That's Not Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2015, 08:04 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
More accurately, "evidences" when used as a plural noun is archaic. It is now a mass noun, but in the past it was not.

Evolution (of languages) strikes again!

("Evidences" as a verb is still a perfectly cromulent usage.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
20-08-2015, 11:28 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(19-08-2015 12:40 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 06:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  What do you think "quantum' means? There is no one entity called a "quantum", it is a description of the packetization of energy.

I'm not sure what point you are making. You seem to be making some assumptions that are scientifically unfounded, which has been my point all the way through this discussion. I didn't think I'd have to explain this, but it seems I do...

A quantum is not some random 'chunk' of energy we arbitrarily pluck from the phlogiston (reference to unfounded scientific nonsense intentional). It is a very specific measure that conforms to a set of mathematical principles that shares similar characteristics with other quanta, most importantly, symmetries. Symmetry is particularly important to my point because when scientist proved Einstein's theory of general relativity they used symmetry to do it, demonstrating that it was not only a consequence of a symmetry of space-time but also of a symmetry of space and time combined. Emmy Noether's work on symmetry was critical to this proof.

Symmetries are also found in quantum physics. When we describe quanta we use abstract, mathematical waves but waves that nevertheless have concrete consequences in the real world. The height of these mathematical waves is not described by an ordinary number but by a complex number. If we map the complex number on a 2D plot we can represent that complex number with a dot somewhere on our map. Any line drawn from this plot point to the centre of our map (0,0) is an equivalent way of representing a complex number.

We know that the square of the height of the quantum wave represents the probability of finding the 'packet' at that point. It also happens to be the square of the line we created to represent the complex number on our 2d map. No matter how much we rotate this 'line' about the origin its length remains the same - this rotation is called a 'phase shift'.

So, quantum waves are symmetric with respect to rotations in complex space or global phase change. This is most commonly known as global 'gauge symmetry'. Conservation of quantum charge (for say electrons and positrons) arises out of global gauge symmetry. So, we can see how these abstract symmetries have a concrete effect in the real world. All quanta (quantized packets of energy) share these symmetries.

As we stand today no one has proved quantum packets are all aspects of the same quantum entity, however, no one has disproved it either and moreover the scientific precedent for the latter interpretation is there in Newtonian Physics and General Relativity.

It's a bold and more importantly unsubstantiated assumption to say quantized packets or quanta are discreet unique entities, while there is currently no proof either way history is not on the side of that particular viewpoint.

Archi

That's a load of woo dressed up in scientific terms.

Please define what a "quantum entity" is.

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
20-08-2015, 12:07 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(19-08-2015 12:40 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 06:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  What do you think "quantum' means? There is no one entity called a "quantum", it is a description of the packetization of energy.

I'm not sure what point you are making. You seem to be making some assumptions that are scientifically unfounded, which has been my point all the way through this discussion. I didn't think I'd have to explain this, but it seems I do...

A quantum is not some random 'chunk' of energy we arbitrarily pluck from the phlogiston (reference to unfounded scientific nonsense intentional). It is a very specific measure that conforms to a set of mathematical principles that shares similar characteristics with other quanta, most importantly, symmetries.

A quantum is not really a preferred usage. Quanta are merely the discernable and discrete quantisations of observable phenomena. That is, a photon is a quantum of light.

(19-08-2015 12:40 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  Symmetry is particularly important to my point because when scientist proved Einstein's theory of general relativity they used symmetry to do it, demonstrating that it was not only a consequence of a symmetry of space-time but also of a symmetry of space and time combined. Emmy Noether's work on symmetry was critical to this proof.

Relativity was "proven" by being experimentally and observationally confirmed, just like any other theory...

(19-08-2015 12:40 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  Symmetries are also found in quantum physics. When we describe quanta we use abstract, mathematical waves but waves that nevertheless have concrete consequences in the real world. The height of these mathematical waves is not described by an ordinary number but by a complex number. If we map the complex number on a 2D plot we can represent that complex number with a dot somewhere on our map. Any line drawn from this plot point to the centre of our map (0,0) is an equivalent way of representing a complex number.

We know that the square of the height of the quantum wave represents the probability of finding the 'packet' at that point. It also happens to be the square of the line we created to represent the complex number on our 2d map. No matter how much we rotate this 'line' about the origin its length remains the same - this rotation is called a 'phase shift'.

One way of characterising gauge invariance is as possessing more mathematical degrees of freedom than physical degrees of freedom. The classical analogy is of multiple coordinate systems describing the same spatial state.

That does not mean that information is inaccessible; the relative phase of qubits, while indistinguishable under direct observation, is utilised to conduct quantum computation.

(19-08-2015 12:40 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  So, quantum waves are symmetric with respect to rotations in complex space or global phase change.

Modelled free of interaction, perhaps. Some degree of symmetry breaking is introduced by almost any added relation.
(one electron has no favoured state; two electrons favour their antisymmetric spin states over their symmetric spin states when considered jointly)

(19-08-2015 12:40 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  This is most commonly known as global 'gauge symmetry'. Conservation of quantum charge (for say electrons and positrons) arises out of global gauge symmetry. So, we can see how these abstract symmetries have a concrete effect in the real world. All quanta (quantized packets of energy) share these symmetries.

Sufficiently high energies can "restore" broken symmetries, but spontaneous self-ordering in the aftermath of the big bang is why the universe has any structure in it to begin with.

(19-08-2015 12:40 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  As we stand today no one has proved quantum packets are all aspects of the same quantum entity, however, no one has disproved it either and moreover the scientific precedent for the latter interpretation is there in Newtonian Physics and General Relativity.

Except for the salient difference - namely, that while Newtonian mechanics are demonstrably insufficient to describe observed behaviour and Einstein (among others) was working to rectify this, positing an incoherent "what if everything was, like, the same, man?" theory of quantum mechanics rather explains and changes nothing.

(19-08-2015 12:40 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  It's a bold and more importantly unsubstantiated assumption to say quantized packets or quanta are discreet unique entities, while there is currently no proof either way history is not on the side of that particular viewpoint.

Archi

Such a "theory" is in explicit violation of general relativity. It necessitates infinite, instantaneous interaction across the entire universe. There is the exact opposite of parsimonious.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
22-08-2015, 04:57 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(20-08-2015 11:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 12:40 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  I'm not sure what point you are making. You seem to be making some assumptions that are scientifically unfounded, which has been my point all the way through this discussion. I didn't think I'd have to explain this, but it seems I do...

A quantum is not some random 'chunk' of energy we arbitrarily pluck from the phlogiston (reference to unfounded scientific nonsense intentional). It is a very specific measure that conforms to a set of mathematical principles that shares similar characteristics with other quanta, most importantly, symmetries. Symmetry is particularly important to my point because when scientist proved Einstein's theory of general relativity they used symmetry to do it, demonstrating that it was not only a consequence of a symmetry of space-time but also of a symmetry of space and time combined. Emmy Noether's work on symmetry was critical to this proof.

Symmetries are also found in quantum physics. When we describe quanta we use abstract, mathematical waves but waves that nevertheless have concrete consequences in the real world. The height of these mathematical waves is not described by an ordinary number but by a complex number. If we map the complex number on a 2D plot we can represent that complex number with a dot somewhere on our map. Any line drawn from this plot point to the centre of our map (0,0) is an equivalent way of representing a complex number.

We know that the square of the height of the quantum wave represents the probability of finding the 'packet' at that point. It also happens to be the square of the line we created to represent the complex number on our 2d map. No matter how much we rotate this 'line' about the origin its length remains the same - this rotation is called a 'phase shift'.

So, quantum waves are symmetric with respect to rotations in complex space or global phase change. This is most commonly known as global 'gauge symmetry'. Conservation of quantum charge (for say electrons and positrons) arises out of global gauge symmetry. So, we can see how these abstract symmetries have a concrete effect in the real world. All quanta (quantized packets of energy) share these symmetries.

As we stand today no one has proved quantum packets are all aspects of the same quantum entity, however, no one has disproved it either and moreover the scientific precedent for the latter interpretation is there in Newtonian Physics and General Relativity.

It's a bold and more importantly unsubstantiated assumption to say quantized packets or quanta are discreet unique entities, while there is currently no proof either way history is not on the side of that particular viewpoint.

Archi

That's a load of woo dressed up in scientific terms.

Please define what a "quantum entity" is.

I'm sure you would like it to be a 'load of woo' for your own reasons, but it isn't, these might help you...

Gauge Theory

Spacetime symmetries

Unified field theory

Noether's Theorem

You know full well that a 'quantum entity' would be something similar to a unified field, but as I said there is no proof yet either way so it has no name. Any chance you can stop obfuscating, address my point and provide the proof I originally asked for or are we going to play the 'semantics' game until we exhaust any sense out of this conversation?

Archi

"I love the term magic realism. It's about expanding how you see the world. I think we live in an age where we're just hammered to think this is what the world is. Everything's saying 'That's the world.' And it's not the world. The world is a million possible things." - TG

Salman Rushdie talks to Terry Gilliam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 04:59 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2015 05:03 PM by ArchibaldFunkdust.)
RE: That's Not Evidence
(20-08-2015 12:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 12:40 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  I'm not sure what point you are making. You seem to be making some assumptions that are scientifically unfounded, which has been my point all the way through this discussion. I didn't think I'd have to explain this, but it seems I do...

A quantum is not some random 'chunk' of energy we arbitrarily pluck from the phlogiston (reference to unfounded scientific nonsense intentional). It is a very specific measure that conforms to a set of mathematical principles that shares similar characteristics with other quanta, most importantly, symmetries.

A quantum is not really a preferred usage. Quanta are merely the discernable and discrete quantisations of observable phenomena. That is, a photon is a quantum of light.

(19-08-2015 12:40 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  Symmetry is particularly important to my point because when scientist proved Einstein's theory of general relativity they used symmetry to do it, demonstrating that it was not only a consequence of a symmetry of space-time but also of a symmetry of space and time combined. Emmy Noether's work on symmetry was critical to this proof.

Relativity was "proven" by being experimentally and observationally confirmed, just like any other theory...

(19-08-2015 12:40 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  Symmetries are also found in quantum physics. When we describe quanta we use abstract, mathematical waves but waves that nevertheless have concrete consequences in the real world. The height of these mathematical waves is not described by an ordinary number but by a complex number. If we map the complex number on a 2D plot we can represent that complex number with a dot somewhere on our map. Any line drawn from this plot point to the centre of our map (0,0) is an equivalent way of representing a complex number.

We know that the square of the height of the quantum wave represents the probability of finding the 'packet' at that point. It also happens to be the square of the line we created to represent the complex number on our 2d map. No matter how much we rotate this 'line' about the origin its length remains the same - this rotation is called a 'phase shift'.

One way of characterising gauge invariance is as possessing more mathematical degrees of freedom than physical degrees of freedom. The classical analogy is of multiple coordinate systems describing the same spatial state.

That does not mean that information is inaccessible; the relative phase of qubits, while indistinguishable under direct observation, is utilised to conduct quantum computation.

(19-08-2015 12:40 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  So, quantum waves are symmetric with respect to rotations in complex space or global phase change.

Modelled free of interaction, perhaps. Some degree of symmetry breaking is introduced by almost any added relation.
(one electron has no favoured state; two electrons favour their antisymmetric spin states over their symmetric spin states when considered jointly)

(19-08-2015 12:40 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  This is most commonly known as global 'gauge symmetry'. Conservation of quantum charge (for say electrons and positrons) arises out of global gauge symmetry. So, we can see how these abstract symmetries have a concrete effect in the real world. All quanta (quantized packets of energy) share these symmetries.

Sufficiently high energies can "restore" broken symmetries, but spontaneous self-ordering in the aftermath of the big bang is why the universe has any structure in it to begin with.

(19-08-2015 12:40 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  As we stand today no one has proved quantum packets are all aspects of the same quantum entity, however, no one has disproved it either and moreover the scientific precedent for the latter interpretation is there in Newtonian Physics and General Relativity.

Except for the salient difference - namely, that while Newtonian mechanics are demonstrably insufficient to describe observed behaviour and Einstein (among others) was working to rectify this, positing an incoherent "what if everything was, like, the same, man?" theory of quantum mechanics rather explains and changes nothing.

(19-08-2015 12:40 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  It's a bold and more importantly unsubstantiated assumption to say quantized packets or quanta are discreet unique entities, while there is currently no proof either way history is not on the side of that particular viewpoint.

Archi

Such a "theory" is in explicit violation of general relativity. It necessitates infinite, instantaneous interaction across the entire universe. There is the exact opposite of parsimonious.


Unless you have proof that all 'quantized' particles are discreet unique entities (which you won't because there isn't any) then this is all somewhat off the point.

Archi

"I love the term magic realism. It's about expanding how you see the world. I think we live in an age where we're just hammered to think this is what the world is. Everything's saying 'That's the world.' And it's not the world. The world is a million possible things." - TG

Salman Rushdie talks to Terry Gilliam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 05:45 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(22-08-2015 04:59 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  Unless you have proof that all 'quantized' particles are discreet unique entities (which you won't because there isn't any) then this is all somewhat off the point.

What does that even mean? What is a quantized particle?

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
23-08-2015, 07:21 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(22-08-2015 04:59 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  Unless you have proof that all 'quantized' particles are discreet unique entities (which you won't because there isn't any) then this is all somewhat off the point.

Archi

"HAHAHA U CANT PROOF ME WRONG" isn't an argument when theists try it, and it isn't an argument when you try it, either.

When it comes to entertaining a wholly irrelevant, baseless, ill-defined supposition - one which does not even make any predictions - there is no reason at all for any rational person to bother.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
26-08-2015, 09:26 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(22-08-2015 04:57 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 11:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  That's a load of woo dressed up in scientific terms.

Please define what a "quantum entity" is.

I'm sure you would like it to be a 'load of woo' for your own reasons, but it isn't, these might help you...

Gauge Theory

Spacetime symmetries

Unified field theory

Noether's Theorem

You know full well that a 'quantum entity' would be something similar to a unified field, but as I said there is no proof yet either way so it has no name. Any chance you can stop obfuscating, address my point and provide the proof I originally asked for or are we going to play the 'semantics' game until we exhaust any sense out of this conversation?

Archi

What do those links have to do with your assertion? Consider

One photon of light carries exactly one quantum of energy. Every wavelength is a different amount of energy. See these emission spectra? Each line corresponds to an electron falling to a lower energy level and emitting a photon with a characteristic wavelength.

[Image: atomic_line_spectra.png]

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
26-08-2015, 09:31 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
*Pokes head in. Sees Chas and cjlr beating the hell out of someone on some subject I know little about.


Goes to do the dishes before the wife gets home.*

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
26-08-2015, 09:57 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(14-08-2015 10:06 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  According to my belief, no one CAN be convinced of God if God hasn't first acted upon them.

Ah, Calvinism. The most arrogant and self-regarding sort of religion.

God does not work in mysterious ways — he works in ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence.
Jesus had a pretty rough weekend for your sins.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: