Atheism and the Conversion Factors
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2015, 04:06 PM
RE: Atheism and the Conversion Factors
According to Bohr there is no mystery or such a thing as observers induced wave functions collapse. As far as the cat goes it is already dead or alive before a conscious observer open the box. The wave functions is not actual or real but just our knowledge about the system we are working on. Thus the wave functions is a kind of definition standard. In our mind there is a classical definition standard that is necessary and complementary to the Quantum world.
These statements seems to be conflicting with what Schroedenger equations and what the meaning of opening the box and make an observation is. It seems that the deciding factor if the cat really dead or alive is based solely on when we open the box and sees not what we think it should be dead or alive long before we open the box. When we open the box we sees it live. When the box was closed 1/2 an hour ago we did not sees it live but rather guess, think, and abstract our way into the box. What the quantum language is saying here is that we don't have the right to say the cat is dead or alive if we don't have the tool to open the box and sees/observers/measures. What kind of tool/instrument would this be?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2015, 04:17 PM
RE: Atheism and the Conversion Factors
(23-01-2015 04:06 PM)5senses Wrote:  According to Bohr there is no mystery or such a thing as observers induced wave functions collapse. As far as the cat goes it is already dead or alive before a conscious observer open the box. The wave functions is not actual or real but just our knowledge about the system we are working on. Thus the wave functions is a kind of definition standard. In our mind there is a classical definition standard that is necessary and complementary to the Quantum world.

Agreed.

Quote:These statements seems to be conflicting with what Schroedenger equations and what the meaning of opening the box and make an observation is.

You have now wandered away from the light of fact into the shadowy realm of interpretation.

You do realize that Schrödinger made up the cat in the box example to lampoon the Copenhagen Interpretatation, right?

Quote:It seems that the deciding factor if the cat really dead or alive is based solely on when we open the box and sees not what we think it should be dead or alive long before we open the box. When we open the box we sees it live. When the box was closed 1/2 an hour ago we did not sees it live but rather guess, think, and abstract our way into the box. What the quantum language is saying here is that we don't have the right to say the cat is dead or alive if we don't have the tool to open the box and sees/observers/measures. What kind of tool/instrument would this be?

Nope, you were right the first time. The cat is actually dead or actually alive. The "collapse of the wave function" is purely a description of the state of our knowledge.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2015, 06:14 PM
RE: Atheism and the Conversion Factors
I like this guy. He's batshit crazy, but at least he's discrete about it.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 12:53 PM
RE: Atheism and the Conversion Factors
(23-01-2015 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 04:06 PM)5senses Wrote:  According to Bohr there is no mystery or such a thing as observers induced wave functions collapse. As far as the cat goes it is already dead or alive before a conscious observer open the box. The wave functions is not actual or real but just our knowledge about the system we are working on. Thus the wave functions is a kind of definition standard. In our mind there is a classical definition standard that is necessary and complementary to the Quantum world.

Agreed.

Quote:These statements seems to be conflicting with what Schroedenger equations and what the meaning of opening the box and make an observation is.

You have now wandered away from the light of fact into the shadowy realm of interpretation.

You do realize that Schrödinger made up the cat in the box example to lampoon the Copenhagen Interpretatation, right?

Quote:It seems that the deciding factor if the cat really dead or alive is based solely on when we open the box and sees not what we think it should be dead or alive long before we open the box. When we open the box we sees it live. When the box was closed 1/2 an hour ago we did not sees it live but rather guess, think, and abstract our way into the box. What the quantum language is saying here is that we don't have the right to say the cat is dead or alive if we don't have the tool to open the box and sees/observers/measures. What kind of tool/instrument would this be?

Nope, you were right the first time. The cat is actually dead or actually alive. The "collapse of the wave function" is purely a description of the state of our knowledge.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 03:03 PM
RE: Atheism and the Conversion Factors
I don't think you understand the word OR as in the cat is dead OR alive when you open the box and look. But the cat is both dead AND alive when it is still in the box. The word OR and the word AND is complimentary. For example if you are a theoretical physicist you takes the AND path because you are working on theories. But if you are an experimental physicist you takes the OR path. The difference between the Theorist and the Experimenter is the tools or instruments being used by the Experimenter. The primary tools to get any Resolution Standard is yours 5 senses. Thus yours cell receptors are the primary tools to get the Resolution Standard. The secondary tools/instruments is the camera, the microscope, the telescope, or any tools of measurement. They are add on for the purpose of amplification and maintaining the Resolution Standard. What Bohr is talking about is the Definition Standard created in a theoretical physicist head/box. It's obvious that the Experimenter needs to understand the Definition Standard or knowledge before the experimentation is performed or else the wave functions wouldn't collapse. In other words he would not know what to looks for in the experimentation. Every particles that come into the screen he would keep asking "What is tha?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 04:47 AM
RE: Atheism and the Conversion Factors
IANAP, but Schrodinger's equations don't describe the collapse of the probability density function. They describe how the probability density function changes over time, where the density function determines the probability of the quanta being measured at that place at that time. It doesn't explain what this means or how it could work. "Shut up and calculate" as they say.

We know from Bell's inequality that a pair of entangled electrons don't have prior knowledge of which will be spin up and which will be spin down - no simple hidden variable. They must "communicate" their state to each other as they are measured. Wormholes? Parallel universes? Some kind of universe where all points in space are directly connected? Until someone comes up with a testable prediction for a given explanatory model it's all speculative. Shut up and calculate. We know how it behaves, not how it works.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 06:11 PM
RE: Atheism and the Conversion Factors
Shut up and calculate? Hmm. ..
Imagine that what a horrible prejudice it is for a theoretical physicist to tell an xperimentalist to follow blindly to what I say just because l am mentally superior. To follow a theoretical physicist instructions like a computer is stupid. How about another culture of prejudice between the designer of a product vs the technician working on that product below. As a rule the technician must follow the instructions/programs given by the designer like a computer.
The problem here is that you can easily follow those instructions if you are building big object with big tolerance. But as you begins to build something small defects and contamination becomes a huge problem. Since defects and contamination are not part of the design or theory, in other words they appear right at the time of the measurement of the product, the program or the procedures given by the designer must be changed or continually updated to avoid such defects and contamination. It is the act of measuring that tells us the part/product is good or bad. It is the job of the experimentalist and the technician to distinguish between good product and bad product using the tools of measurement. As far as the inventor /designers/theorist goes he is blind to all the defects and contamination. What he have is just a theory or a definition standards that exists in a brain or in the box. Without the tools of measurement the wave functions does not collapse. This means that the theory exists as theory inside a brain and can not be real but only a potential to be real. The potential is realized during the measurement or when we make observation of it. Where is nature in all of this? Nature is the defects and the contamination in which the technician removed. In other words nature is all the imperfections that's going on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 08:00 AM (This post was last modified: 01-04-2015 08:04 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Atheism and the Conversion Factors
I'm not talking about mental superiority here. I'm talking about superiority of experiment over the human desire to know. Theoretical and experimental physicists are working together all the time to try and figure out how to know things, but must ultimately do so via the route of an experiment in order to advance our state of knowledge. There are dozens of speculative interpretations of quantum physics that do not yet produce testable predictions that differ from each other. If you are someone who is working towards making a testable prediction or putting a prediction to the test, then absolutely - go for it. If you are trying to pick sides as a lay person without experimental justification for doing so then you're probably having a metaphysical conversation rather than a scientific one. That's fine of course so long as we keep in perspective what we really do and don't know.

If you're interested in what we know about quantum physics as a lay person then there is no source I can recommend more highly than the viascience playlist on youtube:



Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 01:03 PM
RE: Atheism and the Conversion Factors



The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
19-05-2015, 03:07 PM
RE: Atheism and the Conversion Factors
Apparently I watched this Quantum Physic Playlist a few times before. It is good and indeed has those words "shut up and calculate". These words are there to hide the conceptual problem. What conceptual problem?
The measurement problem. When where and how the wave functions collapse during the measurement.
As you can see the author does not explain anything about that. But there were a great debate on Einstein vs Bohr and also how to derive the Schrodenger equations. Looks like Bohr comes out the winner and the universe operate randomly not deterministic like Einstein envisioned. Then what is determinism?
In the playlist it stated. ..The state of a physical system can (in principle) be specified with perfect precision at some initial time... Then the state of the system evolves according to physical laws such that its state at some final time is exactly determined by those laws and the initial state.
Now if you are truly believe in God this is it. Everything is already determined by God. Now if you believe that we are in a computer simulations like the movie the Matrix this is also the it. We are completely being controlled and determined by a computer program.
What about Quantum physics itself. Is it deterministic? Certainly the physic and the Shrodinger's equations are?
How do we get out of this determinism?
One way is to do it like Bohr to Einstein. But that just switching from relativity determinism to quantum determinism. If Relativity and Quantum physics are not deterministic then there is a way to disprove them. You will find that the laws of physic is inconsistent with experiment. But so far as we know nothing or no one has disprove both theories. Is there another determinism? Like the will of the mind. The mind creates the theories and the theories creates the mind. This kind of determinism is also very hard to escape from. It follows you everywhere you go as long as you are alive. This makes sense because there is no theory that ever existed outside the brain. And there is no mind existed outside the brain. The mind and the theory is one and the same. What exists out there is just pure randomness. This randomness is how nature is, it is not how we want nature to be. For example is there a moon out there? The randomness/nature responses would be: What moon? A moon is a composite of many things. Its full of defects and contamination to call such things a moon is stupid. Thus in nature randomness world a car isn't a car but a composite of many materials. Now we are forced to swallow our own definition standards. What we need to do is to combine the deterministic of the mind with the randomness of nature. This is the collapse of the wave functions/decoherance.
Run out of time. ..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: