Jump to content

Eise

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1978
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by Eise

  1. Modern determinism is based on the idea that if you know the initial conditions of a (closed) system, and the laws of nature that govern the system, every future state of the system is fixed. But you need both. Without laws of nature determinism becomes an unscientific world view, a belief. But for superdeterminism, which I assume must be 'more than determinism') there is not even a beginning of an idea about how events that were billions of light years away, and billions of years ago, determine all necessary elements of a Bell like experiment, including the experimenter. And despite the billions of (light)years, superdeterminism is a local theory? So superdeterminism reduces for me to a belief. Nothing scientific. I like it to reflect on the history of Bell like experiments: Bell proves his inequality, and it is immediate clear that QM does not obey the inequality Feynman is so sure that QM is correct, that he throws Clauser from his office, when he proposed his experiment. In the end, one can see it that way: when in Clauser's experiment no violation of Bell would have been measured, then QM would have been wrong. Physicists notice that the measurements in Clauser's experiment are time-like separated, so it is possible that some influence goes from one measurement to the one at the other side. However, no single physicist gives an hypothesis how the orientation of a polariser on one side can effect the measurement at the other side. Aspect closes this loophole by making the measurements space-like separated. QM still turns out to be right. ... an then still more experiments to close other loopholes... QM still stands Zeilinger makes the orientation of the polarisers dependent on the radio noise of two quasars, billions of (light)years (away) ago. No difference. QM stands. So what do we have all the time: QM as it is, makes the correct predictions in every experiment above, without any necessary correction necessary For none of the loopholes a plausible theory is ever given. Only vague hints I consider superdeterminism as such a loophole: only an extremely hypothetical possibility, and not a single proposal how such possibility physically would work, and by 6. above, extremely unlikely.
  2. Yep, in the early fifties, in a conversation with Abraham Pais. In it's present state it is definitively non-local. This is the point. Copenhagen (if you omit the unclarity of the 'Heisenberg Cut' between quantum and classical physics), is a kind of minimal interpretation of QM. (My shortest description of the CI: "the maths works, but we will never understand why". This includes the correlation between remote measurements of entangled particles. The most natural way to extent CI would then be the introduction of local hidden variables: but the Bell inequalities shows that this does not work. But non-local hidden variables could do the trick, as exemplified by the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation. In facts it was this interpretation that triggered Bell to think up his inequalities. But together with ERP (if Alice's polariser is vertical, then she knows that at Bob's side, if he also has is polariser vertically positioned, that 100% of the photons get through) it is clear that locality is principally excluded by QM, in whatever interpretation. The dBBI takes this at face value and is non-local from the beginning. And that is the reason that Einstein did not like it. But we all defended in the thread-we-do-not-mention-here that QM is local. And thereby I still believe in the 'relativity-argument' from which you made that clear and funny drawing. If this argument really is valid, then we, at least for the moment, have no interpretation of QM that works in all situations.
  3. I still think it is absurd: think about all the atoms involved in the experiment. The laser, the source of the entangled photons, the polarisers, their randomisers, the detectors, and last but not least the experimenters are all build up of atoms that might have originated from wildly different events in space and time. And then all these come together in an experiment and their behaviour is exactly coordinated in such a way that the experiments consistently have the results we observe? And given the present state of knowledge, we have one theory that is ontological stochastic (QM), and we also have chaotic determinism, and then they come together exactly coordinated in every Bell-like experiment we do? The world is small... Look at the acknowledgements: Sabine Hossenfelder (who made several videos wherein she defends superdeterminism, and even sang a song together with Tim Palmer), Jean Bricmont, who I mentioned in the OP, Tim Maudlin, from which I am now reading a book about QM and relativity (because it was mentioned in Bricmont's book). Pity enough the article is too difficult for me to evaluate if Tim Palmer has a point, or not. Did you read it? If so, what do you think? This seems to be a misunderstanding. I read in many books, that Einstein probably could have had peace of mind with the probabilistic character of QM, but not with non-locality. This seems even to go back to the Solvay conference of 1927. Einstein himself was not quite happy with the EPR article: it was obviously mainly written by Podolsky. E stressed the non-locality, and therefore suggesting there should be local hidden variables; P obviously stressed the non-deterministic character of QM, and based on that suggested that there must be hidden variables. Exactly. And then causally connected in exactly the right way, in every Bell-like experiment, to give the results we get. Would that mean that, if such a formulation were successful, that the de Broglie-Bohm is not non-local anymore?
  4. I would suggest to make a drawing of two masses, where one is m2 = 5.972 × 10^24 kg, and the m1 = 1 kg, and a second experiment where m1 = 2 kg. Do you think one is able to measure the difference in acceleration of m1? Maybe instead of drawing, you should do the calculation...
  5. I don't think this is a feasible solution. If one thinks about it, it would mean that nature is 'fooling us'. AFAIK, Zeilinger did an experiment, where the choice of the polarisations in a Bell-like experiment was determined by the radio noise of 2 quasars, in more or less opposite directions, billions of light years away. To suppose that this noise is precisely so coordinated that it mimics a bigger correlation than is classically possible, is a too big stretch for me. I have problems with all 'ways out'. de Broglie-Bohm (which is Bricmont's favourite), many worlds, and all others. Both make the wave function to a physical, causal agent (it forces (ok, they say 'guides', but what is the difference) particles on their determined paths; it splits the world realising all the possible outcomes). But in measurements we always only register particles arriving at some place. The wave function never physically appears in single measurements, so how can we assign it causal impact on our measurements?
  6. After a now closed thread, the conclusion seemed to be that in having to give up on 'local realism', the clear tendency was that we have to give up the 'realism' part. I was heavy involved in that thread, and based on many 'quantum authorities' and physicists in the thread, I also defended that. But as I keep reading different books on quantum mechanics, I also found other, well argued positions defending none-locality,e.g. some very clear exposés by Jean Ricmont. In Quantum Sense and Nonsense, he writes: This analysis fits e.g. very well to the video presented in the closed thread, in which is clearly demonstrated that the CHSH is based only on 'locality' and 'realism'. As she leaves out EPR, just as Bricmont says, she does not come to the conclusion that QM is none-local. Bricmont mentions several physicists by name, who, in his eyes, do not really understand the consequences of Bell and EPR, e.g.... Gell-Mann. Now, of course I still believe strongly that the argument from relativity, that the order of the measurements done by Alice and Bob is observer dependent, shows that it is not possible that one measurement determines the other. Funny enough, I first read the more technical version of Bricmont's book, titled Making Sense of Quantum Mechanics, and he never mentions this, I was already thinking to email him, to ask what he thinks about that argument. But in Quantum Sense and Nonsense he discusses that argument: So in a way, he seems to do the same as what he blames the majority of physicists for: closing their eyes for (some of) the fundamental problems of understanding QM. Personally, I think that the relativity argument shows that there is no causal or determining relationship, or maybe better, no directional relationship between Alice's and Bob's measurement. So what are we left with?
  7. No, no, maybe I should have said, I couldn't have formulated it better than you did. My study is already a long time ago, so my concrete (historical) knowledge of philosophers has slowly diminished. And Nietzsche was not my specialty. But what one doesn't lose so fast, is, if one call it such, a philosophical mentality. I think it is easy to distinguish Nietzsche from his sister's deformation of his philosophy: his sister identified 'Arians' (Germanics) with the Übermensch. And Nietzsche's 'Ansatz' was individualistic, not collectivist.
  8. Wow, you know your Nietzsche! +1. What in my opinion fails in your answer (especially for a 'Biology Expert'), is that Nietzsche was influenced by Darwinism. He saw mankind as a phase between beasts and the Übermensch: But it seems he did not see it as something that just will happen according to natural selection, but as something man should strive for. So to answer dimreepr's question: surely not literally, as CharonY noticed: Nietzsche was 'Antichrist'. But one can discuss how far Nietzsche was influenced by the very common idea of the prospect of salvation. Nearly every religion has a concept of salvation, and one could defend that Nietzsche presents an atheistic, naturalistic account of such salvation.
  9. I find a small Dobson telescope a good start, e.g. like here. You can easily take it with you (e.g. far from street lights...), place it on a garden table or something like that. But it is just good for direct observations of planets, nebulae, the moon, etc. Not well equipped for photography. But if you get the taste, your next telescope might be a more professional one.
  10. <antfuckermode> It was the other way round. Heisenberg came first with his matrix formulation, followed about a year later with Schrödinger's 'wave mechanics'. </antfuckermode> 'Wave mechanics' became more popular in those days than matrix mechanics, because it was more 'visible', and used concepts of the physics of waves, which was of course more familiar to physicists. Heisenberg did not even realise that his 'tables of energy transitions' already existed in mathematics as matrices. I think it was Born who recognised that.
  11. I think it is the process of conching that takes longer. Without help of supporting substance (e.g. lecithine) conching takes long, maybe even better conching machines are needed. And did you look carefully for the prices of the 90% and the 99%? Here in Switzerland the 99% has only half of the contents of the 90% (50g instead of 100g):
  12. Of course there is a distinction between object and subject, albeit a conceptual one. The question is if this conceptual distinction is also an ontological one. Many mystical traditions, and interesting enough, modern science, do not think there is a complete distinction between the two. That sounds more like a temporal loss of personal identity. That can happen just spontaneously, but can also be triggered by severe stress, or by meditation. I never heard of a connection with IQ. But I know of an German author, Michael Schmidt-Salomon, with a similar experience: it was triggered by an intense period of thinking about the free will problem, which he was writing an article about. A game where the endpoint is death should be played differently than a game you can start over and over again. I take it seriously, but I think you are wrong. Why would otherwise mystical traditions strive for insight in the grounds of personal existence? Think about the concept of Śūnyatā in Buddhist philosophy. Realising Nirwana, according to Buddhism, leads to equanimity, calmness of the mind. No idea what you mean here.
  13. Thanks all. That helps. I will dive into the references given by @swansont and @Genady, in the hope that it even increases my understanding a bit more. Yes, he was 'forced' by the distance between the Israel embassy in London, where he worked as a military attaché, and the university where GR was taught: it was too far. So he went into quantum physics, which was taught in a university close by. From here: I can imagine that: What? More right than Likud? Oh boy.
  14. I am not sure if I understand this. Do you mean that the Omega-minus can have any of these 4 spin directions? That, so to speak, max(abs(spin)) for the Omega-minus = 3/2? I think that is the statement of fact. One octet (spin 1/2), and one decuplet (spin 3/2). I just do not understand why a baryon with 3 strange quarks cannot principally belong to the octet. What is the connection between S = 3 and spin 3/2? In the book is the story that Feynman would look into the office of Ne'eman, jokingly saying 'Did you hear? They found the Omega-minus! It has a spin of 1/2'. Meaning that the Eightfold Way would be wrong.
  15. I am reading 'Particle Hunters', written by Yuval Ne'eman, and he describes of course about the prediction of the Omega-minus, the baryon with three s-quarks. (He predicted it himself, together with Murray Gell-Mann.) But I would not expect that the 3 s-quarks have the same direction of spin. Wouldn't have 3 s-quarks, where one quark has an opposite spin as the two others, less energy than all spins parallel? The Pauli exclusion principle seems to be no problem, as the quarks have different colours. What am I missing?
  16. Well, yes, obviously they had to remove a part of the ceiling. The real JWST doesn't seem to have this problem. Ah, forgot to say, the scale is 1:4. See here for details.
  17. Hi all, Just wanted to share my surprise that a model of JWST is standing in the company where I work for. Obviously, it contributed fastening elements (screws, nuts, etc) to JWST. Hopefully it is true what the company says about the quality of their products...
  18. Please explain how the age of the universe follows from your first sentence. Show us the calculation. How so? Please explain. And define clearly what 'wave-particle duality' exactly is. No citations. Your definition.
  19. Yes, but the particles are not. Let's take muons as example (again). Normally they have a half life of about 2 μs. In an particle accelerator they live much longer. That's time dilation. In its own reference frame the muon of course stands still. So its half life is still 2 μs. Now imagine the muon can travel 100 rounds in the accelerator before decaying. So from the reference frame of the muon, it also makes 100 rounds. Now how can this be explained in the reference frame of such a muon?
  20. Occam's razor doesn't say 'make it as simple that wei guo understands it'. Sorry.
  21. Of course not. E.g. if the question is, how many different pairs of horses and basketballs one can form, it is 21 pairs (this is called a 'Cartesian product'). Compare now with e.g. speed. According to you the unit of speed does not make sense: one divides distance through seconds. But I assume you have no problem with that (miles/hour, or meters/second, whatever). Obviously not as you are using the phrase 'meter per second'.
  22. Math is different: it is not just more logic, it is a rigidly logical language. How do you want to make quantitative predictions without math? Example: Eddington's test of special relativity in 1919. According general relativity the bending of light close to the sun is twice as big as a pseudo Newtonian calculation. Without math, it would have been impossible to distinguish between GR and Newton. I am pretty sure, that most physics experiments are quantitatively, no simple yes/no experiments. Another nice example might be Dirac's prediction that an anti-electron should exist. He derived that by pure mathematics, by rewriting the Schrödinger wave equation so that it fitted special relativity: by taking his calculations seriously he predicted the existence of the anti-electron, and got the mathematical proof why spin exists. Only a few years later the positron was discovered. On the surface, one could see the experimental evidence by Anderson as a yes/no experiment. But to identify the positive particle as an anti-electron, one has to make sure that it has the same (but opposite) charge as the electron, and also the exact mass, otherwise it might be just another positively charged particle. You extremely underestimate the function and need of math in physics. It's need is practical: to make quantifiable predictions, to find not yet seen phenomena that logically follow from existing theories (like Dirac's anti-matter prediction). It is not religious at all. What else can you do if you want to understand the phenomena? If there even would be a 'reflection of reality', it comes to us through the phenomena. By assuming the existence of, what you call 'underlying artificial-defined things inside', we are able to encompass more and more phenomena under single theories. Do these underlying artificial-defined things inside 'really exist'? Does the wave function 'really exist'? Do virtual particles 'really exist'? But the math, based on them, correctly predicts the phenomena.
  23. That is possible indeed. But it is not the aim of science to describe nature as it is in itself ('an sich'). Its aim is to describe nature as it reveals itself to us, to our senses and cognitive abilities. Then surely we can introduce 'underlying artificial-defined things inside'. Examples might be (being careful here) wave functions, or virtual particles. What is important is that the math using them gives correct predictions. If it turns out that we can't use them, i.e. experiments cannot be explained by using a theory with 'underlying artificial-defined things inside', then the theorists must go back to the drawing board. But in a new theory we might have new 'underlying artificial-defined things inside'. No way. You would be like a stamp collector, collecting 'physics facts'. Science is more than that. Physics wants to describe an empirical world: what else than the empirical world could be the arbiter if a theory is correct or not? Of course, a theory must be logically and mathematically sound, but that is not enough. That is old fashioned metaphysics, especially in it rationalist form: that we can explain the world based on thinking alone. First, math is logical through and through. A little mean, one could say math is applied logic on 'mathematical objects' (numbers, geometry, topology, etc etc). Second, between the lines I read that what you mean with 'logic' in fact is "wei guo's capability of understanding".
  24. That may be the reason that experiments are done in physics, no? We take the best theories we have, i.e. that explain the most empirical facts that we know until now, and try to extend them with math to see what other, not-tested results follow. And then we put them to the test. So your 'complete' is a none-existing caricature of what physicists do. That is exaggerated. Sure, there are areas in physics where philosophy might help, when reflection on used concepts and methods becomes necessary. But besides that, experiment is the filter that any mathematical theory applied to physics must pass.
  25. And you are ignored again... Even from the video, it seems pretty clear this a fireball. I have seen one 2 times in my life, pretty impressive. And I fully agree that the quality of the videos is not better then messages of the devil if you play music in the wrong direction... +1 for all your posts here, that were ignored.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.