juanrga

Wave functions are not observable, but mathematical objects. Particles are 'perceived' by other particles as well. Quantum mechanics is perfectly compatible with a universe which exists independent of the observer. In quantum cosmology we consider earlier stages of the universe when no human was born. No paradigm here.

1) 'Pulling them' using different techniques. E.g. if the particles are charged you can use magnetic fields. Using magnetic fields is as you move particles at the LHC. 2) Nobody is transporting a particle at the end of the universe, whatever what you mean by "end". Transporting material to the opposite part of the Earth is not so difficult, but I suspect that you refer to some statement in some book where the author is really trying to explain that entanglement is independent of the distance.

It is the other way. Science deals with the measured, the observed...; religion with the imagined, the believed... Science deal with the real. Religion deals with the ideal. Is there something more ideal than that religious belief on the existence of a post-dead 'world' where the bad people will be punished and the good people will be rewarded?

I do not know what do you mean by "exact", but this is a modern and general definition: [/i]The definition even considers the recent scientific discoveries made by robots as Adam (ref 3 in the above link).

First, the physical reality already exists before the measurement. This is a basic assumption behind the theory of measurements. In the last decades different dynamical models of the collapse has been developed. Still remain some details, but they are more technical than foundational. Using those models you can 'see' how the wavefunction collapses to some of the eigenstate when the system interacts with the measurement apparatus.

At contrary QFT lacks any sound mathematical foundation. The theory is more as a collection of recipes which are forced to work for predetermined problems using certain tricks as renormalization, regularization and so on. Attempts to give QFT a solid mathematical foundation are stagnat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory#Axiomatic_approaches http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_quantum_field_theory No. The Hilbert space used in QFT is completely unrelated to spacetime. The Hilbert space is where state functions (Dirac kets) live (there is no wavefunctions in QFT). The dimension of the Hilbert space is not four, but varies with the basis used. It is ordinary to work with infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces.

Colour, texture, melting points and boiling points, density, and similar many other properties of substances are given by the electronic configuration of the atoms. E.g. colour depends of the occupied and available orbitals to electrons. Using quantum chemistry methods one can obtain the orbitals and their energies and then predict the colour that a substance will have before synthetizing it in the lab. The same about other properties, e.g. boiling points depend on the intermolecular forces and bondings, which in its turn depend of the electronic structure and molecular geometry. Boiling points can be also computed or estimated. The explaining on why gold's colour is different than silver is given in relativistic quantum chemistry courses. A basic general understanding? 4-5 years. Specialised understanding in some field? 4-5 more.

Yes, but it is a misnomer Never was classified as such. Energy is one property of particles. Energy can be obtained in situations where mass is constant. Ligth is made of particles named photons. Photons are massless particles.

Of course we do not need it!

You would check Neumaier's FAQ entry about MWI. I completely agree with his conclusion:

Wave-particle duality is a misnomer. Quantum particles do not move in wavelike manner but in a quantum manner. In fact albeit earlier fathers of quantum mechanics as DeBroglie and Schrödinger incorrectly believed that [math]\Psi[/math] is a wave, [math]\Psi[/math] it is not a wave but a mathematical function defined in an abstract Hilbert space. The correct interpretation of [math]\Psi[/math] was given by Born as wavefunction as amplitude of probability. The quantum motion of quantum particles is completely different to the motion of sea waves (which is purely classical motion).

No. You said "the observable [...] can be prepared". That was nonsense. No, the final state is an eigenstate of the measured value. Any texbook in QM explains that measurements are not described by the Schrödinger law, but by the measurement postulate introduced in the 30s. Measurement are described by the measurement postulate introduced in the 30s and dynamical laws for that postulate have been developed since then. Both are notoriously wrong and their inconsistent ideas never worked. As I said it is not completely solved, but we already have dynamical laws that work in many measurement scenarios. E.g. Ghirardi equation. Nonsense. The problem persists because we do not still found a nonlinear dynamical law valid for arbitrarily complex measurement scenarios. No observer is required because is unneeded. Nonsense. A quantum system exists before any measurement (the theory of measurements is firmly rooted in this), the system state is in some pre-measurement state (e.g. in a state given by a state vector or otherwise) and its "attributes" are well defined (e.g, as matrices). Nonsense. Subsystems are quantum systems described by quantum theory. Their observables are defined and computed in a analogue way to the treatment of subsystems in classical theory. Nonsense. Information requires a material substratum (hard disk, piece of paper, rock...). Mass, spin, position, energy, momentum are well-known physical properties. Wrong. As Klein reports the rate of appearance of for Bohr's notion of complementarity in scientific works has been decreasing in recent years. The natural tendency is that it would be eliminated from basic textbooks as well (it is already eliminated in many advanced treatises). Wrong. Universe is stochastic and as stated by Nobel laureate Prigogine "future is not given". Unrelated to what you said and I corrected. Wrong. There is not block universe, because the generator of time translations is not zero. He shows his well-known misunderstandings. Born. You are right. And he was completely wrong and unable to accept that nature was very different than he believed said the famous phrase: I don't like it [quantum mechahics] and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." Of course nature does not care about Schrödinger beliefs... Brains are the 'hardware' and minds the 'software'. Both are in the observable universe. There is not superluminal signals between photons. All experimental evidence is compatible with ordinary causality and with the stochastic nature of universe, where "future is not given". Determinism is an approximation.

No knowledge system "fully describes" anything because we always work with approximations. This is explained in science 101, the first days. Wrong. First the stochastic nature of universe is intrinsic, not the result of ignorance. Second, philosophical systems do not work and that is the reason for which were substituted by science... several centuries ago. Wrong. Special relativity is completely deterministic because is a classical theory developed before quantum theory and chaos theory. Quantum field theory includes special relativity and provides a non-deterministic relativistic description. The stochastic nature of phenomena appears beyond measurements. Measurements are not acts, are processes. We understand measurements rather well and the measurement problem has been basically solved in recent years. Nonsense. We are complex biochemical molecular-based machines. Nonsense. Mental processes take place at the brain. Nonsense, the human mind is a consequence of natural selection. Nonsense. Religion does not provide systematic/testable knowledge. History shows that all the religions have falsified regarding the objective nature of our universe. Nonsense. Observers appeared in universe only recently. Universe is much older than observers. Nonsense. All scientific evidence says the contrary. Information requires a material substratum (hard disk, piece of paper, rock...). Human intelligence appeared in the universe only recently, as everyone knowns. You are attacking both. Nonsense. Unlike some religious zealots and crazy philosophers who still talk about the "Truth", physicists know the limits of science and of current theories. The lack of a final scientific theory does not open the door to introduce any nonsense from religion/philosophy. Philosophers will continue doing philosophy not science. Nonsense. QM is perfectly compatible with empirical reality, does not require humans, and was developed (and is currently tested) using the scientific method. Nonsense. Human brains are real. A brain is not a state of a mind, mind is the 'software' and the brain the 'hardware'. Reality exists without minds. Our choice of the measuring device and where we place it does affect the outcome of any experiment. This is why experiments are carefully designed, but this is again well-known. Nonsense. Photons do not "know". Neither any signal is sent from Alice or Bob to them. Free will is a consequence of the stochastic character of our universe.

No. Observables are not "prepared". Systems are. Your the-observable R-will-be-a-state-vector is nonsense, because observables are not state vectors. Moreover, [math] | u + d\rangle[/math] is not a spin eigenvector. Wrong. The final state after the measurement is not a superposition state but the state written before [math]|I;r\rangle |II;\alpha_r\rangle[/math], where [math]|I;r\rangle [/math] is a system eigenvector of the measured value for the observable R (spin, energy, position, or otherwise). The irreversible process is described by [math]\Lambda[/math], which is not [math]U[/math]. The requirement of an observer is nonsense. [math]\Lambda[/math] does not require any observer and, evidently, there is none in the theory. Wrong. A simple counterexample is a system prepared in an eigenvector of the measured observable. This example was discussed before, but you do not read. Nonsense. A quantum system exists before any measurement (the theory of measurements is firmly rooted in this), the system state is in some pre-measurement state (e.g. in a state given by a state vector [math]|\Psi\rangle[/math] or otherwise) and its "attributes" are well defined (e.g, as matrices). Nonsense. Subsystems are quantum systems described by quantum theory. Their observables are defined and computed in a analogue way to the treatment of subsystems in classical theory. Wrong. It plays no role in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is based in a number of postulates, none of which is a "Bohr's complementarity principle". Klein reports how the rate of appearance of for Bohr's notion of complementarity in scientific works has been decreasing in recent years. In one or two decades it will be eliminated from basic textbooks as well (it is already eliminated in many advanced treatises). Wrong. Universe is stochastic and as stated by Nobel laureate Prigogine "future is not given". Wrong. Spacetime is emergent as quantum gravity and other modern research shows. Another interview where Penrose shows his well-known misunderstandings. Ironically, Schrödinger was notorious by his serious misunderstandings of the same theory that he helped to develop. E.g. Schrödinger never understood the physical meaning of the wavefunction. The correct physical interpretation was given by Bohm. Minds and brains are part of the observable universe. Wrong. Delayed choice experiments are explained by quantum mechanics without observers. Human free will is a consequence of the stochastic character of the universe. Nature is not deterministic.

This is nonsense. The ordinary theory of measurement (which is used to interpret such experiments) is as follow (I will discuss here the simplified model, the generalization is tedious but does not change the main results) Suppose we wish to measure the observable R of the quantum object I, for which there must be a complete set of eigenvectors [math]R |I;r\rangle = r |I;r\rangle[/math] Denote a set of states for the measurement apparatus II by [math]|II;\alpha\rangle[/math], where the eigenvalue [math]\alpha[/math] is the appropiate pointer of the apparatus. Of course, the quantum system exists before the measurement is made. If the initial state of the system + measurement apparatus is [math]|I;r\rangle |II;0\rangle[/math] then the measurement changes this to the final state [math] |I;r\rangle |II;\alpha_r\rangle = \Lambda |I;r\rangle |II;0\rangle[/math] where [math]\Lambda[/math] is the time-development operator for the duration of the interaction between system and apparatus. More nonsense. Fortunately as noted by Klein the rate of appearance of for Bohr's notion of complementarity in scientific works has been decreasing in recent years.

Untrue.

This is all a collection of nonsense http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/bigbang.html http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

Yes. What you write is really funny. Unrelated to what was said, therefore I will not waste time answering this. Nonsense. Electrons and quarks are elementary particles in the Standard Model. Contrary to what Zurek believed for decades, we knew (and said to him) that decoherence alone does not explain measurement. Excelent if he is now accepting this fact. Now he needs to learn a bit more and understand why conscious observers are not needed in quantum theory. The own foundations claims that the Templeton prize is awarded to a person who "has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works". Formerly the Prize was named the "Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion" and the "Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities". The prize has been criticized: British biologist Richard Dawkins said in his book The God Delusion that the prize was given "usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion". Sean M. Carroll criticized his colleagues for taking Templeton research grants when they did not support Templeton's beliefs. Martinus J. G. Veltman, the 1999 Nobel laureate in physics, suggested the prize "bridg[ed] the gap between sense and nonsense". Bernard did never win any important scientific award, so far as I know he only won the pseudo-religious prize. I have emphasized precisely this. Why do you repeat what I say to you? I have emphasized that observers are not anything special but part of nature. Why do you repeat what I say to you? It is indeed true that decoherent histories are inconsistent. Decoherent histories and realism The answer to the above paper is found in Consistent Quantum Realism Try again

Yes, immortal also took a quote from mine out of context, ignored any question that I did to him in the message from where he got the quote and used the quote at the start of his new preaching to give the appearance (to outsiders) that he is debating with us. It was all so obvious that I did not even mention this in my above reply.

Censorship is typical of religious zealots who cannot accept that their religious views are wrong. Science is based on debate and peer-review. The rejection of nonsense is a logical consequence.

Thank you! Let me add that I think that you would also change "I don't speak likes" by "I don't speak lies".