When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?

[MrMrdevincamus]

Well, at least we can conclude that God is not everywhere, or He is not observing those particles.

Kidding aside (although I am a bit serious about that), what you say is incorrect. When we do not observe it, then it is not true that the electron crosses either one slit or the other. In a sense, it crosses both. The unobserved electron is actually a probability wave, and that is why we observe an interference pattern (like waves do) on the other side when we do not observe which slits it actually crosses.

But what happens when we observe it? Observing means interacting with the electron. What happens is that we get entangled with the electron.

So, the two state system (eigenvectors), which is in a superposition of both

1) electron on the left
2) electron on the right

Become the two state system (still in a superposition of both)

1) electron on the left, observer see it going to the left
2) electron on the right, observer sees it on the right

So, when viole sees the electron going right, there is another viole that sees it going left, and both exist in a superposition of coherent states (eigenvectors). We and the electron will become entangled, we become basically the same system, like two entangled electrons whose spins always agree, or counter-agree, independently from being observed by a third party or not.

Ciao

- viole

hI viole..... I am somewhat a deist of sorts and I feel Gods fingerprints are indeed everywhere in and on everything from the smallest quantum particle to the largest large scale structure ion our universe.! I feel Gods calculations are visible by simply observing our universe. Its obvious to me that the universe was created as a machine to produce certain results and events. I feel there is no quantum event or macro event that God can not know if he desired. Due to God wanting we humans to have free will God chooses not to know everything to an accuracy of 100%. If he did free will could not exist.

Anyway what version (interpretation) of quantum theory were you using in your reply and can you so kind as to source it. There are and have been about 100 versions of QT out of that there. However about 90 of them are in a state of superposition, lol.... No really just kidding! Today there are what? about 10 that most top level researchers go to, so I was having a bit of a hard time sourcing your claims, not knowing which version you believe as being more correct. All that said and with all due respect, the answer I provided may not be correct using your QT interpretation, however, my reply is correct according to the QM interpretation I believe as more true than the others.

For example I believe that superposition is a real state'. So is quantum entanglement s real too, 'spooky action at a distance' as Albert E called it because entangled particles exchanges information faster than light. Somewhat less vetted than QE is my feeling that superposition is a real state of existence, the metaphoric cat in the box is really in a 'state' and is not dead and neither is it alive .

Man those pain killers make my brain more mushey than it was in stock form....lol

: { >

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

SORRY DELETING DOUBLE POST MEANT AS MESSAGE

 

[McBell]

SORRY FOR MY LONG ABSENCE FROM THE BOARD HOPEFULLY THE GLUE AND SCREWS USED TO PUT ME TOGETHER THIS TIME WILL HOLD!




The problem is that most atheists want to pick and choose what type of evidence they will accept. Most of the time when the subject is the evidence of God or spirituality or metaphysics is being discussed they accept only empirical evidence. The reason for that is they know science is the study of the material world, so empirical science ie the scientific method rules out anything immaterial. However, even science, especially advanced particle physics and astrophysics etc accepts evidence such as proofs rendered from observation. An example of the latter would be accepting a high probability* as confirmation of truth. I think the last example of this was Penroses calculation that rendered a one with sixteen zeros (to one) as probability of being true, and was accepted as such. Ie truth or true without a direct or empirical evidence needed. So even assumptions when backed with evidence of say an overwhelming circumstantial nature or a result based on probabilities is as good as empirical experiment.

It is interesting how many people make math claims then flat out refuse to show their work.
I for one find it difficult to believe bold empty math claims.

 

[metis]

The problem is that most atheists want to pick and choose what type of evidence they will accept.

In science, which is where I'm coming from, we don't operate that way. Even if a person or group does what you say above, there'll be a lineup of other scientists ready to pounce.

Most of the time when the subject is the evidence of God or spirituality or metaphysics is being discussed they accept only empirical evidence. The reason for that is they know science is the study of the material world, so empirical science ie the scientific method rules out anything immaterial.

We can only evaluate that which is detectable through the senses in one way or another. If something cannot be detected through the senses, then we have a problem, especially since we have to be careful of accepting things that may just be a figment of someone's imagination.

So even assumptions when backed with evidence of say an overwhelming circumstantial nature or a result based on probabilities is as good as empirical experiment.

But that "overwhelming circumstantial nature" doesn't exist, which is what even a great many theologians will tell ya. If it did, then we wouldn't be seeing such a multitude of religions and denominations each claiming that they have the right beliefs and paths.

 

[viole]

hI viole..... I am somewhat a deist of sorts and I feel Gods fingerprints are indeed everywhere in and on everything from the smallest quantum particle to the largest large scale structure ion our universe.! I feel Gods calculations are visible by simply observing our universe. Its obvious to me that the universe was created as a machine to produce certain results and events. I feel there is no quantum event or macro event that God can not know if he desired. Due to God wanting we humans to have free will God chooses not to know everything to an accuracy of 100%. If he did free will could not exist.

Anyway what version (interpretation) of quantum theory were you using in your reply and can you so kind as to source it. There are and have been about 100 versions of QT out of that there. However about 90 of them are in a state of superposition, lol.... No really just kidding! Today there are what? about 10 that most top level researchers go to, so I was having a bit of a hard time sourcing your claims, not knowing which version you believe as being more correct. All that said and with all due respect, the answer I provided may not be correct using your QT interpretation, however, my reply is correct according to the QM interpretation I believe as more true than the others.

For example I believe that superposition is a real state'. So is quantum entanglement s real too, 'spooky action at a distance' as Albert E called it because entangled particles exchanges information faster than light. Somewhat less vetted than QE is my feeling that superposition is a real state of existence, the metaphoric cat in the box is really in a 'state' and is not dead and neither is it alive .

Man those pain killers make my brain more mushey than it was in stock form....lol

: { >

Well, I do not agree with that interpretation at all. I actually think that it is a disgrace that the Copenhagen interpretation is still taught at colleges.

And there are no spooky actions at a distance. What is relly spooky is that we still try to accomodate our classical intuition to something that does not care how our evolved brain ticks.

The problem is clear to me. When two particles interact and become perfectly entangled, then it is fallacious to think of them as two different independent systems. They become one. They become a system with constraints. The constraint being that when one has a spin, then the other has the other spin. There are no other cases. We can only think of a state for the whole system, and that state is NOT the product of two independent states. There is NO transmission of information at speed higher than light's.

A bit like a rigid body. I just need to know the state of a few particles to infer the state of all the particles of that body at once.

The same happens when we measure things. When we measure, we interact. And when we interact, we become entangled with what we interact with.

So, it is not the case that that cat misteriously collapses into dead or alive when we observe it. What happens is that the system observer/cat becomes entangled and splits in two, and only two, possible states in superposition:

1) cat is dead and viole observes her dead
2) cat is alive and viole observes her alive

The superposition of dead/alive of the cat becomes the superposition of those two new states.

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

When science goes gibberish

Limitations of science make it gibberish.
One of such aspects is mentioned in post #70 in another thread, one may like to read it.
Please
Regards

 

[McBell]

When science goes gibberish

Limitations of science make it gibberish.
One of such aspects is mentioned in post #70 in another thread, one may like to read it.
Please
Regards

still beating this dead horse?

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

It is interesting how many people make math claims then flat out refuse to show their work.
I for one find it difficult to believe bold empty math claims.

Who is making math claims? If you are referencing me I will explain. If I am mistaken please ignore....... ; } >.

Superposition, the quantum foam, q entanglement etc are well known terms used in quantum physics. If I do make a claim using math as proof or evidence I would post it. That said I give my audience here at RF credit for having the intellectual moors not to need an detailed diagram or formula for well known examples. Thanks for yer' reply.

: {>

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Well, I do not agree with that interpretation at all. I actually think that it is a disgrace that the Copenhagen interpretation is still taught at colleges.

Everyone has a right to an opinion Viole. I like choice, God or evolution gave us a brain and with that brain we have the intellectual ability (in varying degrees, lol) to reason and to analyze most subjects and if these subjects happen to be theory and not law etc I feel a choice of theories should be offered. Sometimes its impossible to give respect to a choice that is diametrically opposed to ones sensibilities both intellectual and emotional. So while I don't have a dead on favorite theory of QM I choose the Copenhagen theory because its fits my world view much in the same way as your choice fits your mathematically driven world view. However until a theory can be shown to be wrong by evidences, in my opinion once accepted they all should be taught. Taught and not ridiculed by a professor or teacher that happens to support another theory. It seems an emotionally driven response rather than an intellectual one which surprises me coming from you!

And there are no spooky actions at a distance. What is relly spooky is that we still try to accomodate our classical intuition to something that does not care how our evolved brain ticks.

I suppose you didn't know Einstein coined the 'spooky actions at a distance'. Ha, I am sure you did know that. SO, you must critique Albert for that term. Of course you know quantum entanglement is a fact right? And despite your claim that it was a local event, its not. If by local you are using the common definition meaning subatomic scales. I had used QE in an example that you attempted to discredit (but failed), anyway here is the definition I learned as true; "Quantum entanglement is a curious phenomenon that occurs when two particles remain connected, even over large distances, in such a way that actions performed on one particle have an effect on the other. For instance, one particle might be spun in a clockwise direction. The result on the second particle would be an equal anti-clockwise spin." Its all over the web, just Google it. The above quote was from a web source but it says the same thing QM 101 taught....hyperlink;
Physicists prove Einstein's 'spooky' quantum entanglement
Multiple research teams claim to have conclusively demonstrated quantum entanglement, which had been disdainfully dubbed "spooky action at a distance" by Albert Einstein.Physicists prove Einstein's 'spooky' quantum entanglement

The article dated sometime in 2015 cites three papers claiming proof. I did not have time to do more searching, perhaps by now they have been verified.

The problem is clear to me. When two particles interact and become perfectly entangled, then it is fallacious to think of them as two different independent systems. They become one.

In your opinion only? You see that is the rub (the problem). I give your ideas and your favorite QM interpretation the benefit of doubt. Here is another quote from the web ; Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen described this in a 1935 paper, concluding that either single-particle quantum entanglement was impossible, (bold mine) or that the quantum-mechanical definition of physical reality still needed some work." Anyway even before this article I would of chosen to believe the particles are 'separate'.

They become a system with constraints. The constraint being that when one has a spin, then the other has the other spin. There are no other cases. We can only think of a state for the whole system, and that state is NOT the product of two independent states. There is NO transmission of information at speed higher than light's.

An interesting article ;
quantum mechanics allows for a third way to coordinate information. When two particles are quantum mechanically ‘entangled’ with each other, measuring the properties of one will instantly tell you something about the other. In other words, quantum theory allows two particles to organize themselves at apparently faster-than-light speeds.he researchers found that when each photon reached its destination, it could instantly sense its twin’s behaviour without any direct communication.
Physicists spooked by faster-than-light information transfer : Nature News

A bit like a rigid body. I just need to know the state of a few particles to infer the state of all the particles of that body at once.
The same happens when we measure things. When we measure, we interact. And when we interact, we become entangled with what we interact with.

Well, I am less sure of the observation problem being an actual physical event rather than an math etc problem than QE being an local event. Maybe it is the space time reference frame giving us the illusion (how you would explain it) superluminal information exchange. However I would say the info exchange was real event. You see I have no problem thinking there is a good chance that c is not the speed limit of our universe. Some faster-than-light motion has been observed seen in radio galaxies, BL Lac objects, quasars and recently in microquasars. Most of this was attributed to a black hole ejecting mass at ultra high velocities, however I am not as I have said 100% sure this new information has been interpreted correctly. I am about 90% sure tho' hee hee....; }> Google

So, it is not the case that that cat misteriously collapses into dead or alive when we observe it. What happens is that the system observer/cat becomes entangled and splits in two, and only two, possible states in superposition:
1) cat is dead and viole observes her dead
2) cat is alive and viole observes her alive. The superposition of dead/alive of the cat becomes the superposition of those two new states.
Ciao

- viole

Of course I do not believe the cat is both both dead and alive, when Ms Viole open the box, there is a fifty percent chance of observing the cat either live or dead. While the box is closed I don't know, and probably never can know with an accuracy of 100% what state the poor cat is in (maybe its in hell, or my favorite choice heaven!). Even if I was sure the cat was both alive and dead the information of a both alive and dead cat is worthless unless it gets me a free ticket to Bellevue state mental hospital!

I do have one issue with a statement made in the last paragraph, but I am tired and my wireless key pad on this tower is dying. I ran over my notebook while camping...arrrrrh..those giant tires just crushed it.....

To close, It seems we still disagree on most issues quantum, but agreement just to agree is worse than death. You have interesting ideas and thanks for breaking some of it down for me ~

; {>

 

[viole]

Everyone has a right to an opinion Viole. I like choice, God or evolution gave us a brain and with that brain we have the intellectual ability (in varying degrees, lol) to reason and to analyze most subjects and if these subjects happen to be theory and not law etc I feel a choice of theories should be offered. Sometimes its impossible to give respect to a choice that is diametrically opposed to ones sensibilities both intellectual and emotional. So while I don't have a dead on favorite theory of QM I choose the Copenhagen theory because its fits my world view much in the same way as your choice fits your mathematically driven world view. However until a theory can be shown to be wrong by evidences, in my opinion once accepted they all should be taught. Taught and not ridiculed by a professor or teacher that happens to support another theory. It seems an emotionally driven response rather than an intellectual one which surprises me coming from you!

Well, it is not emotional at all. I actually took it from S. Carroll (or was it Susskind)?

I strongly reccomend to check the online courses about Theoretical Physics at Stanford held by Susskind. Especially the section about entanglement in the QM course. I particularly like his comment "guys, there is mile high pile of crap out there": meaning: what you get from the Internet about the subject.

Fact is, the Copenhagen interpretation does not say anything about the mechanisms that lead to the collapse of the wave function. And this mainly because they are nowhere to be found in the theory. They are ad-hoc.

And it is digraceful (it lacks grace) that one theory with ad hoc explanations is preferred to a theory that does not, while having the same explanatory power. In this case, Occam razor should hurt.

I suppose you didn't know Einstein coined the 'spooky actions at a distance'. Ha, I am sure you did know that. SO, you must critique Albert for that term. Of course you know quantum entanglement is a fact right? And despite your claim that it was a local event, its not. If by local you are using the common definition meaning subatomic scales. I had used QE in an example that you attempted to discredit (but failed), anyway here is the definition I learned as true; "Quantum entanglement is a curious phenomenon that occurs when two particles remain connected, even over large distances, in such a way that actions performed on one particle have an effect on the other. For instance, one particle might be spun in a clockwise direction. The result on the second particle would be an equal anti-clockwise spin." Its all over the web, just Google it. The above quote was from a web source but it says the same thing QM 101 taught....hyperlink;
Physicists prove Einstein's 'spooky' quantum entanglement
Multiple research teams claim to have conclusively demonstrated quantum entanglement, which had been disdainfully dubbed "spooky action at a distance" by Albert Einstein.Physicists prove Einstein's 'spooky' quantum entanglement

Yes, Einstein started all this confusion. Probably, the second biggest mistake in his career. And I am perfectly aware that entanglement is a reality.

Yet, there are no spooky actions. There are no actions at all, as a matter of fact.

The article dated sometime in 2015 cites three papers claiming proof. I did not have time to do more searching, perhaps by now they have been verified.

Proof of the space type correlations between entangled observables? You are hitting an open door. I know they exist.

In your opinion only? You see that is the rub (the problem). I give your ideas and your favorite QM interpretation the benefit of doubt. Here is another quote from the web ; Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen described this in a 1935 paper, concluding that either single-particle quantum entanglement was impossible, (bold mine) or that the quantum-mechanical definition of physical reality still needed some work." Anyway even before this article I would of chosen to believe the particles are 'separate'.

Well, that is the crux of the problem. You still think classically as two independent particles that magically synchronize themselves instantaneously over arbitrary distances. And Einstein was thinking classically, too. That is why he was confused. And I believe that it is major fallacy when dealing with things that are not classical at all.

Nope. The two particle system is like a system with constraints. And completely defined by the wave

PSi = a( |ud> + |du>) where a is the inverse of 2 squared.

So, it can only be observed as ud (up down) or du (down up).

That's it. States like uu or dd are simply not part of the equation and cannot possibly be observed. Therefore, it is meaningless to see the two particles as independent (with all possible combinations possible) and synchronizing themelves. They are, at all times, always synchronized, so to speak. Whether you observe them or not.

No spooky action. No action. And locality is not threatened since you cannot possibly send information (i.e. affecting a density matrix) at a speed higher than light's, as a famous theorem proves. So, the idea to use entanglement for justifyng that the world is not local, is unwarranted.

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

Who is making math claims? If you are referencing me I will explain. If I am mistaken please ignore....... ; } >.

Superposition, the quantum foam, q entanglement etc are well known terms used in quantum physics. If I do make a claim using math as proof or evidence I would post it. That said I give my audience here at RF credit for having the intellectual moors not to need an detailed diagram or formula for well known examples. Thanks for yer' reply.

: {>

You do know probability is math, right?

Seems you want to skip all the actual work when saying this or that is more likely.

You have not presented well known examples.
You have presented most common bold empty claims.

If you cannot tell the difference....

 

[paarsurrey]

When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?

On a broader or global level it indicates that the developed countries of the world have a moral responsibility to create atmosphere that a common and or an ordinary man, say in the poorest countries of the world, gets equal opportunities to get schooling and college education so that they also understand complexities of quantum level science etc. Right?

Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?

On a broader or global level it indicates that the developed countries of the world have a moral responsibility to create atmosphere that a common and or an ordinary man, say in the poorest countries of the world, gets equal opportunities to get schooling and college education so that they also understand complexities of quantum level science etc. Right?

Regards

Science only studies the 5% of universal reality that can be observed, to really help lost souls, it is essential to reveal the existence of the 100% of reality.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science only studies the 5% of universal reality that can be observed, to really help lost souls, it is essential to reveal the existence of the 100% of reality.

Please don't mind to answer:

1. How did one get the above percentages, please. Right?
2. How one could attain the rest of the 95% reality, please?

Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Please don't mind to answer:

1. How did one get the above percentages, please. Right?
2. How one could attain the rest of the 95% reality, please?

Regards

1. Report: Modern Physics Explains Only 5% of Universe
2. To realize the 95%, one must practice religion.

 

[paarsurrey]

1. Report: Modern Physics Explains Only 5% of Universe
2. To realize the 95%, one must practice religion.

It doesn't say that 95% is covered by religion. Does it, please?

Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It doesn't say that 95% is covered by religion. Does it, please?

Regards

You asked me how to realize the 95%, it can't be realized by science because science as practiced today is atheistic, therefore it can only be realized by religious practice.

 

[paarsurrey]

You asked me how to realize the 95%, it can't be realized by science because science as practiced today is atheistic, therefore it can only be realized by religious practice.

Kindly quote for this claim from one's religious revealed scripture and the reasons thereof for that 95%, please. Right?
If one can't do it, then it is one's wrong perception, please. Right?

Regards

 

[BigBill88]

When infinities pop up its called a singularity which basically means we don't have the math or way to solve it doesn't mean its unsolvable we just don't know how yet.

A singularity in physics is a point that has an infinite value. As an infinite quantity cannot occur in our understanding of Nature, singularities are not considered real by scientists. Instead, when theories predict a singularity, scientists take it to mean that the theory has been extended beyond its applicability. A new scientific theory is needed to describe the behavior of the physical universe in this area.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Kindly quote for this claim from one's religious revealed scripture and the reasons thereof for that 95%, please. Right?
If one can't do it, then it is one's wrong perception, please. Right?

Regards

God is omnipresent, God is not confined to the 5% of physical existence, God is spirit, God is the 100%. If you pray, if you meditate, if you practice any type of religious devotion, you are submitting to the God the 100%, not just the manifested 5% of God's existence.