Getting from cause effect to awareness

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If there can be an alternative then there can be, but there will be only one.

Why? That is, given self-organizing system or something with even greater capacity to determine its evolution (by evolution, I refer to the mathematical sense in which e.g., some model consisting of some set of difference or differential equations that allow for us to speak of changes within the system over time), what makes it necessary for only one alternative of the many configurations we know are possible to be the only one we do not find?

If there can be more than one actuality then we are talking multiple worlds.

Or any similar relative state interpretation of quantum mechanics. I am not a proponent of these, but neither do I see a reason for the fundamentally probabilistic nature of all that physics deals with to entail a determinism that does not exist within the theoretical framework, is not predicted or otherwise accounted for in that framework, and runs contrary both to that framework and empirical findings.

 

[idav]

Or any similar relative state interpretation of quantum mechanics. I am not a proponent of these, but neither do I see a reason for the fundamentally probabilistic nature of all that physics deals with to entail a determinism that does not exist within the theoretical framework, is not predicted or otherwise accounted for in that framework, and runs contrary both to that framework and empirical findings.

In other words, I cant predict it and cant know completely whats going on therefore it isnt deterministic. Well I think we can know.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In other words, I cant predict it and cant know completely whats going on therefore it isnt deterministic.

No. Complex systems are in general epistemically indeterministic. This means that we could, at least in theory, know what's going to happen. This is not true of all systems and it is fundamentally contrary to quantum physics. It's not that we lack the ability to predict because we don't have the means (the technology, the techniques, the methods, etc.). It is that the theory of physics itself tells us that it is not, even in principle, possible to predict what will happen.

Well I think we can know.

Why?

 

[idav]

No. Complex systems are in general epistemically indeterministic. This means that we could, at least in theory, know what's going to happen. This is not true of all systems and it is fundamentally contrary to quantum physics. It's not that we lack the ability to predict because we don't have the means (the technology, the techniques, the methods, etc.). It is that the theory of physics itself tells us that it is not, even in principle, possible to predict what will happen.


Why?

Cause I assume what we observe in qm to be accurate. To say that our observation is determining the outcome is a metaphysical view. If we obseveve a particle to be somewhere then it was determined to be there and nothing in qm says otherwise cause qm doesnt even understand the mechanics of why a particle is there instead of over there.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Cause I assume what we observe in qm to be accurate.

What we observe is that we cannot predict what we observe. We can only determine the probability that we will observe something rather than infinitely many other possible things we might observe.

To say that our observation is determining the outcome is a metaphysical view.

How so?

If we obseveve a particle to be somewhere then it was determined to be there and nothing in qm says otherwise

EVERYTHING in QM says otherwise. It's the foundation of the entire mechanics. If what you said were true, then we have no quantum physics.

cause qm doesnt even understand the mechanics of why a particle is there instead of over there.

QM is a theoretical framework, a predictive model, and pretty much the basis for everything we believe true of anything. It understands nothing because we use it. When we use it, it tells us it is impossible to even to describe a particle of being anywhere, let alone predict where it is

 

[idav]

When a particle goes through the experiment, it is an undetermined path but there is still a path. What is it about it being undetermined that makes the path it took suddenly disappear? Does it not land on only one point? The fact that it forms the bands at particular intervals proves that physical constraints are affecting the very real trajectory.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

When a particle goes through the experiment, it is an undetermined path but there is still a path.

We have proven that this is not correct.

What is it about it being undetermined that makes the path it took suddenly disappear?

Trajectories cannot disappear by definition. To describe a particle as having a trajectory that disappeared is to assert that one is not describing a particle.

Does it not land on only one point?

No. It doesn't.

 

[idav]

We have proven that this is not correct.



Trajectories cannot disappear by definition. To describe a particle as having a trajectory that disappeared is to assert that one is not describing a particle.




No. It doesn't.

As often as you want to prove a particle is a wave you can choose the experiment to show it is a particle also. QM is predictable like that, it gives the results we want.

 

[idav]

Photons aren't going through walls, they are being affected by the slits as well as the placement of them.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Photons aren't going through walls

They not only do this, but so do other things like electrons. Again, this is proven. It is impossible for them not to go through "walls" and there exists a mathematically accurate models of "particle" trajectories that not only express that they go through walls, but that they do so at every single possible point taking every single possible route.

they are being affected by the slits as well as the placement of them.

Our observations are affected by the slits. That this is true follows from the fact that the way we alter the possible routes/trajectories that make it possible for us to detect e.g., electrons in some specific point do not change whether we have one slit or 90 trillion. Our capacity to determine where we will detect electrons or photons or whatever depends upon "slits" only because the exact same probabilistic ways in which quantum entities do not ever have any well-defined paths, positions, etc., are always true no matter how we choose to detect them.

In other words, the fact that an electron is detected in a particular way if there is one open slit, another way if there are 2, and another way if there are 50 trillion is all the same. We don't change the logic of how we calculate where we will likely detect an electron when we alter e.g., the number of slits.

That's because what determines how we detect what we do isn't the result of the nature of things like electrons. It is our limited ability to determine what we will detect.

This is again so fundamental to quantum physics that were it false the past century of research in physics wouldn't just be wrong, it would be so completely inaccurate that science itself would be thrown out the window.

 

[idav]

They not only do this, but so do other things like electrons. Again, this is proven. It is impossible for them not to go through "walls" and there exists a mathematically accurate models of "particle" trajectories that not only express that they go through walls, but that they do so at every single possible point taking every single possible route.


Our observations are affected by the slits. That this is true follows from the fact that the way we alter the possible routes/trajectories that make it possible for us to detect e.g., electrons in some specific point do not change whether we have one slit or 90 trillion. Our capacity to determine where we will detect electrons or photons or whatever depends upon "slits" only because the exact same probabilistic ways in which quantum entities do not ever have any well-defined paths, positions, etc., are always true no matter how we choose to detect them.

In other words, the fact that an electron is detected in a particular way if there is one open slit, another way if there are 2, and another way if there are 50 trillion is all the same. We don't change the logic of how we calculate where we will likely detect an electron when we alter e.g., the number of slits.

That's because what determines how we detect what we do isn't the result of the nature of things like electrons. It is our limited ability to determine what we will detect.

This is again so fundamental to quantum physics that were it false the past century of research in physics wouldn't just be wrong, it would be so completely inaccurate that science itself would be thrown out the window.

I am not about throwing out science but I am under the impression that the particle wave duality has yet to be completely understood. Einstein proved there is a photon which is the particle property that einstein proved, not that I understand what a "photon" or particle is really supposed to be. Regardless it is a dual nature.

Even if it were the case that a photon is nothing but wave like there is still a trajectory. The photon is not going through walls otherwise we would get the same result with one slit as we do with two slits. The slits show that the photon has to take a path to get to the other side. Maybe they spread or something like you describe but it would spread before it hits the slit and then whatever gets trough spreads again after the slit obstacles are passed.

There is one experiment where light is trying to get around a corner and the duality can be seen well when we dig into the mechanics of the light trying to get around a corner. Shadows show clear boundaries where light cannot traverse due to obstacles.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am not about throwing out science but I am under the impression that the particle wave duality has yet to be completely understood.

It is possible for this to be true without it being possible that particles have defined trajectories. The entirety of quantum mechanics does not require us to know, for example, whether there are no "particles" in any meaningful sense. The entirety of quantum mechanics does depend upon particles not having defined trajectories.

Einstein proved there is a photon which is the particle property that einstein proved

Einstein showed that light is composed of what he called quanta. He didn't prove anything about a "particle property". He did set out to prove that it cannot be the case that nature is fundamentally indeterministic in his EPR paper in 1935. This paper is still cited, because what Einstein correctly supposed that quantum mechanics entails about the indeterministic, nonlocal character of nature was not the demonstration that QM was wrong he hoped. Instead, his argument (intended to show that QM couldn't be correct) turned out to be verified empirically over and over and over again.

Regardless it is a dual nature.

The "dual nature" is simply a description of properties of what we detect. It does not follow that these are properties of quantum systems.

Even if it were the case that a photon is nothing but wave like there is still a trajectory.

There is no trajectory. The entirety of quantum mechanics depends upon us assuming that things like electrons do not have well-defined positions, spatial existence, trajectories, etc.

The photon is not going through walls otherwise we would get the same result with one slit as we do with two slits.

Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment proved this isn't true. The slits interact just like the detection devices. All we know is that how we interfere with e.g., a stream of electrons determines what we will detect, and does so only if we assume that they can be in multiple places at once. When there is one slit, there is only one way we can detect them because of the way we are interfering with them, not because of what they "are".

Shadows show clear boundaries where light cannot traverse due to obstacles.

Obstacles interfere. When we detect waves, we interfere one way. When we detect particles, we interfere another. In reality, we are not dealing with waves or particles as these belong to classical physics. What we mean by this wave/particle duality is that we detect properties of a system that "appears" as if it is a wave in some cases and a particle in other but is neither.

 

[idav]

I see what you mean about not having a defined trajectory. The particle still is taking a path, it has to some how get from point a the firing mechanism to point b where it is ultimately detected, unless we are detecting some mock version of the particle, some quantum twin or whatever but that cant be proven.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I see what you mean about not having a defined trajectory. The particle still is taking a path, it has to some how get from point a the firing mechanism to point b where it is ultimately detected, unless we are detecting some mock version of the particle, some quantum twin or whatever but that cant be proven.

EPR (the famous paper authored by Einstein, Podesky, & Rosen) showed that quantum mechanics entailed that spacelike separated entities could instantaneously influence one another. Bell developed a proof (an inequality) capable of demonstrating without doubt that certain experimental findings necessitated that "something" was both travelling and not travelling in space but not in space and in "no time" to enable correlations between space-like separated particles. EPR was published in 1935, Bell's in equality a few decades later, and the first of many empirical demonstrations was Aspect et al's 1982 demonstration. That experiment (and the many that followed) didn't just show that particles (to the extent any exist) have no trajectory. It showed that the ways in which fundamental components of physics are utterly distinct from what we experience. The only deterministic mechanics that is fully developed and inline with quantum mechanics is Bohm's, and it entails that there is no reality as we know it because there are no particles, waves, etc., only the implicate order.

To speak of particles is in a very real sense to speak of things that are now known not to exist. To speak of quantum systems existing in a single place is not only contrary to all of quantum physics, countless experiments have demonstrated this is completely incorrect. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever to support the view that something like electrons have anything like a trajectory such that we can ever say that, without us looking, they are in any specific place traveling along any trajectory.

The idea that things must travel from point A to B is wrong. It indicated that it was wrong over 70 years ago and shown to be wrong over 20 years ago.

 

[idav]

So what is the particle that is fired vs the particle that is detected? That really depends on the interpretation. So qm can show the mechanism that made it appear that a particle went from point a to point b?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So what is the particle that is fired vs the particle that is detected?

It is always and only that which is detected. How we detect it determines what we detect. Had we not detected it the way we did, we would not have found what we did. That's because we cannot determine what we will find except by forcing what is indeterministic to be determined. The problem is that we can force identical quantum systems to be determined in absolutely contradictory ways. That's because what we detect is not what was. When we detect a "particle" as being in a location, we can show that it was never in that location and that it couldn't have been.

So qm can show the mechanism that made it appear that a particle went from point a to point b?

No. QM shows that to say such a particle did traverse from point A to point B is simply wrong. It shows us that the idea that we can assume that because we detect a "particle" at some point, we can say anything about where or what it was before. It shows us that indeterminacy is absolutely fundamentally intrinsic to all of nature.

 

[idav]

It is always and only that which is detected. How we detect it determines what we detect. Had we not detected it the way we did, we would not have found what we did. That's because we cannot determine what we will find except by forcing what is indeterministic to be determined. The problem is that we can force identical quantum systems to be determined in absolutely contradictory ways. That's because what we detect is not what was. When we detect a "particle" as being in a location, we can show that it was never in that location and that it couldn't have been.



No. QM shows that to say such a particle did traverse from point A to point B is simply wrong. It shows us that the idea that we can assume that because we detect a "particle" at some point, we can say anything about where or what it was before. It shows us that indeterminacy is absolutely fundamentally intrinsic to all of nature.

Ok I think I see. Yet we cant say if it is because it was random or some cause behind the final result? We wouldn't just throw physics away, there is a cause there somewhere.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yet we cant say if it is because it was random or some cause behind the final result?

It's certainly not random. Perhaps the most central mathematical expression in all of QM is the mod square of the amplitude. It is important for a few reasons. First, it's the way we calculate the probability of e.g., detecting an electron in some area over here or some area over there, etc.

Second, nobody knows why we have to calculate probabilities like this. Probability is everywhere in the sciences (just like statistics, and of course most of the time probability is just statistics from a different perspective and vice versa). Yet only in QM do we use probability amplitudes and only in QM do we get probabilities from the mod square of these amplitudes.

Third, there's the issue of what we assume to be true when we use it. Let's say we do the 2-slit experiment. In order to accurately predict where we are likely to find the electron, we have to use this method of calculating probabilities. However, this method assumes that if there are only two ways (i.e., two slits) through which the electron can travel to hit some detection screen, these cannot be the only two ways. That is, given that there are only two possible slits that the electron can pass through, if we want to accurately predict where it will land we must assume that it can travel in ways that are not possible (at least for particles and in classical physics).

If we step back and say "wait, it's a single electron. It can't go through both slits, but it can only go either through one slit, or through the other, because there are no other possible ways!" and we then calculate the probability of detecting it as if this were true (this being the idea that "there are only two slits and it can only travel through one or the other to be detected"), then all of quantum mechanics comes falling down. The entirety of it fails, because we assumed that things must always be somewhere and if travelling must always be travelling by one route from somewhere to somewhere else.

We wouldn't just throw physics away, there is a cause there somewhere.

Why must there be?

 

[idav]

It's certainly not random. Perhaps the most central mathematical expression in all of QM is the mod square of the amplitude. It is important for a few reasons. First, it's the way we calculate the probability of e.g., detecting an electron in some area over here or some area over there, etc.

Second, nobody knows why we have to calculate probabilities like this. Probability is everywhere in the sciences (just like statistics, and of course most of the time probability is just statistics from a different perspective and vice versa). Yet only in QM do we use probability amplitudes and only in QM do we get probabilities from the mod square of these amplitudes.

Third, there's the issue of what we assume to be true when we use it. Let's say we do the 2-slit experiment. In order to accurately predict where we are likely to find the electron, we have to use this method of calculating probabilities. However, this method assumes that if there are only two ways (i.e., two slits) through which the electron can travel to hit some detection screen, these cannot be the only two ways. That is, given that there are only two possible slits that the electron can pass through, if we want to accurately predict where it will land we must assume that it can travel in ways that are not possible (at least for particles and in classical physics).

If we step back and say "wait, it's a single electron. It can't go through both slits, but it can only go either through one slit, or through the other, because there are no other possible ways!" and we then calculate the probability of detecting it as if this were true (this being the idea that "there are only two slits and it can only travel through one or the other to be detected"), then all of quantum mechanics comes falling down. The entirety of it fails, because we assumed that things must always be somewhere and if travelling must always be travelling by one route from somewhere to somewhere else.



Why must there be?

And with having to assume an electron to be somewhere it is as if it is physically there. Physics still applies, even the wave isnt some etheral ghost like thing. The math is to treat it like the particle is there so in real world application it is there and everywhere, but the thing has momentum at the speed of light so obviously it would he hard to shoot at when it zoomed by.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And with having to assume an electron to be somewhere it is as if it is physically there.

Quantum physics does not make that assumption. In fact, it almost always explicitly assumes that we cannot speak of an electron "being" anywhere until we observe it and then we can only speak of it as being there because that's where we observed it, not because that's where it would be if we had not observed it.

Physics still applies

This is physics. In quantum physics, if we represent the position of something like an electron as having a position and as travelling along a path, then we will not have quantum physics. We may have classical physics, but then the last century of advancements in physics that relate to particle physics, quantum mechanics, and theoretical physics (among others) will all be lost. These all depend o assuming that something like an electron has neither a defined position nor does it travel along a path.

even the wave isnt some etheral ghost like thing

What wave?

The math is to treat it like the particle is there

The math treats the "particles" usually as being nowhere and everywhere. The logic behind the implications of the math is as follows: if we set up an experiment to detect an electron and we do detect it in some location, then we must assume that had we not tried to detect it where we did, it wouldn't have been there. QM works by assuming that "particles" have locations because we tried to observe them, and that if we hadn't tried to observe them there then they would not have been there.

As Einstein pointed out, this is akin to saying that the moon is only there when you look at it. The difference is that while this isn't true of the moon, without it being true in quantum physics we don't have quantum physics.