Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Quantum theory is garbage. All of it.

MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 12:35:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

I wouldn't say all of it is garbage, but randomness is. Randomness has always been shown to be human ignorance, and not something that is built into nature. Chaos Theory says this quite clearly that, unless one knows the initial conditions of any cause-effect loop, the accuracy of the results of any prediction will decrease exponentially for each unit of time you predict into the future.

So, randomness is only a product of human ignorance.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 12:57:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

Well QM is a really, really good tool for chemistry. Makes things make a lot of sense.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:01:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

lol I really don't get it either. But, how much do you know about quantum mechanics? I'm waiting until I learn and completely understand it maybe in college before I question whether something can be random. For now, I think it would be best to take science community's word on it.

There's also randomness and infinity before the Universe existed, according to big bang,...but I can't make much sense of that either. Physics is weird
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:09:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:01:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

lol I really don't get it either. But, how much do you know about quantum mechanics? I'm waiting until I learn and completely understand it maybe in college before I question whether something can be random. For now, I think it would be best to take science community's word on it.

There's also randomness and infinity before the Universe existed, according to big bang,...but I can't make much sense of that either. Physics is weird

So your answer is "LET THE SCIENTISTS DECIDE." While this could be alright for a lot of things, it isn't for entire theories that can be proven false through basic logic.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 2:12:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:01:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

lol I really don't get it either. But, how much do you know about quantum mechanics? I'm waiting until I learn and completely understand it maybe in college before I question whether something can be random. For now, I think it would be best to take science community's word on it.

There's also randomness and infinity before the Universe existed, according to big bang,...but I can't make much sense of that either. Physics is weird

This is especially true of QM. As the OP noted Schroedinger was writing about the quantum indeterminancy. In fact there was a lot of discussion around this which to my knowledge is still not settled. There is the Copenhagen Interpretation which is what you get when your introduce the role of the "observer" into the mix, or the "Multiverse" interpretation which, if I understood correctly, indicates that for any given possible set of states that can exist new universes are spawned in which those states do exist. So the cat in the box spawns two universes: one in which the cat is dead and one in which it is alive.

Thankfully one doesn't need to get overly philosophical with regards to QM. The weirdness is beyond weird, but the nuts and bolts of it are really great stuff. Once we let go of some sort of "macro" understanding of what things are like in that realm they really do start to make a sort of inherent sense. The quantum world is one of mathematical expressions that don't necessarily correlate with our usual world of the macro.

But the tools they give scientists for understanding behavior there are fantastic.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 2:18:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:09:21 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:01:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

lol I really don't get it either. But, how much do you know about quantum mechanics? I'm waiting until I learn and completely understand it maybe in college before I question whether something can be random. For now, I think it would be best to take science community's word on it.

There's also randomness and infinity before the Universe existed, according to big bang,...but I can't make much sense of that either. Physics is weird

So your answer is "LET THE SCIENTISTS DECIDE." While this could be alright for a lot of things, it isn't for entire theories that can be proven false through basic logic.

Yeah. Scientists usually don't have a grasp on basic logic.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 2:21:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:09:21 PM, MouthWash wrote:
So your answer is "LET THE SCIENTISTS DECIDE." While this could be alright for a lot of things, it isn't for entire theories that can be proven false through basic logic.

But that isn't really Quantum, is it? Quantum is largely what happens when the math is allowed to do the talking vs what we think we "know" on the macro scale.

The weirdness of quantum comes from the fact that almost nothing of what we know as "macro" beings is translatable from QM. But the math is solid and it leads to certain jarring conclusions.

Sometimes those conclusions (like Dirac's "discovery" of antimatter through a term in an equation) are spot-on and brilliant! Sometimes those conclusions are strange (double slit experiment, role of the observer, schroedinger's cat)

One can't really prove QM wrong through basic logic since it is underlain by mathematics and hence among the most basic of logic. Yes, many of the mathematics are stochastic and introduce an element of randomness (you only have a nebulous region where the electron is, not a fixed orbit), or outright forbidding of certain aspects of knowledge (Uncertainty Principle in which you can't know both position and momentum of a particle simultaneously with arbitrarily high precision.

In the end it's the mathematics that rule the game, not our "common sense".
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 2:34:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

There are multiple solutions to Schrodinger's cat, among them the Many-Worlds interpretation...

Anyway, you're seeing everything as certain, and quantum mechanics introduces an element of randomness, when in fact, everything is truly random at the most fundamental of levels, and we only have an illusion of certainty. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of a wavefunction, it is what describes the probabilistic behaviour of a particle (although certain elements of a wavefunction are certain, such as how it changes with respect to time). When multiple wavefunctions interact, the less random the particles act and the more certain they become. When millions of wavefunctions interact, it's almost completely certain where the particle will be at any time. It's why you don't see a chair, which contains billions of wavefunctions, hopping around the room as an isolated particle would.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 2:38:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 2:21:11 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:09:21 PM, MouthWash wrote:
So your answer is "LET THE SCIENTISTS DECIDE." While this could be alright for a lot of things, it isn't for entire theories that can be proven false through basic logic.

But that isn't really Quantum, is it? Quantum is largely what happens when the math is allowed to do the talking vs what we think we "know" on the macro scale.

The weirdness of quantum comes from the fact that almost nothing of what we know as "macro" beings is translatable from QM. But the math is solid and it leads to certain jarring conclusions.

Sometimes those conclusions (like Dirac's "discovery" of antimatter through a term in an equation) are spot-on and brilliant! Sometimes those conclusions are strange (double slit experiment, role of the observer, schroedinger's cat)

One can't really prove QM wrong through basic logic since it is underlain by mathematics and hence among the most basic of logic. Yes, many of the mathematics are stochastic and introduce an element of randomness (you only have a nebulous region where the electron is, not a fixed orbit), or outright forbidding of certain aspects of knowledge (Uncertainty Principle in which you can't know both position and momentum of a particle simultaneously with arbitrarily high precision.

In the end it's the mathematics that rule the game, not our "common sense".

Seriously, you expect me to accept your reason, which is "common sense doesn't apply?" Explain to me why. And I don't accept any answers saying I am not skilled enough to know. Einstein said "If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't really understand it."
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 2:42:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 2:34:55 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

There are multiple solutions to Schrodinger's cat, among them the Many-Worlds interpretation...

Anyway, you're seeing everything as certain, and quantum mechanics introduces an element of randomness, when in fact, everything is truly random at the most fundamental of levels, and we only have an illusion of certainty. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of a wavefunction, it is what describes the probabilistic behaviour of a particle (although certain elements of a wavefunction are certain, such as how it changes with respect to time). When multiple wavefunctions interact, the less random the particles act and the more certain they become. When millions of wavefunctions interact, it's almost completely certain where the particle will be at any time. It's why you don't see a chair, which contains billions of wavefunctions, hopping around the room as an isolated particle would.

You are avoiding the question. I don't care what these "wavefunctions" are. The concept of probability only exists because of our ignorance of where all particles and energy is allocated. And the Many-Worlds interpretation still does not answer the question.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 2:47:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

Well... regarding randomness, one thing that is truly random is the decay of a radioisotope. That is, an unstable isotope of an element that's prone to radioactive decay.

Radioactive decay is essentially the emanation of energy from an atom that essentially alters the composition of that atom slightly. It could be a gamma gamma emission or literally, a piece of the nucleus or whatever. The rate at which radioactive decay occurs abides by a given probability, which, for all intents and purposes, denotes a given randomness. That is, you cannot predict with certainty when the next emission will occur.

Superposition is matter that has two potential states, making it mathematically impossible to determine how it might react under any given condition.

You know, when Schrodinger brought up his cat experiment, Einstein wrote him a letter in which he lauded him, although he sarcastically misquoted Schrodinger to include the principle of gunpowder in superposition -- which Einstein had brought up himself years before.

So, in terms of gunpowder in superposition, it is unstable, it will eventually exist in both its exploded and unexploded states. It requires measurement to collapse into one state or another. This is a principle that Einstein and two other scientists, Podolsky and Rosen, discussed in a paper that was published in a physics journal and Schrodinger eventually read and posited his cat experiment, in response.

Superposition actually does exist in reality. You see, all superposition is, is the arrangement of atoms and subatomic particles in such a way that it can be accepted as being in more than one state, or even a blend of states, such as both positive and negatively charged. In quantum measurements, that's not really that big a deal -- it's essentially contradictory particles interacting in a cooperative way. However, macrocosmically, it manifests as something that could be one or the other, or actually is both one and the other, and will collapse into one or the other when measured.

One way we use superposition is to prevent wiretapped conversations. By sending electrical impulses in superposition down a fiberoptic cable, we can determine whether it is being tapped, as a wire tap would apply a measurement to the electrical impulses, then retransmit them, collapsing them into one state or another. In this way, if a receiver begins receiving emissions that are not in superposition, they know they're being tapped.

And now, you're just grazing the surface of why and how knowledge really is power.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 2:54:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

Best description of superposition I've found:
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 2:59:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't understand it. Therefore it is wrong.

Gee whiz, in that case a lot of downsyndrome kids will be able to disprove every single mathematical and scientific concept in existence.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 3:09:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 2:54:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

Best description of superposition I've found:

HMMMmmmmm.

That's interesting...
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 3:17:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 2:42:21 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/28/2012 2:34:55 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

There are multiple solutions to Schrodinger's cat, among them the Many-Worlds interpretation...

Anyway, you're seeing everything as certain, and quantum mechanics introduces an element of randomness, when in fact, everything is truly random at the most fundamental of levels, and we only have an illusion of certainty. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of a wavefunction, it is what describes the probabilistic behaviour of a particle (although certain elements of a wavefunction are certain, such as how it changes with respect to time). When multiple wavefunctions interact, the less random the particles act and the more certain they become. When millions of wavefunctions interact, it's almost completely certain where the particle will be at any time. It's why you don't see a chair, which contains billions of wavefunctions, hopping around the room as an isolated particle would.

You are avoiding the question. I don't care what these "wavefunctions" are. The concept of probability only exists because of our ignorance of where all particles and energy is allocated. And the Many-Worlds interpretation still does not answer the question.

I'm not avoiding the question, actually, you're avoiding the answer because it represents an opposition to "common sense." The wavefunction is a core element in quantum mechanics. As Brian Cox states:

"This loss of predictive power was what bothered Einstein and many of his colleagues. With the benefit of over eighty years of hindsight and a great deal of work, the debate now seems somewhat redundant, and it is easy to dismiss it with the statement that Born, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac, and others were correct and Einstein, Schrodinger, and the old guard were wrong. But it was certainly possible back then to believe that quantum theory was incomplete in some way, and that probabilities appear, just as in thermodynamics or coin tossing, because there is some information about the particles that we are missing. Today that idea gains little purchase - theoretical and experimental progress indicate that Nature really does use random numbers, and the loss of certainty in predicting the positions of particles is an intrinsic property of the physical world: probabilities are the best we can do."
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 3:44:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 2:42:21 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/28/2012 2:34:55 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

There are multiple solutions to Schrodinger's cat, among them the Many-Worlds interpretation...

Anyway, you're seeing everything as certain, and quantum mechanics introduces an element of randomness, when in fact, everything is truly random at the most fundamental of levels, and we only have an illusion of certainty. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of a wavefunction, it is what describes the probabilistic behaviour of a particle (although certain elements of a wavefunction are certain, such as how it changes with respect to time). When multiple wavefunctions interact, the less random the particles act and the more certain they become. When millions of wavefunctions interact, it's almost completely certain where the particle will be at any time. It's why you don't see a chair, which contains billions of wavefunctions, hopping around the room as an isolated particle would.

You are avoiding the question. I don't care what these "wavefunctions" are. The concept of probability only exists because of our ignorance of where all particles and energy is allocated. And the Many-Worlds interpretation still does not answer the question.

Let's say that you have a machine that shoots a photon at a plate. You also have a tool with which to measure the position of the photon at any given moment. This tool works by sending out a laser which detects when something breaks the beam.

You say "I want to determine the exact position and velocity of a photon a millisecond after I shoot it towards the plate."

There's one mild problem.

See, when that photon hits the laser detector, the energy from the electrons in the laser CHANGE the excitement levels of the photon itself, changing its trajectory.

The scientists's choice to use the laser to detect position means he will change the velocity of the photon. Without the laser, he knows the velocity by measuring the time difference between the machine and plate, but he doesn't know position.

The more you try to ascertain the position, the less able you are to predict the velocity. Vice versa.

By simply asking a question in a certain way (velocity or position?) we alter the experimental environment. The "randomness" of quantum physics comes in large part from the experimenter himself.

Just be careful to not mix up "measurement" with "human observation" (like What the bleep do we know does). The laser beam changes the environment. Just looking/experiencing won't change the world unless you are measuring the world with something that will interfere with what you measure.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 5:55:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"I think it would be best to take science community's word on it."

I'm not going to for one second. The scientific community has an extraordinarily bad record about being right about anything. Especially predictions and probabilities.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 6:01:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 5:55:47 PM, sadolite wrote:
"I think it would be best to take science community's word on it."

I'm not going to for one second. The scientific community has an extraordinarily bad record about being right about anything. Especially predictions and probabilities.

The Science community amends it's own theories and disproves and supports its own conclusions. It's completely objective. When they prove themselves wrong, they're still right lol
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 7:42:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 6:01:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/28/2012 5:55:47 PM, sadolite wrote:
"I think it would be best to take science community's word on it."

I'm not going to for one second. The scientific community has an extraordinarily bad record about being right about anything. Especially predictions and probabilities.

The Science community amends it's own theories and disproves and supports its own conclusions. It's completely objective. When they prove themselves wrong, they're still right lol

So, if that is he logic for science being valid, the current theory is officially wrong as it will be disproven in the future.

Also, if you have a "conclusion," and that conclusion is disproven. Then, the scientific community therefore is wrong for coming up with a conclusion, which is supposed to be the finality of a specific range of knowledge.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 10:10:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 3:44:21 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/28/2012 2:42:21 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/28/2012 2:34:55 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

There are multiple solutions to Schrodinger's cat, among them the Many-Worlds interpretation...

Anyway, you're seeing everything as certain, and quantum mechanics introduces an element of randomness, when in fact, everything is truly random at the most fundamental of levels, and we only have an illusion of certainty. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of a wavefunction, it is what describes the probabilistic behaviour of a particle (although certain elements of a wavefunction are certain, such as how it changes with respect to time). When multiple wavefunctions interact, the less random the particles act and the more certain they become. When millions of wavefunctions interact, it's almost completely certain where the particle will be at any time. It's why you don't see a chair, which contains billions of wavefunctions, hopping around the room as an isolated particle would.

You are avoiding the question. I don't care what these "wavefunctions" are. The concept of probability only exists because of our ignorance of where all particles and energy is allocated. And the Many-Worlds interpretation still does not answer the question.

Let's say that you have a machine that shoots a photon at a plate. You also have a tool with which to measure the position of the photon at any given moment. This tool works by sending out a laser which detects when something breaks the beam.

You say "I want to determine the exact position and velocity of a photon a millisecond after I shoot it towards the plate."

There's one mild problem.

See, when that photon hits the laser detector, the energy from the electrons in the laser CHANGE the excitement levels of the photon itself, changing its trajectory.

The scientists's choice to use the laser to detect position means he will change the velocity of the photon. Without the laser, he knows the velocity by measuring the time difference between the machine and plate, but he doesn't know position.

The more you try to ascertain the position, the less able you are to predict the velocity. Vice versa.

By simply asking a question in a certain way (velocity or position?) we alter the experimental environment. The "randomness" of quantum physics comes in large part from the experimenter himself.

Just be careful to not mix up "measurement" with "human observation" (like What the bleep do we know does). The laser beam changes the environment. Just looking/experiencing won't change the world unless you are measuring the world with something that will interfere with what you measure.

So this basically proves my point. Nothing can be truly random.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 10:13:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 3:17:26 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 5/28/2012 2:42:21 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/28/2012 2:34:55 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

There are multiple solutions to Schrodinger's cat, among them the Many-Worlds interpretation...

Anyway, you're seeing everything as certain, and quantum mechanics introduces an element of randomness, when in fact, everything is truly random at the most fundamental of levels, and we only have an illusion of certainty. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of a wavefunction, it is what describes the probabilistic behaviour of a particle (although certain elements of a wavefunction are certain, such as how it changes with respect to time). When multiple wavefunctions interact, the less random the particles act and the more certain they become. When millions of wavefunctions interact, it's almost completely certain where the particle will be at any time. It's why you don't see a chair, which contains billions of wavefunctions, hopping around the room as an isolated particle would.

You are avoiding the question. I don't care what these "wavefunctions" are. The concept of probability only exists because of our ignorance of where all particles and energy is allocated. And the Many-Worlds interpretation still does not answer the question.

I'm not avoiding the question, actually, you're avoiding the answer because it represents an opposition to "common sense." The wavefunction is a core element in quantum mechanics. As Brian Cox states:

"This loss of predictive power was what bothered Einstein and many of his colleagues. With the benefit of over eighty years of hindsight and a great deal of work, the debate now seems somewhat redundant, and it is easy to dismiss it with the statement that Born, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac, and others were correct and Einstein, Schrodinger, and the old guard were wrong. But it was certainly possible back then to believe that quantum theory was incomplete in some way, and that probabilities appear, just as in thermodynamics or coin tossing, because there is some information about the particles that we are missing. Today that idea gains little purchase - theoretical and experimental progress indicate that Nature really does use random numbers, and the loss of certainty in predicting the positions of particles is an intrinsic property of the physical world: probabilities are the best we can do."

No, I want you to explain to me how something can be against traditional logic. Your quote does not prove anything in regards to true randomness existing.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 10:46:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 10:13:24 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/28/2012 3:17:26 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 5/28/2012 2:42:21 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/28/2012 2:34:55 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

There are multiple solutions to Schrodinger's cat, among them the Many-Worlds interpretation...

Anyway, you're seeing everything as certain, and quantum mechanics introduces an element of randomness, when in fact, everything is truly random at the most fundamental of levels, and we only have an illusion of certainty. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of a wavefunction, it is what describes the probabilistic behaviour of a particle (although certain elements of a wavefunction are certain, such as how it changes with respect to time). When multiple wavefunctions interact, the less random the particles act and the more certain they become. When millions of wavefunctions interact, it's almost completely certain where the particle will be at any time. It's why you don't see a chair, which contains billions of wavefunctions, hopping around the room as an isolated particle would.

You are avoiding the question. I don't care what these "wavefunctions" are. The concept of probability only exists because of our ignorance of where all particles and energy is allocated. And the Many-Worlds interpretation still does not answer the question.

I'm not avoiding the question, actually, you're avoiding the answer because it represents an opposition to "common sense." The wavefunction is a core element in quantum mechanics. As Brian Cox states:

"This loss of predictive power was what bothered Einstein and many of his colleagues. With the benefit of over eighty years of hindsight and a great deal of work, the debate now seems somewhat redundant, and it is easy to dismiss it with the statement that Born, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac, and others were correct and Einstein, Schrodinger, and the old guard were wrong. But it was certainly possible back then to believe that quantum theory was incomplete in some way, and that probabilities appear, just as in thermodynamics or coin tossing, because there is some information about the particles that we are missing. Today that idea gains little purchase - theoretical and experimental progress indicate that Nature really does use random numbers, and the loss of certainty in predicting the positions of particles is an intrinsic property of the physical world: probabilities are the best we can do."

No, I want you to explain to me how something can be against traditional logic. Your quote does not prove anything in regards to true randomness existing.

I like how you just completely ignored everything that I had to say, and the more explanatory things that Wnope had to say, likely because you didn't understand them, and thus, could not refute them.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "traditional logic." It really doesn't matter what you think is logical, because empirical evidence trumps logical deduction.

That said, it's rather evidentiary of megalomania or some other delusion-borne malfunction, that you'd ever fancy the thought that hundreds of years of thinkers are wrong, based on some deduction that you've arrived to without even reviewing the explanations for the premises with which you find contention.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 11:18:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 10:13:24 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/28/2012 3:17:26 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 5/28/2012 2:42:21 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/28/2012 2:34:55 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

There are multiple solutions to Schrodinger's cat, among them the Many-Worlds interpretation...

Anyway, you're seeing everything as certain, and quantum mechanics introduces an element of randomness, when in fact, everything is truly random at the most fundamental of levels, and we only have an illusion of certainty. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of a wavefunction, it is what describes the probabilistic behaviour of a particle (although certain elements of a wavefunction are certain, such as how it changes with respect to time). When multiple wavefunctions interact, the less random the particles act and the more certain they become. When millions of wavefunctions interact, it's almost completely certain where the particle will be at any time. It's why you don't see a chair, which contains billions of wavefunctions, hopping around the room as an isolated particle would.

You are avoiding the question. I don't care what these "wavefunctions" are. The concept of probability only exists because of our ignorance of where all particles and energy is allocated. And the Many-Worlds interpretation still does not answer the question.

I'm not avoiding the question, actually, you're avoiding the answer because it represents an opposition to "common sense." The wavefunction is a core element in quantum mechanics. As Brian Cox states:

"This loss of predictive power was what bothered Einstein and many of his colleagues. With the benefit of over eighty years of hindsight and a great deal of work, the debate now seems somewhat redundant, and it is easy to dismiss it with the statement that Born, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac, and others were correct and Einstein, Schrodinger, and the old guard were wrong. But it was certainly possible back then to believe that quantum theory was incomplete in some way, and that probabilities appear, just as in thermodynamics or coin tossing, because there is some information about the particles that we are missing. Today that idea gains little purchase - theoretical and experimental progress indicate that Nature really does use random numbers, and the loss of certainty in predicting the positions of particles is an intrinsic property of the physical world: probabilities are the best we can do."

No, I want you to explain to me how something can be against traditional logic. Your quote does not prove anything in regards to true randomness existing.

Seriously dude? I'm trying to tell you that traditional logic FAILS in this situation.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 11:20:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 10:46:54 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/28/2012 10:13:24 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/28/2012 3:17:26 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 5/28/2012 2:42:21 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/28/2012 2:34:55 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

There are multiple solutions to Schrodinger's cat, among them the Many-Worlds interpretation...

Anyway, you're seeing everything as certain, and quantum mechanics introduces an element of randomness, when in fact, everything is truly random at the most fundamental of levels, and we only have an illusion of certainty. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of a wavefunction, it is what describes the probabilistic behaviour of a particle (although certain elements of a wavefunction are certain, such as how it changes with respect to time). When multiple wavefunctions interact, the less random the particles act and the more certain they become. When millions of wavefunctions interact, it's almost completely certain where the particle will be at any time. It's why you don't see a chair, which contains billions of wavefunctions, hopping around the room as an isolated particle would.

You are avoiding the question. I don't care what these "wavefunctions" are. The concept of probability only exists because of our ignorance of where all particles and energy is allocated. And the Many-Worlds interpretation still does not answer the question.

I'm not avoiding the question, actually, you're avoiding the answer because it represents an opposition to "common sense." The wavefunction is a core element in quantum mechanics. As Brian Cox states:

"This loss of predictive power was what bothered Einstein and many of his colleagues. With the benefit of over eighty years of hindsight and a great deal of work, the debate now seems somewhat redundant, and it is easy to dismiss it with the statement that Born, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac, and others were correct and Einstein, Schrodinger, and the old guard were wrong. But it was certainly possible back then to believe that quantum theory was incomplete in some way, and that probabilities appear, just as in thermodynamics or coin tossing, because there is some information about the particles that we are missing. Today that idea gains little purchase - theoretical and experimental progress indicate that Nature really does use random numbers, and the loss of certainty in predicting the positions of particles is an intrinsic property of the physical world: probabilities are the best we can do."

No, I want you to explain to me how something can be against traditional logic. Your quote does not prove anything in regards to true randomness existing.

I like how you just completely ignored everything that I had to say, and the more explanatory things that Wnope had to say, likely because you didn't understand them, and thus, could not refute them.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "traditional logic." It really doesn't matter what you think is logical, because empirical evidence trumps logical deduction.

That said, it's rather evidentiary of megalomania or some other delusion-borne malfunction, that you'd ever fancy the thought that hundreds of years of thinkers are wrong, based on some deduction that you've arrived to without even reviewing the explanations for the premises with which you find contention.

Exactly.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 12:25:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 10:10:55 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/28/2012 3:44:21 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/28/2012 2:42:21 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/28/2012 2:34:55 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

There are multiple solutions to Schrodinger's cat, among them the Many-Worlds interpretation...

Anyway, you're seeing everything as certain, and quantum mechanics introduces an element of randomness, when in fact, everything is truly random at the most fundamental of levels, and we only have an illusion of certainty. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of a wavefunction, it is what describes the probabilistic behaviour of a particle (although certain elements of a wavefunction are certain, such as how it changes with respect to time). When multiple wavefunctions interact, the less random the particles act and the more certain they become. When millions of wavefunctions interact, it's almost completely certain where the particle will be at any time. It's why you don't see a chair, which contains billions of wavefunctions, hopping around the room as an isolated particle would.

You are avoiding the question. I don't care what these "wavefunctions" are. The concept of probability only exists because of our ignorance of where all particles and energy is allocated. And the Many-Worlds interpretation still does not answer the question.

Let's say that you have a machine that shoots a photon at a plate. You also have a tool with which to measure the position of the photon at any given moment. This tool works by sending out a laser which detects when something breaks the beam.

You say "I want to determine the exact position and velocity of a photon a millisecond after I shoot it towards the plate."

There's one mild problem.

See, when that photon hits the laser detector, the energy from the electrons in the laser CHANGE the excitement levels of the photon itself, changing its trajectory.

The scientists's choice to use the laser to detect position means he will change the velocity of the photon. Without the laser, he knows the velocity by measuring the time difference between the machine and plate, but he doesn't know position.

The more you try to ascertain the position, the less able you are to predict the velocity. Vice versa.

By simply asking a question in a certain way (velocity or position?) we alter the experimental environment. The "randomness" of quantum physics comes in large part from the experimenter himself.

Just be careful to not mix up "measurement" with "human observation" (like What the bleep do we know does). The laser beam changes the environment. Just looking/experiencing won't change the world unless you are measuring the world with something that will interfere with what you measure.

So this basically proves my point. Nothing can be truly random.

You either aren't reading what is being written or you are hopelessly out of your depth on this subject.

As an experimenter/human being, you change whatever you are measuring through the act of measurement. That introduces randomness which means it is impossible to gain results that aren't probabilistic. Randomness can be introduced in predictable ways. It's the results of randomness that is unpredictable.

What Einstein and the rest hated was that this the predictions of Newtonian physics will all fail at a microscopic level and can only be assigned probabilities. This is because Newtonian physics don't consider the act of measurement (and for big objects, it really isn't very relevant).

So you aren't accurately describing a photon when you say "it is here at this point at this velocity." It is only when you describe a photon's movement mathematically that empirical predictions fit reality.

Even if you try to include your measuring device into your experimental, you are simply passing the buck because you'll need a means of measuring the experimental design (other than the one being measured) and that will inject randomness.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 12:33:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 11:18:14 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 5/28/2012 10:13:24 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/28/2012 3:17:26 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 5/28/2012 2:42:21 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/28/2012 2:34:55 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 5/28/2012 12:30:09 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Unless someone can, in layman's terms, explain to me how anything could be truly "random" and tells what these "superpositions" are, I refuse to believe any of it. Even Schrödinger thought up his cat experiment to demonstrate how idiotic it was.

There are multiple solutions to Schrodinger's cat, among them the Many-Worlds interpretation...

Anyway, you're seeing everything as certain, and quantum mechanics introduces an element of randomness, when in fact, everything is truly random at the most fundamental of levels, and we only have an illusion of certainty. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of a wavefunction, it is what describes the probabilistic behaviour of a particle (although certain elements of a wavefunction are certain, such as how it changes with respect to time). When multiple wavefunctions interact, the less random the particles act and the more certain they become. When millions of wavefunctions interact, it's almost completely certain where the particle will be at any time. It's why you don't see a chair, which contains billions of wavefunctions, hopping around the room as an isolated particle would.

You are avoiding the question. I don't care what these "wavefunctions" are. The concept of probability only exists because of our ignorance of where all particles and energy is allocated. And the Many-Worlds interpretation still does not answer the question.

I'm not avoiding the question, actually, you're avoiding the answer because it represents an opposition to "common sense." The wavefunction is a core element in quantum mechanics. As Brian Cox states:

"This loss of predictive power was what bothered Einstein and many of his colleagues. With the benefit of over eighty years of hindsight and a great deal of work, the debate now seems somewhat redundant, and it is easy to dismiss it with the statement that Born, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac, and others were correct and Einstein, Schrodinger, and the old guard were wrong. But it was certainly possible back then to believe that quantum theory was incomplete in some way, and that probabilities appear, just as in thermodynamics or coin tossing, because there is some information about the particles that we are missing. Today that idea gains little purchase - theoretical and experimental progress indicate that Nature really does use random numbers, and the loss of certainty in predicting the positions of particles is an intrinsic property of the physical world: probabilities are the best we can do."

No, I want you to explain to me how something can be against traditional logic. Your quote does not prove anything in regards to true randomness existing.

Seriously dude? I'm trying to tell you that traditional logic FAILS in this situation.

It's not that first order logic or the like fails. It's that common sense fails. For the moment, let's say that's what you mean by "traditional logic."

In traditional logic/common sense, observation/information extraction from a non-sentient environment does not change the environment itself. i.e. simply looking at a red block won't change the red block.

But if you take this mindset into the quantum world, nothing makes sense. If you try to make predictions from extract information, you necessarily will be wrong since you've failed to account for your information extraction effecting the environment (ex. placing a particle detector in front of one slit and not the other in Young's Double Slit).

So, "traditional logic" in this sense will necessarily lead to the wrong answer if you try to utilize it empirically when studying photons.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 12:52:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What are we defining as a "particle". Can any object be considered a "particle" or does it have to be a fundamental constitute of matter?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 1:05:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Another question. If I look at a chair, are the particles in it at superposition or not? If all the particles are in superposition, then how can the chair even exist or we even know where the chair is? If the particles are not in superposition then how do they turn into a superposition?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...