Quantum
-
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Interestingly, in the last few months, new experimental data has come to light which might prove to be a nail in the coffin of both the Copenhagen AND Many Worlds interpretations. This is because the data seems to violate them both, whilst confirming the Transactional interpretation. This interpretation posits that quantum events propagate influences not only forwards in time but also backwards.
This means that determinism comes straight back into the picture - no more paradoxes and the attendant mysticism. Here's where it gets really interesting because this interpretation relies upon the literal physical reality of nonlocality, both in space and time (in both directions). Put another way, all events are instantaneously and intrinsically connected in space, and both forwards AND backwards in time.
So, under Copenhagen, an experimenter testing whether 14 billion year old light from stars exhibits either particle or wave behaviour was seen to be determining (or deciding) whether the light was actually emitted as a particle or a wave, all that time ago. Under Transactional, instead of the experimenter 'deciding', they are instantaneously communicating their mode of measurement 14 billion years back in time across 14 billion light years of space.
All very causal.
This means that determinism comes straight back into the picture - no more paradoxes and the attendant mysticism. Here's where it gets really interesting because this interpretation relies upon the literal physical reality of nonlocality, both in space and time (in both directions). Put another way, all events are instantaneously and intrinsically connected in space, and both forwards AND backwards in time.
So, under Copenhagen, an experimenter testing whether 14 billion year old light from stars exhibits either particle or wave behaviour was seen to be determining (or deciding) whether the light was actually emitted as a particle or a wave, all that time ago. Under Transactional, instead of the experimenter 'deciding', they are instantaneously communicating their mode of measurement 14 billion years back in time across 14 billion light years of space.
All very causal.
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
I assume this doesn't contravene the idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light? I can't imagine scientists are about to discard that traditional assumption, so they would have to invoke the concept of higher dimensions or something like that, I guess.
Also, the idea of causing events backwards in time is nonsensical to me, as it violates the very meaning of these terms. So if such a thing appears to be happening, I dare say it is an illusion generated by our own limited perspective.
-
Also, the idea of causing events backwards in time is nonsensical to me, as it violates the very meaning of these terms. So if such a thing appears to be happening, I dare say it is an illusion generated by our own limited perspective.
-
-
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Nonlocality does violate the supposed universal speed limit. Scientists aren't generally pleased with nonlocality. But it's been proven that spatially separate particles can behave as though there is an instantaneous link between them. Make of it what you will.
I'm not really thinking of it as backwards causality, going off what I know about it. I'm thinking more of the iron blockish nature of a wholly determined system. Things could not be any other way than they are, things will not be any other way than they will be, and things could not have been any other way than they were. Communicating causality backwards in time is just an easy way of conceptualising the additional instantaneous interconnectedness this theory would have us understand as operating at all possible levels, everywhere and everywhen, simultaneously.
I'm not really thinking of it as backwards causality, going off what I know about it. I'm thinking more of the iron blockish nature of a wholly determined system. Things could not be any other way than they are, things will not be any other way than they will be, and things could not have been any other way than they were. Communicating causality backwards in time is just an easy way of conceptualising the additional instantaneous interconnectedness this theory would have us understand as operating at all possible levels, everywhere and everywhen, simultaneously.
-
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Yet we know where all the atoms are, or whatever they have become, to a matter of micrometers.Dave Toast wrote:Like you say, virtually all the energy is removed from a bunch of squashed together atoms by cooling them to almost absolute zero. Because we can now know the energy state (and therefore the momentum) of all these atoms very precisely, we can no longer know their position (the conjugate variable of momentum) very precisely at all.
I would call that a fairly precise measurement, given what we are dealing with, since I would think that the lower their energy, the harder it is to measure them.
How can we measure whether such atoms are acting as though their individual positions were definite, if we lose the ability to see their individual definite effects? If we were able to see such effects of atoms in definite positions, that would be the same as seeing the definite positions of the atoms.If it were the case that this was just a limitation of our perception, then we'd expect that the atoms' positions are actually definite but we just can't percieve them definitively, and that therefore, the atoms would carry on acting as though their position were definite. But that's not the case
To themselves the atoms might be acting as though their positions were definite - for example, the atoms might not be bumping into or overlapping one another, and their electron shells may still be repelling one another - even though we have lost the ability to detect this?
It seems to me that it would be impossible to prove otherwise, but science must go with what it observes, rather than what is.
Can you provide a clarification, or another example?
-
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Nonlocality
Yes, in my view there doesn't need to be any "communication" as such, since the two things communicating are not two separate things, but are part of the same "iron block" as you put it.Dave Toast wrote:I'm not really thinking of it as backwards causality, going off what I know about it. I'm thinking more of the iron blockish nature of a wholly determined system. Things could not be any other way than they are, things will not be any other way than they will be, and things could not have been any other way than they were. Communicating causality backwards in time is just an easy way of conceptualising the additional instantaneous interconnectedness this theory would have us understand as operating at all possible levels, everywhere and everywhen, simultaneously.
Last edited by Kevin Solway on Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Bose-Einstein Condensation
From what I was reading (which was, admittedly, the cartoon version for fourth graders), they were using atoms of rubidium.Dave Toast wrote:Because the Exclusion principle only applies to Fermions. Bose-Einstein condensates are made with, you guessed it, Bosons.
Does an atom act like a boson here? I was thinking it would act like a fermion, since it is composed of fermions.
- Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
Bell test
Well, I'm trying to understand this EPR paradox and the Bell test experiments, but they don't explain very much about the test. Why do they shoot the particles in opposite directions? Why not the same direction? Why do they think that the apparatus that produces the particles has no effect on the particles?
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Bell test
The direction the particles go is of no importance, other than that they go to separate detectors.Matt Gregory wrote:Well, I'm trying to understand this EPR paradox and the Bell test experiments, but they don't explain very much about the test. Why do they shoot the particles in opposite directions? Why not the same direction? Why do they think that the apparatus that produces the particles has no effect on the particles?
It would help to know what you are reading. Have you looked at the wikipedia articles?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
- Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
Re: Bell test
Sorry, I thought I said that, I must have erased it. Yeah, it was Wikipedia.DHodges wrote:The direction the particles go is of no importance, other than that they go to separate detectors.Matt Gregory wrote:Well, I'm trying to understand this EPR paradox and the Bell test experiments, but they don't explain very much about the test. Why do they shoot the particles in opposite directions? Why not the same direction? Why do they think that the apparatus that produces the particles has no effect on the particles?
It would help to know what you are reading. Have you looked at the wikipedia articles?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
I don't even think it matters what the Bell experiment is, I think it's just smoke and mirrors. You can't conclude that there are no hidden variables no matter what empirical experiment you do, can you? I mean, that's a philosophical conclusion.
- Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
It's very confusing. Mostly because the writing on it sucks. Like this article:Leyla Shen wrote:You're doing better than I am then, Matt. I'm still trying to work out how a massless particle has "spin." Blimey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle
What they're talking about is simple, but they make it sound like something really complicated. All they're saying is that the amplitudes of two overlapping waves are added together. It's just common sense, really.
Science should be banned.
-
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Precision is obviously relative, so you could say we can measure them 'fairly precisely' but then fairly precise isn't very precise. It's fairly precise to say that 7 lies between 1 and 10 but not as precise as saying it lies between 6 and 8.ksolway wrote:Yet we know where all the atoms are, or whatever they have become, to a matter of micrometers.Dave Toast wrote:Like you say, virtually all the energy is removed from a bunch of squashed together atoms by cooling them to almost absolute zero. Because we can now know the energy state (and therefore the momentum) of all these atoms very precisely, we can no longer know their position (the conjugate variable of momentum) very precisely at all.
I would call that a fairly precise measurement, given what we are dealing with, since I would think that the lower their energy, the harder it is to measure them.
Basically, by theorising how they would act if their position were not definite and then testing this theory against observation.ksolway wrote:How can we measure whether such atoms are acting as though their individual positions were definite, if we lose the ability to see their individual definite effects?Dave Toast wrote:If it were the case that this was just a limitation of our perception, then we'd expect that the atoms' positions are actually definite but we just can't percieve them definitively, and that therefore, the atoms would carry on acting as though their position were definite. But that's not the case
We don't lose the ability to do this as we can still observe the effects and theorise as to whether they are those of individual definite position, or not. All this is according, of course, to what we know.
I can see what you're getting at but you don't need to measure the wind to to know that there is wind if the leaf is moving, according to what we know of leaves and wind.ksolway wrote:If we were able to see such effects of atoms in definite positions, that would be the same as seeing the definite positions of the atoms.
That could well be the case. But when we theorise a definite observable behaviour for groups of atoms acting as though without definite position, according to what we know of how they do act with definite position, and then we observe this behaviour under experiment; we have a scientific theory which predicts, describes and explains the mechanics of this behaviour.ksolway wrote:To themselves the atoms might be acting as though their positions were definite - for example, the atoms might not be bumping into or overlapping one another, and their electron shells may still be repelling one another - even though we have lost the ability to detect this?
Well quite. But that is the context of 'real' that we were talking about, i.e. our scientific understanding of physical reality.ksolway wrote:It seems to me that it would be impossible to prove otherwise, but science must go with what it observes, rather than what is.
-
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: Bose-Einstein Condensation
Depends on what isotope of Rubidium you use. Rb-85 is a boson, the rest are fermions.DHodges wrote:From what I was reading (which was, admittedly, the cartoon version for fourth graders), they were using atoms of rubidium.Dave Toast wrote:Because the Exclusion principle only applies to Fermions. Bose-Einstein condensates are made with, you guessed it, Bosons.
Does an atom act like a boson here? I was thinking it would act like a fermion, since it is composed of fermions.
-
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Bosons are not only the force carriers. Protons and nuclei, which are 'matter' particles, can also be bosons.Leyla Shen wrote:Bosons and fermions are subatomic particles -- unless they've changed the rules again. Seems like someone's trying to turn force into matter.
We've spoken about this before though. The spin of quantum mechanics is not like the spin of a spinning top or an asteroid. It has no direct analogy in the macro world.Leyla Shen wrote:I'm still trying to work out how a massless particle has "spin." Blimey.
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Yes, you are right -- we have. Unfortunately, it has also been that long since I've seriously revisited the subject.
Having briefly reviewed it anew, I realise my problem is not so much with the notion of (particle) spin any more as it is with abstract mathematics. I shall have to tie up my children for several months. I don't think I'm likely to master it as a snack between the main courses in my life.
Having briefly reviewed it anew, I realise my problem is not so much with the notion of (particle) spin any more as it is with abstract mathematics. I shall have to tie up my children for several months. I don't think I'm likely to master it as a snack between the main courses in my life.
I did not realize that. I thought of 'normal' matter as being fermions. It seems like this might have implications beyond the BEC stuff. I'll have to think about it.Dave Toast wrote:Bosons are not only the force carriers. Protons and nuclei, which are 'matter' particles, can also be bosons.
Yeah, maybe 'spin' was a bad word choice. They might have been better to call it something like 'charm' like they did with quarks. Calling it 'spin' makes you think you should have an intuitive grasp of how it works.The spin of quantum mechanics is not like the spin of a spinning top or an asteroid.
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
<insertion of some relativity and humor>
One could wonder if the models and interpretations of quantum physics are perhaps revealing more of our own thought processes or faith in our 'objectivity' than it's really helping describing Reality.
The following article might describe one of the consequences of this: that we are discovering how our daily world behaves the same as our theories describe fundamental particles!
Human relationships behave like atomic nuclei, says physicist
One could wonder if the models and interpretations of quantum physics are perhaps revealing more of our own thought processes or faith in our 'objectivity' than it's really helping describing Reality.
The following article might describe one of the consequences of this: that we are discovering how our daily world behaves the same as our theories describe fundamental particles!
Human relationships behave like atomic nuclei, says physicist
<end insertion>At the root of the system, says Mr Ecob, is the similarity between the probability of the nucleus of an atom decaying and that of a couple breaking up.
The decay of a nucleus is described in terms of "transit states": the series of change it has been through to get to its current situation.
The probability of someone having been in two relationships, for example, is the same as that of a nucleus decaying twice.
- Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
If it could stimulate us into understanding ourselves better that would be a more worthwhile product of quantum mechanics than using it to create some new gadget that we can strap on our wrist and receive instant message with or whatever.
That theory of Ecob's is pretty damn silly, though. I can't believe writing a computer program that supports some pet theory is considered "research".
Science should be banned.
That theory of Ecob's is pretty damn silly, though. I can't believe writing a computer program that supports some pet theory is considered "research".
Science should be banned.
- Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
I don't know if anyone noticed, but right after I made that post, the database on the other end decided to take a snooze and I couldn't access the board (not sure how long it was down, though, since I went to bed). That's another great example of why science should be banned. Although I'm joking when I say I that, I do think people get carried away with new research. We acquire results and create technology so fast that we can't understand the science behind it, so we're slowly losing control of it. By the time we figure out how to keep a PC running, we'll have advances in nanotechnology, quantum computing, genetics, medicine, and so on and so on to deal with.
We don't take any time to assimilate our research to try and come to an understanding of it as a species, we just press on with the fact gathering hoping that this gathering in itself will give us understanding, but it will come to a point where we will judge the success of a technology by how few people it kills. That will be the research. It's already come to that point to some extent. If scientific knowledge isn't accessible to the wider public, then there are no checks on the scientists who publish the results. Corruption exists in science as much as it does in politics. All it takes are a few outspoken believers who have no idea what they are talking about to create a huge swarm of the same.
Back in the old days people had decades to think about a scientific advance before a new one came along, so when it did, people already had a good idea of what it meant. We don't have that luxury nowadays.
We don't take any time to assimilate our research to try and come to an understanding of it as a species, we just press on with the fact gathering hoping that this gathering in itself will give us understanding, but it will come to a point where we will judge the success of a technology by how few people it kills. That will be the research. It's already come to that point to some extent. If scientific knowledge isn't accessible to the wider public, then there are no checks on the scientists who publish the results. Corruption exists in science as much as it does in politics. All it takes are a few outspoken believers who have no idea what they are talking about to create a huge swarm of the same.
Back in the old days people had decades to think about a scientific advance before a new one came along, so when it did, people already had a good idea of what it meant. We don't have that luxury nowadays.
It has been witnessed, but not demonstrated as such, but the fact is that you have not witnessed it, and you will never believe unless it has been demonstrated to you, hence no point in discussing. If one wants to witness it, he should have enough interest and time to trace and locate such a person, and even then, there is no guaranty of a “showâ€. May be they are simply not interested in an illusory world and hence live a very reclusive life, and they do not do it to simply demonstrate or prove anything to anyone. It is absolutely personal to them. Basically, I think one needs to be in the right place at the right time, and then, only then, one might get lucky.Sevens: Kevin, Do you believe the reports of yogis, shamans, buddhas and sorcerers being able to develop bi-location siddhis?
Kevin: I don't beleive this has ever been demonstrated.
I can simply say just one thing, keep an open mind, we really do not know all that much about existence as yet, Ultimate Truths aside.
David wrote:
I don’t get it. Does anyone ever really ‘wants to’? Are you implying free-will here, David? Is it only you that is guided by nature, and cause and effect? Are only your experiences valid because someone else confirms by agreeing to it?There is also the question of why a sage would want to bifuricate into two positions in the first place. Does he want to join the circus or something?
To quote Dave Toast:
"Interestingly, in the last few months, new experimental data has come to light……"
…and that too is not the end of it.