1
   

"God does not play dice":

 
 
Tes yeux noirs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:58 pm
What bemuses me is how some people seem to think that quantum physics is somehow optional, that they can choose whether to believe it or not, like Creationists regard evolution.
0 Replies
 
Heermosi
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2016 11:44 pm
@dinogruppuso,
Hi boys, you may provide exact details on "the dual slit experiments".
I'm quite interested in a solution to this.
Einstein would be happy if some one solve this(well some one would be unhappy if I solve this).
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2016 12:16 am
@Heermosi,
'Problems' seem to arise if the role of 'the observer' is ignored. When you consider that 'an observer' is axiomatic to the definition of 'an experiment', that is surely the starting point of subsequent discussion. Whether that 'God's Eye View' (the observation of observation) can be ever be more than speculative, is the the central issue surrounding the evolution of theistic mythology ...Einstein/Spinoza's 'God' being no exception.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2016 05:29 am
@Heermosi,
The best book I have read on the subject... that does a pretty good job of explaining the experiments behind Quantum Mechanics without the need for the math, is "In Search of Schrodinger's cat". The author starts with the wave-particle nature of light and explains how Physicists started experiments on matter.

If you want a laypersons understanding, I would recommend this book.

I could start explaining here... but discussions here tend to devolve.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2016 12:15 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
But Quantum Mechanics is at the core of modern semiconductors. They were developed using Quantum Mechanics and they work with Quantum mechanics. That is the irony in this thread.

I think you and tes are building a bit of a straw man with this.

Quantum Mechanics as often used in these threads is used for shorthand for the things we don't really understand about it, stuff like spooky action at a distance, entangled particles, etc. THAT has virtually nothing to do with semiconductor practice.

Actual QM is just the theory and practice of subatomic particle behavior so I could just as correctly say that without QM, we wouldn't have electricity let alone computers.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2016 12:32 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Quantum Mechanics as often used in these threads is used for shorthand for the things we don't really understand about it, stuff like spooky action at a distance, entangled particles, etc. THAT has virtually nothing to do with semiconductor practice.


Quantum Mechanics is based on a mathematical model that is very good at making predictions of how Physics works at a small scale. "Spooky Action at a distance" is predicted by this mathematical model... and now it has been confirmed (pretty conclusively) by experiment.

The mathematics that predicts "spooky action at a distance" is the same mathematics that is used to design and produce semiconductors. Not only has this application of the mathematics been confirmed by experiment, you are using it right now.

It is not a strawman at all.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2016 01:13 pm
@maxdancona,
Jeez, you are as bad as the Neo Darwinists who think they have proof of god's non existence because they 'have the fossils to prove it'.

As better physicists than you or I have said,
"If you think you understand Quantum Physics, you don't".
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2016 02:22 pm
@Leadfoot,
'Understand' ? Laughing
That's a bit rich coming from someone who thinks 'logic' is the chief arbiter of 'understanding'. It is of course the very 'illogicality' of QM coupled with its operational utility, which Einstein refused to accept for most of his life, reflected by his absolutist metaphor about 'God not playing dice'.

Not only does the QM reference cited by Max above, deal with the inextricability of observer and observed, but also touches the related lay concept of 'observer independent reality', an epistemological and ontological issue familiar to philosophers, and hinted at by Bohr's 'not understanding' quotation. Indeed Berkeley could only 'get round' that one by postulating 'God' as 'omniscient observer'....the irony being that to understand what he thought 'reality' was about, Berkeley needed to resort to an entity which surpasseth all understanding!

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2016 03:53 pm
@fresco,
Quote:

'Understand' ? Laughing
That's a bit rich coming from someone who thinks 'logic' is the chief arbiter of 'understanding'. It is of course the very 'illogicality' of QM coupled with its operational utility, which Einstein refused to accept for most of his life, reflected by his absolutist metaphor about 'God not playing dice'.

I don't think I ever said that but on to the point which your post illustrates pretty well.

Yes, there are aspects of QM that appear to be illogical to us but only because we lack the underlying 'logic' of it. Maybe someday we will have that but what I'm saying is that it is not those 'illogical' aspects of QM that give it its utility in semiconductors and computers. Chip design is all about certainty of the outcome, observed or not.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2016 12:06 am
@Leadfoot,
Getting to grips with the 'illogicality' of QM is not about ultimately 'discovering' hitherto hidden normative physical processes (as Einstein hoped), its about appreciating the role of the observer in constructing what we call 'reality'. That appreciation touches on the inapplicability of traditional logic with its axioms of fixed set membership. Set membership is a function of shifting observational context.

Note too that in general terms, set membership boils down to IS-ness or THINGHOOD, or indeed what we mean by 'existence''.
0 Replies
 
Heermosi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2016 02:02 am
@maxdancona,
Well, that's not the cases that we did not talk about something pratical.
Though I'm not a physicist, my ability is only to encourage others to think and derive things.

I originally thought the wave-particle nature can be easily solved but I'm wrong.

The original solution is, the particles itself takes some kind of wave energy inside it(like a wavelet) other than its motion energy. Thus even if they were particles, they can still be observed as if they were waves. (and in this assumption, there are not only particles that would carry waves, there is also another kind of wave----field wave)

How did the observer interference with the particles? The observer used active readings, so that they cannot prevent from altering the wave inside the particles.(So that it's quite necessary to make clear that how did they 'observe')

However, there is a sole flaw in the explaination that some experiment let the single particles pass one by one and the interference can still be observed.

I must get to some more details on how these experiments carried out.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2016 02:23 am
@Heermosi,
You don't get it!
In QM there's no IT which is either 'particle or 'wave' or both...there is only an INTERPRETATION OF AN OBSERVATION in terms of 'particle-ness' or 'wave-ness'. Since we are socially programmed with human language with its category 'noun', in most cases it is functional to fill that category with' independently existing things' . That majority of cases can be understood by the commonality of human perceptual apparatus, and common concepts of functionality. But problems arise (a) with functionality when it comes to, say, 'religious entities' and (b) when the postulated entities involved in perception, like 'photons' ,are themselves subject to analysis.
Heermosi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2016 03:16 am
@fresco,
We can only guess and choose one that suits most and one that easiest to understand.
0 Replies
 
Heermosi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2016 03:52 am
@fresco,
We are talking about QM experiments, but this does not mean there should be solely one explaination to it.

You may deny there would be any nature of particle or wave in microscope. I may accept something like this. A scientific discussion should not repel 'possible' solutions unless being given the proof.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2016 04:53 am
@Heermosi,
You still don't get it, because..
(1) 'proof' still assumes something about the nature of 'evidence ' and that is a point which QM deals with respect to 'evidence gathering'.
(2)you have not understood that QM questions the very nature of what constitutes a satisfactory 'explanation'.



0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2016 06:15 am
@Heermosi,
You have to understand that Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical model. What matters is the math. Quantum Mechanics was developed from a mathematical construct where mathematical functions used to describe wave interference were applied to matter. This led to a mathematical equation called the Schrodinger's equation.

This mathematical model was then tested by experiment. Physicists said... "If this mathematical model is accurate, then when we do this, the result should be this". They made predictions. Then they build equipment to run the experiments. They did the math and published the results.

Then engineers said... oh, if that is true then if we build a device like this, than we can make it have this behavior. The Engineers at Bell Labs used the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics to develop the transistor.

So Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical model that has been confirmed by lots of experiments to be able to predict the behavior at a sub-atomic scale.

Don't miss the point that this is a mathematical model. Without understanding the math, or the experiments used to test the mathematical model, you won't be able to understand the discussion of "observers". The words you have read about the observer affecting the measurement is due to a strange consequence of work, I believe first done by Heisenburg, which shows that a particle can be in multiple states.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2016 06:22 am
@Heermosi,
The best introduction to this is in the book I already mentioned. The "observation" in the double slit experiment is projecting the image on the screen. The odd part of this particular experiment is that there is no way to determine which of the two slits a particle went through.

The explanation in the book is far better than anything I could write here. If you are really interested, that is where you will go.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2016 06:29 am
@Heermosi,
I change my mind. I will give it a shot to explain the double slit experiment. If you want to play along (this is the most basic experiment in QM). With the caveat that the book I recommend still does this better (although not as interactive).

Let imagine I have a large square of titanium steel. In that square I put two parallel titanium rectangles that are 3 inches wide, 6 inches apart and ten feet long. (I hope this is a good image.

I have a very powerful machine gun that is a bit to powerful for me (I can't control it). I pull the trigger, and bullets come out, hundred each second, and the barrell of the gun moves around (I am trying to describe chaos or randomness). Somehow most of the bullets are directed toward the slits.

Behind the steel target is a large square of wood. After I pull the trigger for a longish period of time.

What pattern would you expect the bullets to make on the wood behind the target?
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2016 10:14 am
@maxdancona,
Just following along.
I assume you meant to say 'two parallel rectangular slots' rather than 'two titanium rectangles'?
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2016 11:01 am
@Leadfoot,
yes... writing too quickly. These are two rectangular cutouts to the titanium square (that the bullets can fly through freely).

The question is what pattern will be made when I wildly shoot bullets at this titanium square so that randomly bullets will make it through these slots.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/25/2022 at 08:06:49