We do not know why, but we know shit happens and it will probably happen again if we run the experiment again. It is not a leap of logic, after running the experiment thousands of times, to assume that it will return the same results on the 1001th run.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186117]It doesn't take a physics background to think logically. if Shrodinger's Cat were true, it'd mean EVERYTHING is in superposition.[/QUOTE]
Please, why do we have all those discussions again and again and again.
To clarify: An unperturbed quantum system can be in a superposition (call those two superimposed states "dead" and "alive" if you want to. I will call them A and B) of different states, e.g A and B. This is [b]has been shown and observed[/b] in various experiments.
Any tiny interaction with that system destroys the superposition and collapses the wavefunction randomly to one possible outcome - a "classical" state.
Now Erwin Schrödinger thought about how to visualize this "strange" behaviour (with "strange" in a meaning of "we are not used to think like that, but it is like that, since we live in a classical world due to permanent interactions") for the "common people" with his infamous gedankenexperiment.
Of course such an experiment with a real cat will not work since the cat is in a classical state and not a quantum one (interactions all the time. Atoms colliding all the time etc etc), anyway it was just a metaphor to visualize how different quantum mechanics works.
Following all the discussions here, you seem to have been tricked by the following things:
* You take the experiment for real
* You think classical, because you live in a classical world.
Especially the last point is what interferes most. Just accept the results from various experiments how the world works on the quantum level and think about how awesome physics actually is. It will open your mind and change your point of view about things.... Or keep in your classical way of thinking and move on.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186667]But unless you understand the inner workings of the box you are not actually working off proof.
It could be a psuedorandom number generator that outputs something between 1-30 billion and unless this number was "7" it displayed 1. If you pressed it 30 million times the chances of it displaying nothing are EXTREMELY low.
[editline]8th September 2011[/editline]
This is not at all what I'm saying.[/QUOTE]
But none of this is proof. Quantum theory is just that, theory. We aren't arguing that all of this is 100% correct. We're arguing that, since we have a limited amount of knowledge and we've received the results we expected, we have a relatively strong belief that we can trust our assumptions.
You're completely wrong if you think any science whatsoever is based on proof.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32186750]No actually it's pretty much exactly what you're saying.
You're saying empirical evidence based upon observation of phenomena is irrelevant if we do not have a water-tight theory as to what is causing the phenomena.
Whether the phenomena happen tomorrow or not is irrelevant. Shit has happened. We have seen it happen. We do not know why, but we know shit happens and it will probably happen again if we run the experiment again.[/QUOTE]
Please read back over my posts, thanks.
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;32186763]But none of this is proof. Quantum theory is just that, theory. We aren't arguing that all of this is 100% correct. We're arguing that, since we have a limited amount of knowledge and we've received the results we expected, we have a relatively strong belief that we can trust our assumptions.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you are aware of what a theory is. Proof always precedes theory. If there is an X-Theory, then X has at least enough proof that X exists. Typically there is a hell of a lot more information than that.
aVoN saves the day.
[QUOTE=aVoN;32186755]Please, why do we have all those discussions again and again and again.
To clarify: An unperturbed quantum system can be in a superposition (call those two superimposed states "dead" and "alive" if you want to. I will call them A and B) of different states, e.g A and B. This is [b]has been shown and observed[/b] in various experiments.
Any tiny interaction with that system destroys the superposition and collapses the wavefunction randomly to one possible outcome - a "classical" state.
Now Erwin Schrödinger thought about how to visualize this "strange" behaviour (with "strange" in a meaning of "we are not used to think like that, but it is like that, since we live in a classical world due to permanent interactions") for the "common people" with his infamous gedankenexperiment.
Of course such an experiment with a real cat will not work since the cat is in a classical state and not a quantum one (interactions all the time. Atoms colliding all the time etc etc), anyway it was just a metaphor to visualize how different quantum mechanics works.
Following all the discussions here, you seem to have been tricked by the following things:
* You take the experiment for real
* You think classical, because you live in a classical world.
Especially the last point is what interferes most. Just accept the results from various experiments how the world works on the quantum level and think about how awesome physics actually is. It will open your mind and change your point of view about things.... Or keep in your classical way of thinking and move on.[/QUOTE]
Almost everyone in the thread is guilty of the first.
And I disagree with the second. The application of logic is not thinking clasically. My point entirely is that until we have an actual model for why, that makes sense and can be proved all of this 'string theory' stuff is bullshit and almost entirely irrelevant.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32186324]No one here has claimed we understand it. In fact, essentially every scientist on earth claims NOT to understand it. It's been mentioned several times before that this is how nature works and we haven't the slightest clue why.[/QUOTE]
Well not to understand it in it's total since the field is simply too compley. I can say from my self I do understand the basics it's found upon and the little branch of it which I'm working with. The math behind it is totally fine.
But the word which fits better than "understand" is "interpret". This, I'm sure, we are unable to. Even I know quantum physical effects where the math says me how it works, my experiment tells me the results how the math showed me before, but the big "why" behind it is unclear. But that's anyway unimportant for physics: It just finds a model (the "theory") to describe the world. How the world really works keeps unclear and stays a philosophical problem.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32186797]I don't think you are aware of what a theory is. Proof always precedes theory. If there is an X-Theory, then X has at least enough proof that X exists. Typically there is a hell of a lot more information than that.[/QUOTE]
I misused the word. My point was that just because we aren't 100% why something happens doesn't mean we don't know what the result is.
I supposed it's the same thing you explained a few posts ago, just a hell of a lot better.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186849]My point entirely is that until we have an actual model for why, that makes sense and can be proved all of this 'string theory' stuff is bullshit and almost entirely irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
Why should that be the case if what we have works
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;32186763]But none of this is proof. Quantum theory is just that, theory. We aren't arguing that all of this is 100% correct. We're arguing that, since we have a limited amount of knowledge and we've received the results we expected, we have a relatively strong belief that we can trust our assumptions.[/QUOTE]
This is more or less how physics works. A theory is a model, which is valid within it's boundaries. There is no "proof" of it, just experiments supporting at theory.
In my hones opinion, we will never be able find out how exactly the world works. E.g. does a Hamilton operator exists in the real world or is it just a mathematical construct to help us understanding how the world works?
I'm for the latter one. There are a lot of way how to interpret the "reality of physics" and this is mine. But anyway, this is philosophy so we should get back to the roots:
There is a theory called quantum mechanics. It predicts cool effects. Those effects have been observed in experiments. Quantum mechanics is therefore a good way to describe the world so far. But the world mustn't be as described by QM at all.
[editline]8th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186849]Almost everyone in the thread is guilty of the first.
And I disagree with the second. The application of logic is not thinking clasically. My point entirely is that until we have an actual model for why, that makes sense and can be proved all of this 'string theory' stuff is bullshit and almost entirely irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
As I stated before, asking for a why will lead to nothing and answering the "why" is not the job of physics. We just provide (successful) models describing the world.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186849]The application of logic is not thinking clasically.[/QUOTE]
He tells you exactly why you aren't understanding this. You can't just say "no."
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32184222]it says, "If you don't look in it is both dead and alive."[/QUOTE]
That's wrong though. The cat at the specific point you point to will be in a specific state. Saying there is hard evidence is what, not looking in the box?
[QUOTE=Clunj;32187145]That's wrong though. The cat at the specific point you point to will be in a specific state. Saying there is hard evidence is what, not looking in the box?[/QUOTE]
I am getting tired of saying the words "Double Slit Experiment." So I'm not going to say them anymore. I'm going to say Quantum Monkey Bidness.
[QUOTE=Clunj;32187145]That's wrong though.[/QUOTE]
Great argument.
[QUOTE=Clunj;32187145]The cat at the specific point you point to will be in a specific state. Saying there is hard evidence is what, not looking in the box?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment[/url]
So I may just throw up. We're having a physics/logic descussion on facepunch.
[QUOTE=catbarf;32184949]Except that as anything but an analogy it fails, because the whole 'whoah that's weird' factor is erroneous as it's only there because the analogy is flawed.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but in this case the analogy is "if the only information we receive from the observer inside the room is that the cat is either dead or alive, not that it is dead or it is alive, but just that it did reach some definite state", which means that in theory, since it hasn't been determined to be any specific state, but it is in one, it hasn't had the state collapsed yet, which means that in theory everything inside the room could be reversed.
This isn't my example, Scientific American is pretty fucking accurate for hard science if you ask me.
[QUOTE=catbarf;32184949]Uh, no. Photosynthesis does not rely upon quantum mechanics to achieve optimal efficiency.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27582[/url]
Nope. :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.