Quantum Mechanics and Philosophy

[ashai]

That is something that I have learned to believe(Multiple universes), but all coexistant...separated only by our senses(In other words, each at different frequencies......).

But of course, that is speculation, so no one ask me for explanations, or reasons for my beliefs............As usual, I am talking out of the top of my hat.

Ushta michel
The universes are speculation yes, but what is theoretical is a multidimensional Universe. The same mathematical models that first established the main tenets of quantum suggest what is called super string theory , which is very complex but seems to suggest that all things have a vibration function and a certain frequency , when applied to the zero event or big bang they yield a hypothesis that upon the massive impact of the Big bang's explosion the universe ( That is space/time) folded unto itself creating different dimensions

This has some real 'fun; implications for theists. Check out everystudent.com/wires/fingers/html

Ushta te
Ashai

 

[Mr Spinkles]

But isn't a "wave" just the description of a kind of motion within a field of particles? How can there be a wave if there is no particle field for the wave to move through?

Oh, no!! I responded to this with a big long post, but now it's gone! Curses!

Okay, real short version:

Short answer: Mathematically, there is nothing wrong with a wave propagating through a continuous medium (rather than a field of particles).

Long answer: A single particle (like a proton) which travels in a vacuum through two small slits will end up on the other side at locations which imply a wave-like propagation. It turns out that the probability of the particle ending up at a given location is related to the amplitude of a wave which, going through two slits, emerges as two waves which interfere with each other and form a distinct diffraction pattern. The result is that if you send millions of particles through the double slit one at a time, a pattern will build up on a detector on the other side of the slits. This pattern is directly related to the interference pattern of a wave passing through a double slit.

The classic double slit experiment, as explained above, is a very good example of both wave-particle duality, and the nature of quantum randomness, which can only be described in terms of probabilities. In this experiment, we cannot say for sure where the proton will end up....we only know the probability distribution of the different places it may end up. If we were dealing with a particle which had no wave-nature, we would expect it to go through the slit and end up exactly on the other side in a straight line every time, just like bullets fired through a small hole. Imagine firing bullets straight through a small hole and seeing a striped pattern of bulletholes on the wall on the other side of the hole! That is precisely what is happening in this experiment.)

The above is just one example of many experiments which all converge on the same conclusion: the wave-nature of particles is real.

Even more complicated answer: even a vacuum is filled with an infinite number of virtual particles popping into and out of existence. It may even be the case that time and space have a particle (or "chunky") nature. So the mathematical idealization of a perfectly continuous "space" (rather than a discrete space or particle field) may not be physical.

Okay, and before I say anything else: I am not an expert. I could very well be wrong on a number of things. This is only my best understanding. I have messed things up before.

 

[PureX]

Oh, no!! I responded to this with a big long post, but now it's gone! Curses!

Okay, real short version:

Short answer: Mathematically, there is nothing wrong with a wave propagating through a continuous medium (rather than a field of particles).

Long answer: A single particle (like a proton) which travels in a vacuum through two small slits will end up on the other side at locations which imply a wave-like propagation. It turns out that the probability of the particle ending up at a given location is related to the amplitude of a wave which, going through two slits, emerges as two waves which interfere with each other and form a distinct diffraction pattern. The result is that if you send millions of particles through the double slit one at a time, a pattern will build up on a detector on the other side of the slits. This pattern is directly related to the interference pattern of a wave passing through a double slit.

The classic double slit experiment, as explained above, is a very good example of both wave-particle duality, and the nature of quantum randomness, which can only be described in terms of probabilities. In this experiment, we cannot say for sure where the proton will end up....we only know the probability distribution of the different places it may end up. If we were dealing with a particle which had no wave-nature, we would expect it to go through the slit and end up exactly on the other side in a straight line every time, just like bullets fired through a small hole. Imagine firing bullets straight through a small hole and seeing a striped pattern of bulletholes on the wall on the other side of the hole! That is precisely what is happening in this experiment.)

The above is just one example of many experiments which all converge on the same conclusion: the wave-nature of particles is real.

Even more complicated answer: even a vacuum is filled with an infinite number of virtual particles popping into and out of existence. It may even be the case that time and space have a particle (or "chunky") nature. So the mathematical idealization of a perfectly continuous "space" (rather than a discrete space or particle field) may not be physical.

Okay, and before I say anything else: I am not an expert. I could very well be wrong on a number of things. This is only my best understanding. I have messed things up before.

I'm also only a little bit familiar with this "quantum weirdness". As far as I know, however, it remains a mystery. And it's this "medium" that's the big mystery. Quantum strings? Oscillating rings? Who knows? It's an energy field of some sort, and the "particles" occur and un-occur into and out of this mysterious field of energy according to rules that we don't yet understand.

It's interesting, though, isn't it? All that exists is the result of energy, and the ways energy can and can't express itself. One could say that it all comes down to a kind of divine will (energy), and divine intent (the rules that govern energy).

 

[ashai]

I'm also only a little bit familiar with this "quantum weirdness". As far as I know, however, it remains a mystery. And it's this "medium" that's the big mystery. Quantum strings? Oscillating rings? Who knows? It's an energy field of some sort, and the "particles" occur and un-occur into and out of this mysterious field of energy according to rules that we don't yet understand.

It's interesting, though, isn't it? All that exists is the result of energy, and the ways energy can and can't express itself. One could say that it all comes down to a kind of divine will (energy), and divine intent (the rules that govern energy).

Ushta

Hmmm! You have just giving one more reason why Theists ought to be thrilled with Quantum, but then that is only my opinion of course!:bow:

 

[Mr Spinkles]

One could say that it all comes down to a kind of divine will (energy), and divine intent (the rules that govern energy).

One could say that. Or one could say that it all comes down to energy and the rules that govern energy.

 

[PureX]

One could say that. Or one could say that it all comes down to energy and the rules that govern energy.

Sure, but that's just semantics. "Energy" is the big mystery of science, it expresses itself as all that exists, yet we have no idea what it is. And "God" is the big mystery of theology. God is also held as being responsible for all that exists, and we have no idea what God is, either. So it turns out that they're different words for the same mystery. It looks like this is the point at which science and theology unite.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sure, but that's just semantics. "Energy" is the big mystery of science, it expresses itself as all that exists, yet we have no idea what it is. And "God" is the big mystery of theology. God is also held as being responsible for all that exists, and we have no idea what God is, either. So it turns out that they're different words for the same mystery. It looks like this is the point at which science and theology unite.

We have an idea of what energy is--namely, the ability to apply a force over a distance. We can even express energy mathematically, we can quantify it in units (e.g. Joules), we can measure it and experiment with it.

 

[PureX]

We have an idea of what energy is--namely, the ability to apply a force over a distance. We can even express energy mathematically, we can quantify it in units (e.g. Joules), we can measure it and experiment with it.

Ummmm ... not really. What we're experimenting with, and quantifying, are the expressions of energy. When energy expresses itself as matter, we can weight it. When energy expresses itself as movement, or as space, or as heat, or as light, we can measure these using increments that we invent. But we really have no idea what energy is, itself. And we also have no idea how many ways energy can express itself, that we are not yet aware of.

 

[Quiddity]

Ummmm ... not really. What we're experimenting with, and quantifying, are the expressions of energy. When energy expresses itself as matter, we can weight it. When energy expresses itself as movement, or as space, or as heat, or as light, we can measure these using increments that we invent. But we really have no idea what energy is, itself. And we also have no idea how many ways energy can express itself, that we are not yet aware of.

Very interesting.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Ummmm ... not really. What we're experimenting with, and quantifying, are the expressions of energy. When energy expresses itself as matter, we can weight it. When energy expresses itself as movement, or as space, or as heat, or as light, we can measure these using increments that we invent. But we really have no idea what energy is, itself.

We may have to agree to disagree here. Energy has a precise mathematical definition, so when something fulfills that definition (like heat or movement) I think it makes sense to consider that thing energy, not an expression of energy. Sure, energy can take many different forms, but that doesn't mean those forms aren't "really" energy. That would be like saying that ice and water aren't H2O "itself" but mere "expressions" of H2O.

 

[PureX]

We may have to agree to disagree here. Energy has a precise mathematical definition, so when something fulfills that definition (like heat or movement) I think it makes sense to consider that thing energy, not an expression of energy. Sure, energy can take many different forms, but that doesn't mean those forms aren't "really" energy. That would be like saying that ice and water aren't H2O "itself" but mere "expressions" of H2O.

You're trying to hide behind poor vocabulary. Energy doesn't take "many forms". Heat, light, movement, and space/time are not "forms". They are expressions. When energy expresses itself as matter, the matter occurs in many different forms (of particles). We use mathematics to quantify the relationships between the various expressions of energy, but doing so only describes some of the ways that energy does and doesn't express itself. It doesn't tell us what energy is (this is the great quest of quantum physics) nor does it tell us the overall parameters of the expression of energy. For example, energy could be expressed in ways that we so far are not even aware of. We have no way of ruling this out, because in truth we don't know what energy is: we don't know all of it's limitations. All we know so far is that it expresses itself in a number of ways that we are aware of, and that we can quantify the relationship between some of those expressions mathematically.

We call H20 "water", and water takes the form of liquid, solid, or gas depending upon the degree of agitation of it's molecules (temperature), as do most other forms of matter. It would appear that something similar happens on a quantum level, in that energy is expressed as a particle or a wave depending upon conditions that are as yet unknown to us. Similarly, we speculate that energy expresses itself as different kinds of particles depending also upon conditions that are as yet unknown to us.

We don't actually know what energy is, yet, so don't know what these internal conditions are that cause energy to be expressed as one kind of particle instead of another. We speculate that the "quantum weirdness" that you describe in those experiments dealing with the particle/wave question is the result of our testing the phenomena in transition. "Quantum weirdness" happens because there is a point at which matter and energy become interchangeable, and therefor exhibit the characteristics of both.

Mathematics doesn't tell us what energy is. It only helps us quantify the relationships between the various expressions of energy.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You're trying to hide behind poor vocabulary. Energy doesn't take "many forms". Heat, light, movement, and space/time are not "forms". They are expressions.

We're headed down the slippery slope of semantic saber rattling. I don't object to using the a word like "expressions" rather than "forms", but I would hardly consider the use of "forms" to be poor vocabulary, and several sources would agree with me:

The term Energy (from Latin Energia and Greek Ενεργεια) refers to the ability of a physical system to do mechanical work.[1] It is a fundamental concept pertaining to the ability for action. The energy of a system can be quantified in many interdependent forms, but the total energy of a system is subject to conservation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

There are many sources of energy. In The Energy Story, we will look at the energy that makes our world work. Energy is an important part of our daily lives.
The forms of energy we will look at include:

http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/index.html

((physics) the capacity of a physical system to do work; the units of energy are joules or ergs) "energy can take a wide variety of forms"

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=energy

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=+2]Various Forms of Energy

http://library.thinkquest.org/20331/physics/pforms.html

This is a great website about energy. The author refers to heat, kinetic energy, etc. as "types" of energy; he goes on to quote various textbooks which give a number of interesting opinions on the definition of "energy", two of which refer to the "forms" of energy.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

When energy expresses itself as matter, the matter occurs in many different forms (of particles). We use mathematics to quantify the relationships between the various expressions of energy, but doing so only describes some of the ways that energy does and doesn't express itself. It doesn't tell us what energy is (this is the great quest of quantum physics) nor does it tell us the overall parameters of the expression of energy.

You seem to be saying that there is something out there which "is" energy "itself", whereas all the mathematical functions of energy derived from physical quantities (like one-half the mass times velocity squared -- kinetic energy) are mere expressions of this "pure" energy. This may be the case, and it may be that some authorities on the subject would agree with you.

In my opinion, however, it is better to think of heat, kinetic energy, gravitational potential energy, etc., as energy itself, none more important or more special than any of the others. In other words, I do not believe there is such a thing as "energy itself" which is not some function of physical quantities. Like all abstractions, the concept of energy is human-created. It is fundamentally a tool for understanding patterns we observe in physical reality, not an existential substance in and of itself. We define it as "the ability to do work", where "work" is a line integral involving force and distance. If a function of some physical variables--mass, position, velocity--satisfies our mathematical definition of "energy", we should think of that function as energy. There is no use, i.m.o., in degrading these to the level of "expressions" of some as-yet-undiscovered thing which is the "real" energy.

Some of the books quoted in the last link I gave above illustrate what I mean:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Quoted in a book called Energies, by Vaclav Smil, attributed to David Rose:

Quote: Energy, "is an abstract concept invented by physical scientists in the nineteenth century to describe quantitatively a wide variety of natural phenomena."[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Theory and Problems of Thermodynamics, by M.M. Abbott, H.C. Van Ness, Schaum's Outline Series in Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Company

Quote: "Energy is a mathematical abstraction that has no existence apart from its functional relationship to other variables or coordinates that do have a physical interpretation and which can be measured. For example, the kinetic energy of a given mass of material is a function of its velocity, and it has no other reality."[/FONT]

The author of the page and at least one of the quotes seems to agree with what you are saying, however:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Richard Feynman (very famous & smart physicist), "Lectures on Physics"

Quote: "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount."[/FONT]

[although I would be careful here; he may not be saying necessarily that "energy" apart from its various forms is a physical thing]

For example, energy could be expressed in ways that we so far are not even aware of. We have no way of ruling this out, because in truth we don't know what energy is: we don't know all of it's limitations.

I don't disagree that energy could be expressed in ways that we are not yet aware of; however, the fact that something cannot be ruled out is not a very convincing argument. New forms of energy can be discovered simply by adding up the known forms of energy in a system and applying the law of conservation of energy. So for a given system, we can rule out energies of other forms if heat and kinetic energy are enough to account for the observed energy in the system.

All we know so far is that it expresses itself in a number of ways that we are aware of, and that we can quantify the relationship between some of those expressions mathematically.

[emphasis mine] Again, you're implicitly assuming that there exists an "it", something which is not heat or kinetic energy or any other mathematical function of physical quantities which fulfills the definition "the ability to do work" (or what you call an "expression"). I do not believe your assumption is valid, I think you are taking a somewhat mystical view and postulating the existence of something which is both needless and unevidenced. See, for example, Non-Scientific Energy.

We call H20 "water", and water takes the form of liquid, solid, or gas depending upon the degree of agitation of it's molecules (temperature), as do most other forms of matter.

Yes. And the liquid, solid, and gas forms are all equally "water"; they are not expressions of some "true" or "pure" form of water any more than there are "true" dimensions of a rectangle. They ARE water.

It would appear that something similar happens on a quantum level, in that energy is expressed as a particle or a wave depending upon conditions that are as yet unknown to us. Similarly, we speculate that energy expresses itself as different kinds of particles depending also upon conditions that are as yet unknown to us.

I'm not sure what you mean here. By "conditions that are as yet unknown to us" are you referring to the idea of hidden variables?

We don't actually know what energy is, yet, so don't know what these internal conditions are that cause energy to be expressed as one kind of particle instead of another. We speculate that the "quantum weirdness" that you describe in those experiments dealing with the particle/wave question is the result of our testing the phenomena in transition. "Quantum weirdness" happens because there is a point at which matter and energy become interchangeable, and therefor exhibit the characteristics of both.

I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulty extracting meaning from this. Who speculates that quantum weirdness is the result of our testing the phenomena in transition?

Mathematics doesn't tell us what energy is. It only helps us quantify the relationships between the various expressions of energy.

Mathematics does tell us what energy is, because we humans invented the concept of "energy" in the first place as a tool for understanding observable reality, and we define energy with mathematics.