Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

At 4/19/2012 5:00:47 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

At 4/18/2012 6:02:36 PM, Ren wrote:
Prove it.

OK...

The way that it works is that that particles move in such a way, that they create electromagnetic gravitational fields around themselves.

This is nonsense: wtf is an electromagnetic gravitational field?

Nah-ah-ahhh. xD: http://jnaudin.free.fr...

However, the energy they express in moving and creating these fields is also what manifests strong nuclear force, so it is essentially extremely intense.

Strong Nuclear force is independent of gravity, Weak Nuclear force, and electromagnetism. Actually, gravity is pretty much negligible at the quantum level.

?!?!?! Wow. So much to approach here.

Alright, first, I'm pretty sure I said nothing about gravity, electromagnetism, and other types of weak nuclear force, and instead indicated that electromagnetic gravitational fields are what manifest strong nuclear force. "Gravity" is not synonymous with "gravitational field." Gravitational fields result from interactions with the force that we term gravity in the macrocosmic sense, but they are also what manifest the interaction between matter in black holes and subatomic particles, although they don't abide by classical laws, such as superposition.

To say that gravity is weak at the subatomic level is just outright hysterical. Although matter that we interact with macrocosmically is incredibly larger than subatomic particles, we still have no experience whatsoever with objects approaching a critical mass. Subatomic particles, however, are very frequently, if not always, travelling at speeds proportional, and even comparable, to the terminal velocity of all matter. This is likely why although we're so much larger, we interact with weak nuclear force exclusively, while strong nuclear force, which is the same force intensely magnified, manifests completely separate laws at the subatomic level.

Therefore, in reality, they manifest as actual objects, which we know as subatomic particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons. As they're essentially energy fields, and result from constant high energy and high speed movement, they are essentially undulating at all times. The nature of this undulation is what determines how it interacts with other such clusters around it -- electrons.

They exhibit a wave-particle duality.

Electrons do?

No, while orbiting atoms, they do not.

While traveling through a medium (say, a copper wire), they may as they pass from atom to atom.

Not all particles exhibit particle-wave duality, and certainly not at all times (in constant flux).

Orbiting them at light speed in several layers, they are balls of energy; particles the size of a Planck Unit.

NO WAY.
1) NOTHING with mass can travel at c.

Sigh, we covered that. I mean, it's true, so I'll pass on calling it pedantic, but really. :\

2) A Plank Unit of length is orders of magnitude SMALLER than an electron. Plan Unit of length = approx 1.6 x 10e-35 m and an electron is 2.8 x 10e-15.

Reduced Planck [E][T] 1.0546 E-27 gm-cm2/sec
Constant 1.381 E-34 cm

e Electron charge [Q] 1.381 E-34 cm

http://graham.main.nc.us...

A Plank Unit is not a physical measurement. It is a "packet of energy."

Surely, you knew that. :\

The nature of their orbit determines how they interact with other atoms. These interactions manifest their own energy fields through what we understood to be strong nuclear force, and this manifests as reality.

No way. Electrons are NOT nuclear particles ERGO they do not experience the Strong Nuclear force; however, nucleons do: protons, neutrons, and their anti particles.

That should have been "these atoms."

The atoms manifest reality, the atoms have strong nuclear force.

I already indicated that strong nuclear force results from the movement of quarks. Because electromagnetism and gravity relates to interaction between matter in the nuclear sense, subatomic particles need other carriers other than themselves to cause the movement of quarks to initiate behavior through the conversion of energy. These carriers are gluons.

Electrons are subatomic particles themselves (upon which the strong nuclear force is acting), so they couldn't possibly manifest it.

In fact, it doesn't act upon them, because they actually exist in their most reduced form a step above quarks, at the subatomic level.

This reality, however, is not actually moving. It is some terminal macro-manifestation, where we are no longer undulating and creating energy fields, but instead, interacting with purpose and entirely through analogy.

WTF does that even mean?

Physics 101.

Now, going back to all these moving particles (atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, hardons, quarks, etc.), they're in fact moving at such a high speed, that it is impossible by physical limitation to detect them at any given position while they are in that position.

That is a contradiction and these particles are detected in specific positions ALL the time. If you are looking at a CRT screen as I am, you'll be experiencing it.

Lol, they're detected at specific positions, but not in real time. A CRT screen traps photons.

Therefore, it is impossible to determine where they will go; only where they just were.

Just like anything in the macro world that is not stationary...so what?

That is false. In the macrocosmic universe, it is very possible to determine movement, trajectory, position, etc, all at the same time, because they are operating at the same level and are confined to the same laws of physics as the instruments detecting them.

Thus, we have video cameras.

Therefore, it's not that those particles "aren't actually here nor there, but might be everywhere."

The probability distribution doesn't say that they can be everywhere, only within a specific field.

That is not a probability distribution, that is a matrix, and that is why I made that distinction.

Surely, you realize that a probability distribution and a matrix are two entirely different things. :\

At 4/19/2012 5:58:06 PM, Ren wrote:
Nah-ah-ahhh. xD: http://jnaudin.free.fr...

What does that have to do with what's discussed here? Answer: nothing. The term "electromagnetic gravitational field" appears NO WHERE in your link. Fail.

?!?!?! Wow. So much to approach here.

And how!

Alright, first, I'm pretty sure I said nothing about gravity, electromagnetism, and other types of weak nuclear force, and instead indicated that electromagnetic gravitational fields are what manifest strong nuclear force.

You mentioned gravity, electromagnetic force, and strong nuclear force; I simply brought up the 4th and final force. You are now saying that electromagnetic gravitational field is different from gravity and electromagnetism yet haven't shown wtf an electromagnetic gravitational field is.

"Gravity" is not synonymous with "gravitational field." Gravitational fields result from interactions with the force that we term gravity in the macrocosmic sense, but they are also what manifest the interaction between matter in black holes and subatomic particles, although they don't abide by classical laws, such as superposition.

1) Blackholes ARE macroscopic.
2) Blackholes don't act on subatomic particles per se, but rather the space around them. In other words, even massless objects are affected by COSMIC SCALE gravity (ie MACRO SCALE) because they travel through space and NOT because they are affected directly by the force of gravity on the MICRO SCALE.

To say that gravity is weak at the subatomic level is just outright hysterical.

Only hysterical if you don't know physics. Gravity is the weakest of the forces on the micro scale. Any one of the other forces EASILY overcomes gravity.

Although matter that we interact with macrocosmically is incredibly larger than subatomic particles, we still have no experience whatsoever with objects approaching a critical mass. Subatomic particles, however, are very frequently, if not always, travelling at speeds proportional, and even comparable, to the terminal velocity of all matter.

Not so! Actually, most matter that people come in contact with every day is NOT traveling anywhere near c!

This is likely why although we're so much larger, we interact with weak nuclear force exclusively, while strong nuclear force, which is the same force intensely magnified, manifests completely separate laws at the subatomic level.

Nope. The forces that we MOST come into contact with at the macro level in "everyday" experience are electromagnetic and gravity. We seldom experience weak nuclear force (responsible for particle decay) let alone strong nuclear force which is confined to the nucleus of an atom. Fail.

They exhibit a wave-particle duality.

Electrons do?

Yes, where have YOU been?

No, while orbiting atoms, they do not.

Electrons are just as much particles whether they are free or not. Being bound just constrains the energy and allows orbital angular momentum.

While traveling through a medium (say, a copper wire), they may as they pass from atom to atom.

Here as well.

Not all particles exhibit particle-wave duality, and certainly not at all times (in constant flux).

All do. Fail. Which particles don't?

Sigh, we covered that. I mean, it's true, so I'll pass on calling it pedantic, but really. :\

No need to be snob.

A Plank Unit is not a physical measurement. It is a "packet of energy."

That is incorrect. "Planck units are physical units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants." -Wiki. Notice the bold above: this means that we need to ELABORATE what we are measuring. You are now saying "packet of energy" HOWEVER you were NOT talking about energy before but were in fact referring to the SIZE of an electron and NOT the energy. Fail.

Surely, you knew that. :\

No, but it doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. For a snobby smart arse, you sure get a lot of things wrong.

The atoms manifest reality, the atoms have strong nuclear force.

Slow down, the peddles can only go so fast in reverse!

I already indicated that strong nuclear force results from the movement of quarks. Because electromagnetism and gravity relates to interaction between matter in the nuclear sense, subatomic particles need other carriers other than themselves to cause the movement of quarks to initiate behavior through the conversion of energy. These carriers are gluons.

Well, electromagnetism interactions between matter is NOT confined to the "nuclear sense". Also, gravity is practically negligible at these scales.

Electrons are subatomic particles themselves (upon which the strong nuclear force is acting), so they couldn't possibly manifest it.

The strong nuclear force is confined to the nucleus. Relative to its size, the electron is orders of magnitude away from the nucleus. The Strong Nuclear force is NO WHERE NEAR an orbiting electron.

In fact, it doesn't act upon them, because they actually exist in their most reduced form a step above quarks, at the subatomic level.

Yes, but no, but yes, but no...make up your mind.

Physics 101.

What a modest answer! Judging by how many things you got wrong, I think you may need to retake the course! That is, IF you ever took it at all!

That is a contradiction and these particles are detected in specific positions ALL the time. If you are looking at a CRT screen as I am, you'll be experiencing it.

Lol, they're detected at specific positions, but not in real time. A CRT screen traps photons.

Actually, it's electrons as in the ELECTRON GUN inside the Cathode Ray Tube. Keep laughing, genius. And how are the electrons not hitting the phosphors in real time again? Really.

Just like anything in the macro world that is not stationary...so what?

That is false. In the macrocosmic universe, it is very possible to determine movement, trajectory, position, etc, all at the same time, because they are operating at the same level and are confined to the same laws of physics as the instruments detecting them.

Thus, we have video cameras.

You're missing the point here: I am not talking about the uncertainty principle I am referring to your incorrect use of "real time" which DOES apply to the macro as well. Try again.

That is not a probability distribution, that is a matrix, and that is why I made that distinction.

Your distinction not withstanding: there is a limit as to where it can be.

Okay, let me start with this.

I am not a physicist. I did not go to Cal-Tech and get a degree in the physical sciences. I went to NYU and got a degree in English. I spend most of my time teaching, and otherwise, freelancing miscellany.

However, I am terribly interested in physics, in the same way one might be interested in cars or miniature models or woodwork. I've immersed myself thoroughly. I derive my knowledge from published studies, research articles, periodicals, and documentaries. Having university access is golden; people just don't know.

So, I may describe things in such a way that comes off unclear sometimes. For this, I'm sorry, but it leaves me at an impasse, because admitting that I'm wrong could make me lose credibility, while defending myself would be insincere. Believe me when I say that I will not contribute to any thread unless I know what I'm talking about, and if I encounter a thread about something I know nothing about, I won't say anything or I'll study up on it before I reply.

At 4/20/2012 3:51:49 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

At 4/19/2012 5:58:06 PM, Ren wrote:
Nah-ah-ahhh. xD: http://jnaudin.free.fr...

What does that have to do with what's discussed here? Answer: nothing. The term "electromagnetic gravitational field" appears NO WHERE in your link. Fail.

Wow, you clearly didn't even read the first line. This is one of those places where there might be a better term, and I'm not sure what it is. The best way I can describe:

"Nothing, on the cosmological scale, is virtually everything. It is the home of all the

invisible fields, rippling with the activity of every real force. Every kind of matter produces a field, the field all mesh in complex ways, often causing interference with other fields. Fields are the "stuff" of the virtual vacuum. A light particle is nothing more than a large interference in the electromagnetic field."

?!?!?! Wow. So much to approach here.

You mentioned gravity, electromagnetic force, and strong nuclear force; I simply brought up the 4th and final force. You are now saying that electromagnetic gravitational field is different from gravity and electromagnetism yet haven't shown wtf an electromagnetic gravitational field is.

4th and final force? I don't understand... so far, we've brought up only strong and weak nuclear force. Other types of forces, like fire and kinetic force, hasn't been mentioned.

***confused***

1) Blackholes ARE macroscopic.

That's not the point. Physical laws in black holes are not the same as those in traditional physics.

2) Blackholes don't act on subatomic particles per se, but rather the space around them.

Nothing acts on subatomic particles but strong nuclear force. Subatomic particles manifest weak nuclear force. I thought I made that clear, but probably not.

Only hysterical if you don't know physics. Gravity is the weakest of the forces on the micro scale. Any one of the other forces EASILY overcomes gravity.

For some reason, you're not getting the distinction I'm making with the fact that it would exist at the subatomic level, where the gravity is so damned strong, breaking the bond can destroy small planets.

Not so! Actually, most matter that people come in contact with every day is NOT traveling anywhere near c!

???

Electrons are always traveling at speeds proportional to c.

In some mediums, they will appear to exceed c, resulting in the light analogue of a sonic boom called Cerenkov Radiation.

I mean, what are you trying to say, here? Yeah, I said "they move at the speed of light" -- yes, that specifically, by itself, is inaccurate. Thanks for correcting me, but that doesn't invalidate my entire post, and the rest of your contradictions are just trite. Electrons do move and operate at speeds proportional to to the speed of light. Feel free to present figures that indicate otherwise.

Nope. The forces that we MOST come into contact with at the macro level in "everyday" experience are electromagnetic and gravity. We seldom experience weak nuclear force (responsible for particle decay) let alone strong nuclear force which is confined to the nucleus of an atom. Fail.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Wtf? Electromagnetism and gravity are types of weak nuclear force. Is this why you've been so confusing?

Not all particles exhibit particle-wave duality, and certainly not at all times (in constant flux).

All do. Fail. Which particles don't?

What I mean is, while observing a particle, it isn't doing to alternate from particle to wave to particle. All particles exhibit properties of waves and properties of particles. A wave cannot orbit a nucleus, obv. So, a bound electron is always a particle. :\

That is incorrect. "Planck units are physical units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants." -Wiki.

Although this is Wiki we're talking about, I see nothing in there that indicates dimension. The measurement I presented to you, however, was in centimeters.

Think on that a moment.

No, but it doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. For a snobby smart arse, you sure get a lot of things wrong.

Lol. See, this is where I wonder where you studied. Because, although my studies weren't "official," it's based on information written or presented by professionals in the field.

I'm not sure you even understand what force, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force are. So, calm down a moment and reassess. ;)

Actually, it's electrons as in the ELECTRON GUN inside the Cathode Ray Tube. Keep laughing, genius. And how are the electrons not hitting the phosphors in real time again? Really.

You mean to tell me that the computer presents a readout of the CRT screen precisely when the photon strikes the screen?

Or, what? Because, no, you can't ever see a photon in real time. It is physically impossible.

At 4/19/2012 12:14:01 PM, Ren wrote:

At 4/19/2012 1:45:23 AM, baggins wrote:
I suspect some of the physics laws may face a challenge from a study of brain's decision making process. However this is a personal opinion and is not backed by any evidence.

What? Then, you just pulled it out of your ass?

I said it is a personal opinion. I said I don't have any evidence for it. But you had to rephrase it in more American terms.

I mean, it's a compelling supposition -- makes you want to know the reasoning.

The reasoning is not very compelling. Unless we want to look at details below Angstrom or we want to work with very high energy, physics is quite deterministic. This means brain is deterministic for all practical purpose. On other hand I intuitively believe in free-will. As a result I suspect that we may face a challenge to some basic physics here...

I will stand corrected if we can simulate a brain on computer. But it looks like it will take some time as biology has not advanced enough (computing power should not be a problem now).

At 4/21/2012 8:11:56 AM, Ren wrote:
I am not a physicist. I did not go to Cal-Tech and get a degree in the physical sciences. I went to NYU and got a degree in English. I spend most of my time teaching, and otherwise, freelancing miscellany.

However, I am terribly interested in physics, in the same way one might be interested in cars or miniature models or woodwork. I've immersed myself thoroughly. I derive my knowledge from published studies, research articles, periodicals, and documentaries. Having university access is golden; people just don't know.

Well, I appreciate your honesty. I too share similar interest in physics. Similarly, I always try never to speak to something I do not know for certain. However, I have found that there is a lot of "pop-science" out there that people have come to accept unquestionably...and that's never good for science.

Wow, you clearly didn't even read the first line. This is one of those places where there might be a better term, and I'm not sure what it is. The best way I can describe:

But I did read the first line, just not the entire article because it was off topic. So in fairness I WILL read it...

The first paragraph speaks to my point about creation ex nihilo and how it is not so. When Hawking (and he's not the only one that does) writes a book he needs to get people's attention and what better way to do that than making "press releases" claiming "something from nothing" and other outlandish comments. Helps sales a lot. Of course, once you look further into it and actually read the book, you'll see he's making no such claim at all.

But the biggest reason I skimmed and didn't read the entire link was because it was your response to a question I asked yet it has NOTHING to do with it.

I mean, in the weakest sense one might say that space is permeated with fields and thus not empty: ok, I agree and have been saying that "nothingness" does not exist. But apart from that, what's the point of the link?

4th and final force? I don't understand... so far, we've brought up only strong and weak nuclear force. Other types of forces, like fire and kinetic force, hasn't been mentioned.

Let me explain. There are 4 fundamental forces in physics and I will list them in order of "strength": Strong Nuclear force, Weak Nuclear force, Electromagnetism, and Gravity. Fire for the most part, is a chemical reaction and tends to fall under electromagnetism; kinetic forces also fall under electromagnetism; etc. Physicists have been trying to "link" these forces together under a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) but have not been able to so. Gravity ALWAYS throws a monkey wrench into things.

So, you listed only 3 of the 4 FUNDAMENTAL forces and that is why I listed the "4th and final force."

That's not the point. Physical laws in black holes are not the same as those in traditional physics.

That IS the point. I said that gravity is the WEAKEST of all the forces and that it only becomes overwhelming at ASTRONOMICAL levels. Atoms (ie MICRO) are barely influenced by other atoms gravity UNLESS there are an ASTRONOMICAL number of atoms (ie MACRO.) That's the point.

Nothing acts on subatomic particles but strong nuclear force.

Wrong. Electromagnetism and Weak Nuclear forces act on subatomic particles as does gravity BUT it is overwhelmed by the other 3 forces. So long as something has MASS it is affected. And to be clear, I am referring to rest mass and not mass-energy equivalent.

Subatomic particles manifest weak nuclear force. I thought I made that clear, but probably not.

Subatomic particles manifest weak nuclear force, electromagnetic, and if they are nucleons then they may experience the strong nuclear force as well.

For some reason, you're not getting the distinction I'm making with the fact that it would exist at the subatomic level, where the gravity is so damned strong, breaking the bond can destroy small planets.

And what YOU are still not getting is the fact that in order to do so you need an ASTRONOMICAL amount of atoms making it a MACRO event and NOT a micro event. I will repeat it again: it is ONLY when you have an ASTRONOMICAL amount of matter (ie MACRO) that gravity is able to overcome the other 3 fundamental forces.

Not so! Actually, most matter that people come in contact with every day is NOT traveling anywhere near c!

???

Are you traveling at c? No.
Is your house, car, property, etc. traveling at c? No.
What is so hard to understand about that? Or is it that you are equivocating the electrons in orbit around the nucleus of the atoms that you experience every day as traveling at or near c? Come on, really.

Electrons are always traveling at speeds proportional to c.

You're equivocating: see above.

In some mediums, they will appear to exceed c, resulting in the light analogue of a sonic boom called Cerenkov Radiation.

THEY NEVER EXCEED C. EVER. You can bank on that. These are the common misconceptions that I was referring to before and PROOF that you are equivocating.

1) Photons traveling through a medium is NOT the same as electrons orbiting an atom. This is where you are equivocating.

2) Nothing EVER has been observed to exceed c in ANY medium. If you more CAREFULLY examine your claim, you will wee that what has happened is that they were able to propagate a signal through a substance at a higher speed than light travels through that same substance which is ALWAYS less than c.

I will explain. The "substance" in which light travels the quickest through is a "vacuum" (ie space) and the speed of light in a vacuum is called c. When light travels through ANY other substance, it travels at less than c. It is possible to get energy to propagate through a substance faster than light can propagate though that substance BUT it will NEVER be greater than c.

I mean, what are you trying to say, here? Yeah, I said "they move at the speed of light" -- yes, that specifically, by itself, is inaccurate. Thanks for correcting me, but that doesn't invalidate my entire post, and the rest of your contradictions are just trite. Electrons do move and operate at speeds proportional to to the speed of light. Feel free to present figures that indicate otherwise.

It does because as I have shown you are equivocating different types of motion.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Wtf? Electromagnetism and gravity are types of weak nuclear force. Is this why you've been so confusing?

You are again equivocating and wrong on another issue. I repeat, there are 4 fundamental forces: Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, Electromagnetism, and Gravity. While the weak interaction (ie weak nuclear force) has been theoretically linked to electromagnetism (electro-weak) but gravity has not. Furthermore, 3 of the 4 have been united in a Grand Unified Field Theory but we just can't manage to get gravity in there!

But the point her is about EVERYDAY experiences as they pertain to the forces SEPARATELY otherwise it'd be rather silly to talk about everyday experiences of a unified theory. In this respect, the most common forces we experience are electromagnetic (kinetic, chemical, etc.) and gravity.

"Electromagnetism and weak interaction appear to be very different at everyday low energies. They can be modeled using two different theories." -Wiki

What I mean is, while observing a particle, it isn't doing to alternate from particle to wave to particle.

What? Other than you above, who ever made anything even closely resembling that claim?

All particles exhibit properties of waves and properties of particles. A wave cannot orbit a nucleus, obv. So, a bound electron is always a particle. :\

Yet electrons can ONLY orbit a nucleus based on the its own wavelength! That's the point: it exhibits an apparent mutually exclusive behavior: wave-particle duality EVEN when it is orbiting an electron.

At 4/21/2012 8:11:56 AM, Ren wrote:
Although this is Wiki we're talking about, I see nothing in there that indicates dimension. The measurement I presented to you, however, was in centimeters.

And cm is NOT energy but length and as I presented to you, a Planck unit of length is orders of magnitude smaller than the size of an electron.

Think on that a moment.

See above and try and figure out if you are talking about ENERGY why are you bringing up units of length; OR if you're talking about length then why did mention ENERGY?

Lol. See, this is where I wonder where you studied. Because, although my studies weren't "official," it's based on information written or presented by professionals in the field.

Nothing personal, but you've gotten a lot of things wrong and mostly you don't seen to know your fundamental forces. You studies English and have Physics as a hobby while I studied Computer Science and have both English and Physics as a hobby. But our credentials here won't help only the facts will.

From what I can garner from our interactions, I can see that you clearly have a better grasp of physics than your average college student taking first year Physics courses. However, there are somethings that you are getting wrong. I do not consider my grasp of physics superior to yours but I do know that you are wrong on many of these points and I think that I have presented strong evidence of it.

On an aside note, I have meet people from all walks of life and I can tell you that the "smartest" people I have ever met were college graduates; HOWEVER, the stupidest ones were also college graduates. I know and even have some family members that never finished grammar school that have 100 times more sense than some college graduates. And oddly enough, the most genius of college graduates that I have ever met were experts in fields having NOTHING to do with their degrees!

I'm not sure you even understand what force, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force are. So, calm down a moment and reassess. ;)

The funny thing is that it seems that you don't! Not to mention, that I'm not the one that didn't know that there were 4 fundamental forces!

You mean to tell me that the computer presents a readout of the CRT screen precisely when the photon strikes the screen?

1) It's the electron that strikes the screen and it is the photon that is emitted from the phosphor.
2) Obviously the photon is emitted where the electron strikes the phosphor otherwise it would be a rather strange sequence of physics.

Where would you expect the photon to be, where the electron DIDN'T strike the phosphor? What's you point? Are you trying to play a precision game?

Or, what? Because, no, you can't ever see a photon in real time. It is physically impossible.

You and I must have a VERY different definition of what real-time is. Obviously, one is not going to see a photon traveling its path; who is arguing that? Why even bring such nonsense up? But photons can be detected in real-time when they strike a detector (eyes, sensors, etc.)

At 4/21/2012 11:10:25 AM, baggins wrote:

At 4/19/2012 12:14:01 PM, Ren wrote:
What? Then, you just pulled it out of your ass?

I said it is a personal opinion. I said I don't have any evidence for it. But you had to rephrase it in more American terms.

In defense of Americans...that could also be a British term!

I mean, it's a compelling supposition -- makes you want to know the reasoning.

The reasoning is not very compelling. Unless we want to look at details below Angstrom or we want to work with very high energy, physics is quite deterministic. This means brain is deterministic for all practical purpose. On other hand I intuitively believe in free-will. As a result I suspect that we may face a challenge to some basic physics here...

I too grapple with determinism...it's too compelling to ignore. I guess that's why I take either side of the argument so as to challenge people and see if they came up with something better than me! Uncertainty and Cahos theory do present good challenges to determinism though.

I will stand corrected if we can simulate a brain on computer. But it looks like it will take some time as biology has not advanced enough (computing power should not be a problem now).

Well, there are some great examples of this now. Watson is am incredibly powerful computer that can "simulate" a brain. Even a regular PC can simulate a brain, I think what we're looking for here is a good simulation of a mind.

The problem with this is that it is subjective. In other words, the test for these "programs" is to see if they can fool people into thinking the the program is a person. I've read of an experiment where you place test subjects (ie people) in a room where they communicate through a computer with other subjects which may be people or computer programs. The program that is most able to "trick" people into thinking that it is a person is then capable of simulating a mind/brain.

At 4/23/2012 10:26:27 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Correction:

Let me explain. There are 4 fundamental forces in physics and I will list them in order of "strength": Strong Nuclear force, Electromagnetism, Weak Nuclear force, and Gravity. Fire for the most part, is a chemical reaction and tends to fall under electromagnetism; kinetic forces also fall under electromagnetism; etc. Physicists have been trying to "link" these forces together under a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) but have not been able to so. Gravity ALWAYS throws a monkey wrench into things.

I had originally placed the Weak Interaction before Electromagnetism.

I was able to follow you guys for a while and then I got lost.
Help?
Would it be correct to say that HUP stipulates that we cannot measure the exact position and momentum of matter and that the HUP is silent on whether the particle has an exact position and momentum.
I.e. "my point is that the act of measuring affects what is being measured."-t.boone

However according to my understanding(and i may be wrong, which is why I am asking), matter has wave nature for which it is not entirely meaningful to define an exact position. Isn't this demonstrated by the tunneling effect?I.e. there is no such thing as an exact position of a particle as opposed to our mere inability to find such a position.
The difference is illustrated by:
a)We would be able to find the position of the particle with a perfectly passive device
(which did not affect the particles position,assuming we were able to build such a device,i.e. not using current principles of mesasurement,i.e. measurement by interference with a parameter which would not affect its position)
b)It is not meaningful to talk about the position of matter.

On a completely unrelated note, Is it correct to say that no system can predict its own future?
(this was merely something that occurred to me)

At 4/23/2012 10:57:37 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:

At 4/21/2012 11:10:25 AM, baggins wrote:
I will stand corrected if we can simulate a brain on computer. But it looks like it will take some time as biology has not advanced enough (computing power should not be a problem now).

Well, there are some great examples of this now. Watson is am incredibly powerful computer that can "simulate" a brain. Even a regular PC can simulate a brain, I think what we're looking for here is a good simulation of a mind.

Watson is not the kind of simulation I had in mind.

The way computer works is well understood. It has got a processor (which become thousands of processors for supercomputer) which keep executing commands. Computers are essentially deterministic. In fact, a pretty important class of problems in computer science is to generate random looking number.

I was thinking about analyzing the working of a single neuron. Then we can simulate the neurons on the computer. We can start supplying input to it and see if the system gains consciousness or just spouts garbage.

If it gains consciousness in this way, determinism will be established. If it does not, then it may point to something missing from our understanding (it can always be faulty algorithm).

At present, biology is not in a position to provide the necessary data and algorithm to do this kind of simulation AFAIK.

The problem with this is that it is subjective. In other words, the test for these "programs" is to see if they can fool people into thinking the the program is a person. I've read of an experiment where you place test subjects (ie people) in a room where they communicate through a computer with other subjects which may be people or computer programs. The program that is most able to "trick" people into thinking that it is a person is then capable of simulating a mind/brain.

It is pretty easy to convince human beings. However that proves human gullibility rather than machine intelligence. I have played with 'doctor' on emacs. It is a variant of 'eliza'.
http://www-ai.ijs.si...

At 4/24/2012 3:11:34 AM, marcuscato wrote:
I was able to follow you guys for a while and then I got lost.
Help?

You have almost understood all that can be understood without getting into maths.

Would it be correct to say that HUP stipulates that we cannot measure the exact position and momentum of matter...

Yes.

... and that the HUP is silent on whether the particle has an exact position and momentum.

This statement is meaningless. In quantum world, measurements are part of definition. Think about it. If some quantity can never be measured, how do you define it? Remember, you are talking about extremely small things, whose response may depend on the way it is measured!

I.e. "my point is that the act of measuring affects what is being measured."-t.boone

However according to my understanding(and i may be wrong, which is why I am asking), matter has wave nature for which it is not entirely meaningful to define an exact position. Isn't this demonstrated by the tunneling effect?I.e. there is no such thing as an exact position of a particle as opposed to our mere inability to find such a position.
The difference is illustrated by:
a)We would be able to find the position of the particle with a perfectly passive device
(which did not affect the particles position,assuming we were able to build such a device,i.e. not using current principles of mesasurement,i.e. measurement by interference with a parameter which would not affect its position)

If something never interacts with anything, how do you plan to measure it? If it interacts with anything, the limitations apply. This limitation is on the way stuff exists and not measuring technique.

b)It is not meaningful to talk about the position of matter.

And this follows from a.

On a completely unrelated note, Is it correct to say that no system can predict its own future?
(this was merely something that occurred to me)

Who is this 'own'

Well, TBoone. So much to write, but I have a little time. ^_^

"But I did read the first line...what's the point of the link?"

I actually wasn't insisting that you go back and read the entire article, although I would have figured that you may have considered it edifying -- lol, apparently not.

In any case, in one of my previous replies, I quoted you the first paragraph, and indicated to you that the description in that paragraph and perhaps, one or two paragraphs following, is essentially to what I was referring to as an electromagnetic gravitational field.

They are essentially how I'm describing subatomic particles, and that's entirely accurate. Now, I will take the time to thoroughly explain why, rather than make allusions, which hitherto has resulted in nothing but confusion.

When one imagines the reduction of matter to particles, and then more fundamental particles, I can't help but assume that most figure that this reduction is made in the same way when it's not. Once we get to subatomic particles, matter reduces in ways that's most intriguing.

In other words, try for a moment to look at the world through the eyes of a physicist (I'm sure you've done this before) and imagine seeing all of the physical interactions manifesting the matter around you, rather than the analogues we're used to seeing. Try to concentrate on one aspect at a time, then bring it all together -- atoms, flowing electrons, photons, and gravitons, all in flux, moving in distinct patterns and cycles.

Notice how, it becomes, for the lack of a better description, almost pixelated.

Well, if we attempt to reduce these particles even further (and, you can only reduce atoms -- so let's zoom into one now), you have protons and neutrons in a really tiny cluster, with electrons orbiting them in several layers so fast, the atoms essentially look like balls of light emanating photons, gravitons, and bosons until you zoom in past those layers of electrons. Now, we're at the nucleus, where there's these particles, protons, clustered with other particles, neutrons. As one is neutral rather than charged, though, it isn't electromagnetism keeping them together in this cluster, but rather, something else. So, if we look in closer, we realize that protons and neutrons are not actually solid substances, but rather, some sort of energy field. If we imagine we're travelling through a medium that isn't decimated by traveling through such a field, we can look inside of it and see that this field is actually caused by rapidly moving quarks, essentially carving out a shell of energy out of timespace that we know as subatomic particles. The energy these quarks are releasing is in the form of gluons, and breaking a bond created by gluons releases the sort of energy found in atomic explosions.

I couldn't really call it a "gluon field," because, that doesn't sound right -- perhaps, a quark field would have been better. But, in learning more about this concept, I came across the paper I linked to you, in addition to several others. It explains how everything is essentially interference in this way, creating energy fields that manifest as reality.

This is what I was attempting to intimate to you...

...not that there's a gravitational pull between subatomic particles, because they don't emit gravitons... but, rather, that we can consider gluons analogous to gravitons on the sub-subatomic level. This is because quarks seem to be emanating gluons in the same way that atoms emanate gravitons, and the way the forces interact and cause attraction without repulsion coincides.

"Let me explain. There are 4 fundamental forces...that is why I listed the "4th and final force.""

Now, here, there is a serious issue with miscommunication and me conflating things that I probably shouldn't have without further explanation, because it would require for me to be this in depth in order to be clear.

Because we are discussing the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, we are discussing quantum physics. I'm pretty sure I've already said this several times, but quantum physics and classical physics are completely separate and require completely different considerations. Electromagnetic force and gravity have nothing to do with matter at the quantum level, and I was not suggesting that they do. This is why I facetiously stated that we never brought up fire or kinetic energy -- because, these are chemical interactions that occur at the macrocosmic level. In other words, I never brought up classical physics; I was attempting to explain a single aspect of quantum physics by comparing gluons to photons and gravitons.

"Wrong. Electromagnetism and Weak Nuclear forces act on subatomic particles as does gravity BUT it is overwhelmed by the other 3 forces. So long as something has MASS it is affected. And to be clear, I am referring to rest mass and not mass-energy equivalent."

This is completely, 100 percent false. Check here: http://library.thinkquest.org...

And, in this case, I do invite you to read the whole thing; as you'll see (and, this also confirms what I've explained above), atoms emit gravitons and are of comparable size to photons and electrons; thus, subatomic particles cannot possibly interact with photons, electrons, or gravitons, which are essentially the constituents of electromagnetism and gravity on a macrocosmic level.

On the other hand, you can consider the electron orbit around an atomic nucleus a field, and also consider atoms themselves a gravitational field comprised of gluons instead of gravitons, and thus, have a electromagnetic gravitational field... which only somewhat makes sense, I'll concede, but makes more sense than your assertion that gravity and electromagnetism interacts with subatomic particles.

"Subatomic particles manifest weak nuclear force, electromagnetic, and if they are nucleons then they may experience the strong nuclear force as well."

Technically, it's the atomic amalgamate that produces weak nuclear force; photons and electrons carry electromagnetic force; and all subatomic particles experience strong nuclear force, as it is what keeps quarks within their margins so the particles retain form.

2) Nothing EVER has been observed to exceed c in ANY medium. If you more CAREFULLY examine your claim, you will wee that what has happened is that they were able to propagate a signal through a substance at a higher speed than light travels through that same substance which is ALWAYS less than c.

Lol, if you were to examine my claim more carefully, you'll see that I never referred to the constant c, as that wouldn't make much sense, now would it? I said the speed of light, which, as well all know, can be relative.

On the other hand, I did indicate that all forces aside strong nuclear force are weak nuclear force. You never approached that, but it's 100% incorrect. That was my mistake; I had confused myself at some point during this slightly convoluted conversation.

In fact, all matter can manifest as weak nuclear force, not all energy. That is, if you remove almost all of the energy from a substance, there will be nothing left but bosons.

Whoo. 900 characters left, but I think that covered it.

Same page?

At 4/24/2012 3:11:34 AM, marcuscato wrote:
However according to my understanding(and i may be wrong, which is why I am asking), matter has wave nature for which it is not entirely meaningful to define an exact position. Isn't this demonstrated by the tunneling effect?I.e. there is no such thing as an exact position of a particle as opposed to our mere inability to find such a position.

When an electron strikes a detector, the exact position is known.

The difference is illustrated by:
a)We would be able to find the position of the particle with a perfectly passive device
(which did not affect the particles position,assuming we were able to build such a device,i.e. not using current principles of mesasurement,i.e. measurement by interference with a parameter which would not affect its position)

Yes, why not...But you would technically be rewriting the laws of physics with such a device.

b)It is not meaningful to talk about the position of matter.

How so? It is extremely useful in many circumstances.

On a completely unrelated note, Is it correct to say that no system can predict its own future?
(this was merely something that occurred to me)

Not sure what you mean by that. From a deterministic point of view, you cannot determine the future because you do not have access to all the "inputs" to the problem. Actually, you necessarily cannot have access to all of the inputs.
**********************************

At 4/24/2012 4:34:12 AM, baggins wrote:
Watson is not the kind of simulation I had in mind.

The way computer works is well understood. It has got a processor (which become thousands of processors for supercomputer) which keep executing commands. Computers are essentially deterministic. In fact, a pretty important class of problems in computer science is to generate random looking number.

How is this different from a person? It can be said that a person has a CPU or collection of CPUs (ie brain) and these execute commands (ie response to stimuli.) Not much different. Furthermore, how is a person not deterministic? If you do not have access to ALL the parameters of a computer program (ie just like you don't have access to these for a person) the program can be just as "indeterministic."

Also, random number generation is an interesting topic. What's very interesting is that things that are random in the short run tend to be predictable in the long run; and things that are random in the long run, tend to be predictable in the short run! Actually, random is a subjective term.

I was thinking about analyzing the working of a single neuron. Then we can simulate the neurons on the computer. We can start supplying input to it and see if the system gains consciousness or just spouts garbage.

But computers can simulate neurons and consciousness is an opinion about the state of a brain. If one accepts that a computer can simulate a brain, why can it not simulate consciousness? Granted, the simulations do not convince everyone; however, there are plenty of people out there that are many-a-neuron short of a brain!

If it gains consciousness in this way, determinism will be established. If it does not, then it may point to something missing from our understanding (it can always be faulty algorithm).

Not necessarily; as I said, consciousness is an opinion. Also, one might be able to simulate consciousness on a computer AND determinism not be true.

At present, biology is not in a position to provide the necessary data and algorithm to do this kind of simulation AFAIK.

Perhaps, but it may not have to work in the same way.

It is pretty easy to convince human beings. However that proves human gullibility rather than machine intelligence.

You are assuming that there is a difference between the two. Also, it shows that it's pretty easy to simulate humans as well!

I have played with 'doctor' on emacs. It is a variant of 'eliza'.
http://www-ai.ijs.si...

Yeah, but this is far from Watson.
********************************

At 4/24/2012 11:40:13 AM, Ren wrote:
Notice how, it becomes, for the lack of a better description, almost pixelated.

Huh? Why? In what way? This seems like an overly complicated way to make a point. I would like it if you could simplify and state it more clearly.

Well, if we attempt to reduce these particles even further (and, you can only reduce atoms -- so let's zoom into one now),...

Quarks, anyone?

...you have protons and neutrons in a really tiny cluster, with electrons orbiting them in several layers so fast, the atoms essentially look like balls of light emanating photons, gravitons, and bosons until you zoom in past those layers of electrons.

Well, maybe photons and gluons (in the nucleus) but any other bosons haven't been observed and certainly not gravitons.

Now, we're at the nucleus, where there's these particles, protons, clustered with other particles, neutrons. As one is neutral rather than charged, though, it isn't electromagnetism keeping them together in this cluster, but rather, something else.

That's right! It's actually electromagnetism that's trying to push them apart! But because the Strong Nuclear force is the STRONGEST of the fundamental forces, it overcomes Electromagnetism. As you know, protons are positive and like charges repel yet that Strong Nuclear force over comes it!

But what about Neutrons, they're neutral so do they repel from Protons which are positive? Why yes they do! And it's due to the fact that they have LIKE magnetic moment and thus repel! But that pesky Strong Nuclear Force wins the day!

So, if we look in closer, we realize that protons and neutrons are not actually solid substances, but rather, some sort of energy field.

Of course, as "solidity" has no meaning at these scales.

If we imagine we're travelling through a medium that isn't decimated by traveling through such a field, we can look inside of it and see that this field is actually caused by rapidly moving quarks, essentially carving out a shell of energy out of timespace that we know as subatomic particles. The energy these quarks are releasing is in the form of gluons, and breaking a bond created by gluons releases the sort of energy found in atomic explosions.

That's right!

I couldn't really call it a "gluon field," because, that doesn't sound right -- perhaps, a quark field would have been better. But, in learning more about this concept, I came across the paper I linked to you, in addition to several others. It explains how everything is essentially interference in this way, creating energy fields that manifest as reality.

A quark soup perhaps? Anyways, many quarks cannot exist on their own and must be paired up with others in order to be stably detected.

This is what I was attempting to intimate to you...

I don't have a problem with the minutia of the physics presented here, just the speculative "big picture" point of view.

...not that there's a gravitational pull between subatomic particles, because they don't emit gravitons... but, rather, that we can consider gluons analogous to gravitons on the sub-subatomic level.

You can make that equivocation but it's simply your opinion: gluons are NOT gravitons (if gravitons even exist to begin with.)

This is because quarks seem to be emanating gluons in the same way that atoms emanate gravitons, and the way the forces interact and cause attraction without repulsion coincides.

Sure, it coincides but are 2 very DISTINCT mechanisms.

Now, here, there is a serious issue with miscommunication and me conflating things that I probably shouldn't have without further explanation, because it would require for me to be this in depth in order to be clear.

Well, if you are familiar with the other 3 fundamental forces, why not become familiar with all? They are fundamental after all.

At 4/24/2012 11:40:13 AM, Ren wrote:
Because we are discussing the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, we are discussing quantum physics. I'm pretty sure I've already said this several times, but quantum physics and classical physics are completely separate and require completely different considerations.

Yes, but neither one on it's own is a complete description of nature...heck, even both together aren't a complete description! So we must take BOTH into account to get the biggest picture.

Electromagnetic force and gravity have nothing to do with matter at the quantum level, and I was not suggesting that they do.

And you are wrong as electromagnetism IS one of the most active forces on the quantum level: light, magnetism, etc. However, gravity I agree has little to do with the quantum world BUT there are quantum theories of gravity out there: QG, String, M, etc. Also there is a STARK difference between the Strong Force and Gravity: and that is range. Gravity is INFINITE in range and the Strong Force is confined to the almost infinitesimal nucleus of an atom.

"Wrong. Electromagnetism and Weak Nuclear forces act on subatomic particles as does gravity BUT it is overwhelmed by the other 3 forces. So long as something has MASS it is affected. And to be clear, I am referring to rest mass and not mass-energy equivalent."

This is completely, 100 percent false. Check here: http://library.thinkquest.org...

Tisk tisk. Quote from YOUR link:
"Gravity, the weakest of the four forces, is about 10e-36 times the strength of the strong force."
As I said, gravity is the weakest of the forces. This makes my above statement 50% correct.

Now the next quote from your own link:
"However, the range of gravity is unlimited - every object in the universe exerts a gravitational force on everything else."
This makes my above statement another 50% correct; ie 100% correct.
Epic fail.

And, in this case, I do invite you to read the whole thing; as you'll see (and, this also confirms what I've explained above), atoms emit gravitons and are of comparable size to photons and electrons; thus, subatomic particles cannot possibly interact with photons, electrons, or gravitons, which are essentially the constituents of electromagnetism and gravity on a macrocosmic level.

Wrong again. Firstly, I know the 4 fundamental forces by heart; ergo I do not need to read the link in its entirety but I did anyways to show you how you are wrong.
1) You said "...this also confirms what I've explained above), atoms emit gravitons..." Yet a moment ago you said that gravity and electromagnetism do not operate on the quantum level.
2) Who told you that gravitons, photons, and gluons are of comparible size? No where in the link does that information appear. What does appear is the fact that gravitons have NEVER been observed (which I told you earlier).

I think that you are assuming that because these particles are mass less that they somehow are the same size. Size and mass are NOT equivalent.

On the other hand, you can consider the electron orbit around an atomic nucleus a field, and also consider atoms themselves a gravitational field comprised of gluons instead of gravitons, and thus, have a electromagnetic gravitational field...

That would be a poor consideration because it fails on so many levels. Just the fact that given any atom, if the nucleus were the size of a grape, the closest orbiting electron would be a mile away! The extent of the Strong Force ends at the grape whereas if it were gravity it would go on indefinitely!

which only somewhat makes sense, I'll concede, but makes more sense than your assertion that gravity and electromagnetism interacts with subatomic particles.

Read your own link and tell me where it says that things with mass are NOT affected by gravity. Fail again.

Technically, it's the atomic amalgamate that produces weak nuclear force; photons and electrons carry electromagnetic force; and all subatomic particles experience strong nuclear force, as it is what keeps quarks within their margins so the particles retain form.

Weak nuclear force is responsible for particle decay NOT just nucleon decay. Read your link.

Lol, if you were to examine my claim more carefully, you'll see that I never referred to the constant c, as that wouldn't make much sense, now would it? I said the speed of light, which, as well all know, can be relative.

Equivocate much? By now your pedals should be broken from all the back pedaling. Your point was that c was exceeded OTHERWISE what was your point and how was it related to the topic at hand?

On the other hand, I did indicate that all forces aside strong nuclear force are weak nuclear force. You never approached that, but it's 100% incorrect. That was my mistake; I had confused myself at some point during this slightly convoluted conversation.

Probably I never answered because i have no idea what you mean by "all forces aside strong nuclear force are weak nuclear force."

In fact, all matter can manifest as weak nuclear force, not all energy. That is, if you remove almost all of the energy from a substance, there will be nothing left but bosons.

I'm still not getting your point. Please explain.

So, here's something I've been wondering about.

What precisely is meant when we say we "observe" or "measure" the velocity/position of a particle. Is it just looking with your two eyes at a double-slit or does it happen only when you have some sort of electronic detector?

At 4/25/2012 8:34:00 PM, Wnope wrote:
So, here's something I've been wondering about.

What precisely is meant when we say we "observe" or "measure" the velocity/position of a particle. Is it just looking with your two eyes at a double-slit or does it happen only when you have some sort of electronic detector?

You referring to the double-slit experiment?

As in, the fact that it acts as a particle sometimes, and as a wave others, and you're wondering how it's proven that it's acting as a particle if you still can't determine exactly where it is (so, how can you prove that it's even there) -- am I getting you right?

If that's the case, then it's like this:

If you cut two slits in a piece of cardboard with a photographic plate on the other side and shine a beam of light directly at the slits, but you're unsure of the exact trajectory of the light, then the pattern that will show up on the photographic plate will evidence interference, like a wave. However, if you know the trajectory of the light beam as it shines through the slits, the photographic plate will show two splats of photons that struck the plate in shotgun fashion, as though a bunch of particles cascaded through each slit.

Such is the essence of particle-wave duality.

I'm almost certain one could never observe an atom, much less a subatomic particle.

At 4/26/2012 10:26:34 AM, Ren wrote:

At 4/25/2012 8:34:00 PM, Wnope wrote:
So, here's something I've been wondering about.

What precisely is meant when we say we "observe" or "measure" the velocity/position of a particle. Is it just looking with your two eyes at a double-slit or does it happen only when you have some sort of electronic detector?

You referring to the double-slit experiment?

As in, the fact that it acts as a particle sometimes, and as a wave others, and you're wondering how it's proven that it's acting as a particle if you still can't determine exactly where it is (so, how can you prove that it's even there) -- am I getting you right?

If that's the case, then it's like this:

If you cut two slits in a piece of cardboard with a photographic plate on the other side and shine a beam of light directly at the slits, but you're unsure of the exact trajectory of the light, then the pattern that will show up on the photographic plate will evidence interference, like a wave. However, if you know the trajectory of the light beam as it shines through the slits, the photographic plate will show two splats of photons that struck the plate in shotgun fashion, as though a bunch of particles cascaded through each slit.

Such is the essence of particle-wave duality.

I'm almost certain one could never observe an atom, much less a subatomic particle.

So what does it mean to "know" the trajectory of the light beam? Is it something a scientists simply notes beforehand and then tries the double slit?

When I hear about QM, I keep feeling like people are conflating something they shouldn't be. For instance, in What the Bleep do We Know, a "detector" for the double slit looks like this: http://i.ytimg.com...

That "detector" however doesn't seem to differentiate between the machine that observes and the person using the machine.

I'm interested in whether you just need the detector, if someone has to be watching the read out of the detector or the like in order for particles to act differently.

Basically, if we sent out a "measuring probe" that goes into space to and automatically conduct the double slit experiment without input from people, would we see the same effect? Or does a conscious being have to do the measuring/observing before that effect occurs?

At 4/26/2012 12:38:13 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 4/26/2012 10:26:34 AM, Ren wrote:

At 4/25/2012 8:34:00 PM, Wnope wrote:
So, here's something I've been wondering about.

What precisely is meant when we say we "observe" or "measure" the velocity/position of a particle. Is it just looking with your two eyes at a double-slit or does it happen only when you have some sort of electronic detector?

You referring to the double-slit experiment?

As in, the fact that it acts as a particle sometimes, and as a wave others, and you're wondering how it's proven that it's acting as a particle if you still can't determine exactly where it is (so, how can you prove that it's even there) -- am I getting you right?

If that's the case, then it's like this:

If you cut two slits in a piece of cardboard with a photographic plate on the other side and shine a beam of light directly at the slits, but you're unsure of the exact trajectory of the light, then the pattern that will show up on the photographic plate will evidence interference, like a wave. However, if you know the trajectory of the light beam as it shines through the slits, the photographic plate will show two splats of photons that struck the plate in shotgun fashion, as though a bunch of particles cascaded through each slit.

Such is the essence of particle-wave duality.

I'm almost certain one could never observe an atom, much less a subatomic particle.

So what does it mean to "know" the trajectory of the light beam? Is it something a scientists simply notes beforehand and then tries the double slit?

When I hear about QM, I keep feeling like people are conflating something they shouldn't be. For instance, in What the Bleep do We Know, a "detector" for the double slit looks like this: http://i.ytimg.com...

That "detector" however doesn't seem to differentiate between the machine that observes and the person using the machine.

I'm interested in whether you just need the detector, if someone has to be watching the read out of the detector or the like in order for particles to act differently.

Basically, if we sent out a "measuring probe" that goes into space to and automatically conduct the double slit experiment without input from people, would we see the same effect? Or does a conscious being have to do the measuring/observing before that effect occurs?

Errr.

I don't know what you just linked me, but no.

Trajectory of photons are measured by determining momentum based on measured position given a series of planes, then reconstructed along a straight, tight trajectory as a group of molecules.

It's like... almost like defining frames in a cartoon as a mathematical statement with a series of definitions for each variable (one for each frame), then animating that cartoon using another equation. In this way, we infer the trajectory of particles. Under the same conditions, we have no reason to believe that it wouldn't maintain the same trajectory. So, if scientists are told beforehand that they are measuring for particles and therefore, ascertain the trajectory of the particles, the pattern on the photographic plate on the other side of the cardboard with the slits in it will show to groups of photons roughly the shape of the slits that blur at the edges -- essentially, they behave like particles.

If, on the other hand, the scientists are told nothing, or they're measuring specifically for waves, the pattern that will show up on the photographic plate will be four spots that alternate -- faded, intense, faded, intense. This is an interference pattern -- one evidentiary of a wave that weakens as it cancels itself out as opposite spectrums collide, and intensify when the same spectrums collide, which would occur when the light exiting from the slits would do if they were waves.

At 4/26/2012 12:55:08 PM, Ren wrote:

At 4/26/2012 12:38:13 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 4/26/2012 10:26:34 AM, Ren wrote:

At 4/25/2012 8:34:00 PM, Wnope wrote:
So, here's something I've been wondering about.

What precisely is meant when we say we "observe" or "measure" the velocity/position of a particle. Is it just looking with your two eyes at a double-slit or does it happen only when you have some sort of electronic detector?

You referring to the double-slit experiment?

As in, the fact that it acts as a particle sometimes, and as a wave others, and you're wondering how it's proven that it's acting as a particle if you still can't determine exactly where it is (so, how can you prove that it's even there) -- am I getting you right?

If that's the case, then it's like this:

If you cut two slits in a piece of cardboard with a photographic plate on the other side and shine a beam of light directly at the slits, but you're unsure of the exact trajectory of the light, then the pattern that will show up on the photographic plate will evidence interference, like a wave. However, if you know the trajectory of the light beam as it shines through the slits, the photographic plate will show two splats of photons that struck the plate in shotgun fashion, as though a bunch of particles cascaded through each slit.

Such is the essence of particle-wave duality.

I'm almost certain one could never observe an atom, much less a subatomic particle.

So what does it mean to "know" the trajectory of the light beam? Is it something a scientists simply notes beforehand and then tries the double slit?

When I hear about QM, I keep feeling like people are conflating something they shouldn't be. For instance, in What the Bleep do We Know, a "detector" for the double slit looks like this: http://i.ytimg.com...

That "detector" however doesn't seem to differentiate between the machine that observes and the person using the machine.

I'm interested in whether you just need the detector, if someone has to be watching the read out of the detector or the like in order for particles to act differently.

Basically, if we sent out a "measuring probe" that goes into space to and automatically conduct the double slit experiment without input from people, would we see the same effect? Or does a conscious being have to do the measuring/observing before that effect occurs?

Errr.

I don't know what you just linked me, but no.

Trajectory of photons are measured by determining momentum based on measured position given a series of planes, then reconstructed along a straight, tight trajectory as a group of molecules.

It's like... almost like defining frames in a cartoon as a mathematical statement with a series of definitions for each variable (one for each frame), then animating that cartoon using another equation. In this way, we infer the trajectory of particles. Under the same conditions, we have no reason to believe that it wouldn't maintain the same trajectory. So, if scientists are told beforehand that they are measuring for particles and therefore, ascertain the trajectory of the particles, the pattern on the photographic plate on the other side of the cardboard with the slits in it will show to groups of photons roughly the shape of the slits that blur at the edges -- essentially, they behave like particles.

If, on the other hand, the scientists are told nothing, or they're measuring specifically for waves, the pattern that will show up on the photographic plate will be four spots that alternate -- faded, intense, faded, intense. This is an interference pattern -- one evidentiary of a wave that weakens as it cancels itself out as opposite spectrums collide, and intensify when the same spectrums collide, which would occur when the light exiting from the slits would do if they were waves.

Thanks for bearing with me here. It's not easy to find someone who actually knows what they're talking about in QM.

"they are measuring for particles and therefore, ascertain the trajectory of the particles"

Alright, now when you say "ascertain the trajectory" is that just scientists jotting some equations down using the original position of the photons or does it involve some measuring device or physical interaction?

That is, what is it about the "knowing" that triggers the particle-wave to act differently than it otherwise would.

What's the difference between "measuring for waves" and beforehand doing some calculations to infer particle trajectory?

At 4/26/2012 1:04:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
That is, what is it about the "knowing" that triggers the particle-wave to act differently than it otherwise would.

There is NOTHING about knowing that triggers anything. It's the measurement that interferes with the results. It's just that some folks take the Copenhagen interpretation of QM a bit too far.

What's the difference between "measuring for waves" and beforehand doing some calculations to infer particle trajectory?

You compute trajectories you need position and velocity BUT you cannot acquire these with much accuracy: if you measure for position, you will have changed it's velocity & vice versa. Get it?

At 4/26/2012 1:04:25 PM, Wnope wrote:

Thanks for bearing with me here. It's not easy to find someone who actually knows what they're talking about in QM.

"they are measuring for particles and therefore, ascertain the trajectory of the particles"

Alright, now when you say "ascertain the trajectory" is that just scientists jotting some equations down using the original position of the photons or does it involve some measuring device or physical interaction?

Scientists jotting down some equations using the original position of the photons.

The double-slit experiment involves no more than an impermeable object with two slits cut in it, a light source directing a beam of light at the slits, and a photographic plate (hooked up to a computer) on the side of the object to capture the photons emit from the slits and determine the pattern they make, which will evidence whether they're behaving like particles or waves.

That is, what is it about the "knowing" that triggers the particle-wave to act differently than it otherwise would.

If there's an answer to that, I don't know it. :\

It's one of the first things that got me really into physics, as the matter of fact. I was reading about all kinds of shiit and came across particle-wave duality. It confused and fascinated me enough to research it, and I just kept going.

In all this time (like, 4 or 5 years), I've never encountered an answer to that question.

It bleeds into my spirituality and all this. Lol.

But, then again, lots of things I've learned about physics do.

Suffice to say that, according to quantum physics, reality doesn't exist until you observe it, and unobserved matter is in a state of flux between its potential states.

What's the difference between "measuring for waves" and beforehand doing some calculations to infer particle trajectory?

Man, I don't even know.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that we basically create reality as we interpret it. Or, that the act of the interpreting reality defines the state that reality is in, out of its potential states that it exists in superposition until defined.

At 4/26/2012 1:54:38 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

At 4/26/2012 1:04:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
That is, what is it about the "knowing" that triggers the particle-wave to act differently than it otherwise would.

There is NOTHING about knowing that triggers anything. It's the measurement that interferes with the results. It's just that some folks take the Copenhagen interpretation of QM a bit too far.

What's the difference between "measuring for waves" and beforehand doing some calculations to infer particle trajectory?

You compute trajectories you need position and velocity BUT you cannot acquire these with much accuracy: if you measure for position, you will have changed it's velocity & vice versa. Get it?

I understand the "in order to detect a particle, it must interact with the measuring device" which leads to uncertainty regarding velocity/position.

But, Young's Double Slit for instance, what precisely is it that changes the wave-particle duality? The quantum mystics say that simply consciously observing that makes the wave-particle act differently.

Is it the physical presence of photo detectors? The presence of conscious being to read the results of the detectors? Eyeballs staring in the direction of the double-slit?

At 4/28/2012 4:52:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
I understand the "in order to detect a particle, it must interact with the measuring device" which leads to uncertainty regarding velocity/position.

But, Young's Double Slit for instance, what precisely is it that changes the wave-particle duality?

Nothing really changes the wave-particle duality, it's just that 1 of the 2 aspects of the system is revealed. Again: the DETECTION is what causes this to happen. If you do NOT detect (ie interfere) which one of the slits the electron went through, then the wave aspect will remain unchanged.

The quantum mystics say that simply consciously observing that makes the wave-particle act differently.

That's those who take the Copenhagen interpretation too literally.

Is it the physical presence of photo detectors?

Of course: these detectors INTERFERE with the electrons.

The presence of conscious being to read the results of the detectors?

Hell no.

Eyeballs staring in the direction of the double-slit?

Only if the eye balls block the path of the electrons.

Why would anyone's thoughts affect anything? Since when can one think something into existence? This is ludicrous and an annoying aspect of "pop-physics". Some might point to the difference between knowledge and thought or belief but is there a difference from our point of view? No, there is not. There is no mechanism in the human mind (or brain) that assures that your thoughts or what you THINK something to be (ie knowledge) is guaranteed to be true. There have been many a person that has held false or incorrect knowledge throughout history: present company not excluded. Unlike nature: gravity never mistakenly forgets to make objects fall, light never forgets to travel at c in a vacuum, etc. Our knowledge of an event isn't what affects the physics but rather the EVENT itself (ie interference.)

At 4/30/2012 9:04:35 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:

At 4/28/2012 4:52:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
I understand the "in order to detect a particle, it must interact with the measuring device" which leads to uncertainty regarding velocity/position.

But, Young's Double Slit for instance, what precisely is it that changes the wave-particle duality?

Nothing really changes the wave-particle duality, it's just that 1 of the 2 aspects of the system is revealed. Again: the DETECTION is what causes this to happen. If you do NOT detect (ie interfere) which one of the slits the electron went through, then the wave aspect will remain unchanged.

The quantum mystics say that simply consciously observing that makes the wave-particle act differently.

That's those who take the Copenhagen interpretation too literally.

Is it the physical presence of photo detectors?

Of course: these detectors INTERFERE with the electrons.

The presence of conscious being to read the results of the detectors?

Hell no.

Eyeballs staring in the direction of the double-slit?

Only if the eye balls block the path of the electrons.

Why would anyone's thoughts affect anything? Since when can one think something into existence? This is ludicrous and an annoying aspect of "pop-physics". Some might point to the difference between knowledge and thought or belief but is there a difference from our point of view? No, there is not. There is no mechanism in the human mind (or brain) that assures that your thoughts or what you THINK something to be (ie knowledge) is guaranteed to be true. There have been many a person that has held false or incorrect knowledge throughout history: present company not excluded. Unlike nature: gravity never mistakenly forgets to make objects fall, light never forgets to travel at c in a vacuum, etc. Our knowledge of an event isn't what affects the physics but rather the EVENT itself (ie interference.)

I honestly had no idea how the brain would interact to collapses a wave function, that's precisely why I've been so skeptical of the quantum mystics.

The idea always struck me as problematic especially when I heard about schrodingers cat. For the quantum mystics, I ask what exactly the state of Schrodingers cat would be if instead of a cat we placed a midget in the box.

The mystic would say that because you do not see inside the box, the midget may be dead or alive. However, we if reverse the procedure to create "Schrodinger's Room" where everything OUTSIDE the box may or may not become toxic due to a decaying atom. The mystic would be forced to say that the midget's viewpoint decides whether everything inside Schrodingers room is dead or alive (including the observer/"you").

At 4/30/2012 9:04:35 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Nothing really changes the wave-particle duality, it's just that 1 of the 2 aspects of the system is revealed. Again: the DETECTION is what causes this to happen. If you do NOT detect (ie interfere) which one of the slits the electron went through, then the wave aspect will remain unchanged.

I don't know what you mean here, but it seems to contradict what I understand to be the double-slit experiment, and how it denotes particle-wave duality.

We never actually observe photons. This never happens, as it is impossible.

We observe the pattern that photons make when they collect on the surface of a photographic plate after passing through two slits. If their trajectory is altogether indeterminate, then they will behave as waves and create an interference pattern. If, instead, their trajectory is known, they will behave like particles, and will not create an interference pattern on the photographic plate.

The quantum mystics say that simply consciously observing that makes the wave-particle act differently.

That's those who take the Copenhagen interpretation too literally.

What do you mean, here?

Is it the physical presence of photo detectors?

Of course: these detectors INTERFERE with the electrons.

Well... I'd say, more like, they trap them and evidence certain properties about them.

The presence of conscious being to read the results of the detectors?

Hell no.

Why not?

Eyeballs staring in the direction of the double-slit?

Only if the eye balls block the path of the electrons.

Why would anyone's thoughts affect anything? Since when can one think something into existence? This is ludicrous and an annoying aspect of "pop-physics". Some might point to the difference between knowledge and thought or belief but is there a difference from our point of view? No, there is not. There is no mechanism in the human mind (or brain) that assures that your thoughts or what you THINK something to be (ie knowledge) is guaranteed to be true. There have been many a person that has held false or incorrect knowledge throughout history: present company not excluded. Unlike nature: gravity never mistakenly forgets to make objects fall, light never forgets to travel at c in a vacuum, etc. Our knowledge of an event isn't what affects the physics but rather the EVENT itself (ie interference.)

I'm not sure whether it's a person's thought's, necessarily, but perhaps some other fundamental interference that has something to do with out interacting energies, perhaps.

Which, of course, is fact, and is known to affect them on other ways, so it isn't a very extraordinary idea.

At 4/30/2012 1:50:25 PM, Wnope wrote:

I honestly had no idea how the brain would interact to collapses a wave function, that's precisely why I've been so skeptical of the quantum mystics.

Collapses wave function?

Well... I guess that's one way of putting it, yes.

Perhaps, another way of putting it is that reality is conceivable through a wave function and your brain applies a transformation to that function that essentially collapses it into what we interpret as reality. I think that's closer to what scientists have discovered.

I mean... you and tBoone seem to be bouncing between two extreme interpretations -- either reality is completely autonomous, or it's manifested by interpretation -- when I think it's actually a blend.

Like, perhaps our mind fills in blanks to make sense of what it detects, and prevent vulnerability to what it cannot.

The idea always struck me as problematic especially when I heard about schrodingers cat. For the quantum mystics, I ask what exactly the state of Schrodingers cat would be if instead of a cat we placed a midget in the box.

It doesn't quite work that way.

The point of Schrodinger's Cat was initially to indicate a weakness in the theory -- that, essentially, if there were a condition that were entirely contingent on an event that has an equal likelihood of occurring and not occurring, and it were impossible to perceive that event as it happens, then it would require that it's applied to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Equation as a largely unknown variable; this would translate in real terms as matter in flux between two states, or in a state known as superposition.

To retort, physicists that support the theory indicates that yes; this is actually the case, given it requires someone to perceive the cat in precisely the way we perceive it in order to deduce that it is a cat, or alive, in the first place, and not, say, a series of particles interacting just so, which would be the case whether or not the cat were alive.

Given that these series of particles can assume any of its possible states at any time, and in some instances, seems to assume many or all of its states at the same time, it is not inconceivable to believe that the cat can be simultaneously dead and alive, atomically speaking, until it is perceived macrocosmically.

The mystic would say that because you do not see inside the box, the midget may be dead or alive. However, we if reverse the procedure to create "Schrodinger's Room" where everything OUTSIDE the box may or may not become toxic due to a decaying atom. The mystic would be forced to say that the midget's viewpoint decides whether everything inside Schrodingers room is dead or alive (including the observer/"you").

At 4/30/2012 1:50:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
I honestly had no idea how the brain would interact to collapses a wave function, that's precisely why I've been so skeptical of the quantum mystics.

Skepticism can be a healthy thing. However, do not throw the baby out with the bath water. What I mean is that while we may not all agree on the various interpretations of QM we cannot throw out QM.

The idea always struck me as problematic especially when I heard about schrodingers cat. For the quantum mystics, I ask what exactly the state of Schrodingers cat would be if instead of a cat we placed a midget in the box.

Hehehe! As long as it's not Peter Dinklage, I'm fine with that!

The mystic would say that because you do not see inside the box, the midget may be dead or alive. However, we if reverse the procedure to create "Schrodinger's Room" where everything OUTSIDE the box may or may not become toxic due to a decaying atom. The mystic would be forced to say that the midget's viewpoint decides whether everything inside Schrodingers room is dead or alive (including the observer/"you").

It's just a way to explain the CLEAR contradiction that exists: dead/alive; on/off; true/false; etc.
*****************************

At 4/30/2012 2:04:27 PM, Ren wrote:
I don't know what you mean here, but it seems to contradict what I understand to be the double-slit experiment, and how it denotes particle-wave duality.

We never actually observe photons. This never happens, as it is impossible.

Semantics. What do you call it when the photons hit the detector? I call it "see" or detect. Also, when one blocks on of the slits with a detector or anything else for that matter: it's the same thing.

We observe the pattern that photons make when they collect on the surface of a photographic plate after passing through two slits.

Ie, we observe, see, etc.

If their trajectory is altogether indeterminate, then they will behave as waves and create an interference pattern.

Ie, we do NOT block the slit with a detector, plate, etc.

If, instead, their trajectory is known, they will behave like particles, and will not create an interference pattern on the photographic plate.

Ie, we DO block the slit with a detector, plate, etc.

So far there's no difference between what you've said and I've said, as far as I can tell.

That's those who take the Copenhagen interpretation too literally.

What do you mean, here?

Those that believe that consciousness causes collapse or any other "wacky" interpretation like MWI etc.

Well... I'd say, more like, they trap them and evidence certain properties about them.

Tomato, tomato, potato, potato. Same difference. Again, only semantics here.

The presence of conscious being to read the results of the detectors?

Hell no.

Why not?

Because the results will be the same whether you or I are there to "read: them. The Universe has functioned for over 13 billion years without our "observations." As some famous guy once said: the moon is still there whether we look at it or not.

Of course, this is not falsifiable EITHER way so it cannot be proven EITHER way. So what are we left with: (1) a perfectly logical explanation that follows everything else we've observed about the universe or (2) a coo-coo mystical explanation that CANNOT be shown to be true. I think I'll take the first: all else equal, the simplest explanation always seems to be the right one.

I'm not sure whether it's a person's thought's, necessarily, but perhaps some other fundamental interference that has something to do with out interacting energies, perhaps.

More of number 2 as shown above, (pun intended.) Or maybe it's our physical interference...I'll stick with 1.

Which, of course, is fact, and is known to affect them on other ways, so it isn't a very extraordinary idea.

What is a fact? That our "consciousness" directly affect the out come of physical reality and NOT our physical interference? Poppycock!

At 4/27/2012 10:31:06 AM, Ren wrote:

At 4/26/2012 1:04:25 PM, Wnope wrote:

Thanks for bearing with me here. It's not easy to find someone who actually knows what they're talking about in QM.

"they are measuring for particles and therefore, ascertain the trajectory of the particles"

Alright, now when you say "ascertain the trajectory" is that just scientists jotting some equations down using the original position of the photons or does it involve some measuring device or physical interaction?

Scientists jotting down some equations using the original position of the photons.

Okay, nowait.

In terms of actual observation, to test momentum and position, there is an actual machine that intercepts photons to gauge its momentum.

The degree to which the momentum is understood (precise measurement/average measurement/estimated measurement) was directly proportional to the degree to which the photons acted like particles.

At 4/30/2012 2:04:27 PM, Ren wrote:
I don't know what you mean here, but it seems to contradict what I understand to be the double-slit experiment, and how it denotes particle-wave duality.

We never actually observe photons. This never happens, as it is impossible.

Semantics. What do you call it when the photons hit the detector? I call it "see" or detect. Also, when one use a detector to block one of the slits (or uses anything to block the slit) it's the same thing.

We observe the pattern that photons make when they collect on the surface of a photographic plate after passing through two slits.

Ie, we observe, see, etc.

If their trajectory is altogether indeterminate, then they will behave as waves and create an interference pattern.

Ie, we do NOT block the slit with a detector, plate, etc.

If, instead, their trajectory is known, they will behave like particles, and will not create an interference pattern on the photographic plate.

Ie, we DO block the slit with a detector, plate, etc.

So far there's no difference between what you've said and I've said, as far as I can tell.

That's those who take the Copenhagen interpretation too literally.

What do you mean, here?

Those that believe that consciousness causes collapse or any other "wacky" interpretation like MWI etc.

Well... I'd say, more like, they trap them and evidence certain properties about them.

Tomato, tomato, potato, potato. Same difference. Again, only semantics here.

The presence of conscious being to read the results of the detectors?

Hell no.

Why not?

Because the results will be the same whether you or I are there to "read" them. The Universe has functioned for over 13 billion years without our "observations." As some famous guy once said: the moon is still there whether we look at it or not.

Of course, this is not falsifiable EITHER way, so it cannot be proven EITHER way. So what are we left with: (1) a perfectly logical explanation that follows everything else we've observed about the universe or (2) a coo-coo mystical explanation that CANNOT be shown to be true. I think I'll take the first: all else equal, the simplest explanation always tends to be the right one.

I'm not sure whether it's a person's thought's, necessarily, but perhaps some other fundamental interference that has something to do with out interacting energies, perhaps.

More of number 2 as shown above, (pun intended.) Or maybe it's our physical interference...I'll stick with 1.

Which, of course, is fact, and is known to affect them on other ways, so it isn't a very extraordinary idea.

What is a fact? That our "consciousness" somehow directly affects the outcome of physical reality INSTEAD of our physical interference? Poppycock!