Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by juanrga

  1. Science is not based in beliefs, but in logic and facts. Photons were discovered time ago (Einstein won a Nobel Prize) and their properties (mass, momentum, spin, energy, charge) measured. Currently we can perform experiments with a single photon and its behaviour is in agreement with that predicted by the quantum theory of photons.
  2. I already recommended you to open a textbook on cosmology (*) and learn what we know about how the Universe was when the first human was not born yet. Concretely I invited you to learn something about the "quark epoch". When Galileo used his telescope to discover Jupiter's satellites and commented his discovery to the Pope. The Pope rejected Galileo observation (because contradicted his traditions), ordered to burn Galileo's books, and started the inquisition against Galileo, who was finally condemned for life. It is fascinating that the Pope refused even to look through the telescope. It seems that the Pope believed that if he did not look the satellites then them could not exist... Quantum entanglement is understood and it does not involve any "spooky action at a distance". In the ancient times, when quantum mechanics was being developed, it was believed that entanglement and collapse violate relativity because some mysterious signal would be instantaneously sent from one particle to the other, but today we know that this is not true. E.g. there are relativistic models of collapse and are discussed in textbooks (*). Measurements do not need observers as modern textbooks explain (*). You already said that the scientific community is intellectually dishonest and that physicists would be substituted by philosophers because are not objective people... therefore no new insult here. Contrary to a common misconception, Einstein did not reject QM, but only the Copenhagen interpretation by Bohr and Heisenberg. It is curious that Einstein already meet with religious people as you and his advice was: You did not observe me. Did you? Why do you violate your own religion and believe that I exist? You're not physically changing the quantum system [...] what we can actually do is just predict the possible values we can assign to a quantum system. You do not need to repeat what has been said to you for showing us that you did learn it finally. Do not repeating the same mistake is enough for us, thanks! First, history is based in evidence. Second, learning history is an excellent tool for not repeating the mistakes that others made in the past. If your definition of observers was true then your observers don't exist independent of an observer. Ha ha! You got trapped in your own nonsense. According to your religion, the universe does not exist if it is not observed by an observer. Therefore according to you an observer does not exist if it is not observed by another observer. But this second observer cannot exist if it is not observed by another observer. But this third observer cannot exist if it is not observed by another observer. But this fourth observer cannot exist if it is not observed by another observer... As said above you do not need to repeat what we said to you before. As Anthony Leggett says "We have seen that recent experiments push tests of QM to the level of 103–106 in the case of molecular diffraction, biomagnetic and quantum-optical systems, and to the level of 1010 in the case of Josephson devices; thus, we can say that on a logarithmic scale we have come about 40% of the way from the atomic level to that of the everyday world. " So we are not far away from testing QM on objects of the everyday world which is of the order 1024 so we actually don't know whether QM applies for all sizes or it fails at some classical level. I hope that clears up your misconceptions about my statements. You started saying that "Of course QM applies to everything", and now you claim "so we actually don't know whether QM applies for all sizes or it fails at some classical level". Your mutual contradictory statements are not the result of someone's misconceptions. Try another excuse... 1. So according to you anyone who makes arguments to challenge the scientific community are typical anti-science people. I would say that's so anti-scientific of you because you're not putting the assumptions of science to test and there by refining our theories. Science is done by criticizing of ideas and accepted theories and if you don't do it then you're on a road to scientific dogma. 2. When there is a crisis accept there is a crisis or when there is a problem accept there is a problem or accept we don't know. There is no clear scientific consensus on these topics and if you don't argue in good spirit then inevitably that's what I have to call you, that you're Intellectually dishonest. 3. This thread is in a religion forum and the main aim of this thread was to explain what those traditions actually say which is often misrepresented by scholars and from the perspective of tradition that's actually true and if they are right then physicists cannot have an objective account of reality and they cannot know what space-time actually is. 4. I am not doing a personal rant here, my claims were well supported by scientific papers from peer reviewed journals and its you who actually is not able to swallow these scientific facts. If you read what I wrote, you would discover that I was not referring to "anyone who makes arguments to challenge the scientific community", but to people who verifies the points (i--iv). Maybe I would add a fifth point to the above llst: (v) people who tries to win by basing his arguments on flagrant misinterpretation of the other's position. Yes, you already stated your personal desire to substitute science and its scientific method by religion and its traditions, but as stated before "The difference between science and religion is that the former wishes to get rid of mysteries whereas the latter worships them" . You would not repeatedly insult and accuse people and next pretend that you are "not doing a personal rant here". We do not care if you are a hypocrite or not, we are here to correct your blatant ignorance of science and nature. (*) I'm sorry but textbooks on religion and traditions are not valid.
  3. I wrote about SR not GR, but in any case the problem is not "to reconcile QM with GR", but to quantize gravity. The problem here is that GR has been traditionally confused with an ordinary field theory and people tried to quantize it using methods that work, for instance for electrodynamics, without any success for GR. We now know why. GR is a geometric theory and trying to quantize GR is as trying to quantize geometry. However, we can develop the quantum theory of gravitons from which GR emerges, somewhat as geometrical optics emerges from a quantum theory of photons. Evidently universe exists and it is described by theories such as QM, GR, and others. That is a so nonsensical claim as saying that we must abandon SR or electrodynamics. You do not understand how science works. I was merely stating how even the own authors that you cited before know that Deutch's ideas are not only scientifically incorrect but even (his own words) "nonsensical philosophy". And any student of QM knows that the observer plays no fundamental role, but that the change is due to the interaction between the system and the measurement apparatus. No evidence was given, as discussed in the past. Nobody said that a a water molecule was something special. A simple water molecule was used as example of why the author who you quoted was plain wrong when he said: "the state W of the compound system cannot be reproduced on the basis that neither part has a state". This part was corrected before, explaining that nature is separable, that separability is a fundamental principle behind the high precision tests of the Standard Model, repeating that separability is the reason which we can made experiments with correlated pairs of particles (ignoring the rest of particles), emphasizing how subsystems of entangled whole systems exist and have quantum states and even giving you the physical relation between the subsystem state and the whole system state. What part you do not understood? As several posters have noted you are not even close to show that scientific realism is false, but merely exposing your misconceptions about science and nature. Photons, as any other elementary quantum particle, do not change. Photons are always photons. What changes is the physical state of a quantum system. I already recommended you the Feynman lectures. He discusses in a brilliant way the difference between physical reality and abstract models. He also discusses how people outside the science (he mention philosophers) are often confused about such matters. You said that, but it is not true. 800 years ago science and the scientific method did not exist. Religion already existed, but religion never explained anything about Nature. It was science who discovered all that we know today. What is more, religion has been corrected by science in many occasions when religion has tried to say something about Nature, but the inverse (religion correcting science) never happened since that science was born. Those are the facts, although you ignore them... The Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn show the contrary. As stated before observers are a kind of biophysicochemical systems. They are made of atoms and other quantum particles and those quantum particles follow quantum laws. As we know today a cat is an open system and its quantum state is not given by a superposition |alive>+|dead>. This happens even without measurements. It was also noted before (Weinberg's quote in Physics Today) that Bohr's interpretation of quantum measurements "was deeply flawed". You start saying that "Of course QM applies to everything", next you claim that either it "breaks down at some point" and "does not apply to classical objects" or that "applies to everything". No problem with sharing your infinite misconceptions with us, but try to not post contradictory statements in the same paragraph. If you read what I have been writing for several days now, you would discover that I find funny people who (i) "challenges the scientific community", (ii) insults its members calling them "intellectually dishonest", (iii) claims that religion reveals the "truth" that scientists cannot discover, because "physicists don't have an objective account of reality" and, without any blush, (iv) shows a complete ignorance of the most elementary aspects of science and physics. So typical in anti-science people!
  4. There is no reason for abandoning local realism neither for radically revising what has been taught during the last century. E.g. special relativity will continue to work so well as it does today. Deutsch et al. works on the foundations of quantum mechanics have been corrected in the literature many times and his metaphysical claims are "nonsensical philosophy" (read the Legget quote given before in this thread) Nope. In fact the term "measurement" was not even mentioned. Human observers plays absolute no fundamental role in quantum mechanics as we know today. There are many mistakes there. First, the separability principle does not apply to "spatio-temporally separated subsystems". In fact, it applies to a time-slice. Second, the states of compound states are defined by the individual subsystem states through functional dependence. The principle only introduces a special kind of product states for uncorrelated subsystems. Third, the state of correlated subsystem is in general not given by a state vector. The claim that "the state W of the compound system cannot be reproduced on the basis that neither part has a state" is completely wrong. Typical example? An electron in a water molecule is in a quantum state which cannot be represented by any state vector, but (i) the electron state is given by [math]\hat{\rho}[/math] and (ii) the state of the molecule is known and given by a state vector [math]|\Psi\rangle[/math], with the well-known relationship [math]\hat{\rho} = \mathrm{Tr}(| \Psi \rangle \langle \Psi |)[/math], with "Tr" the partial trace. Claiming that parts of a whole system do not exist is a so nonsensical claim as saying that the Moon does not exist because it is not isolated. There is no reason to repeat the corrections to mistakes exposed in previous posts. Idem. Corrected before. As stated before information needs a physical substratum. We are not information, but a kind of biophysicochemical systems named "dissipative structures". The next quote is relevant: As many anti-scientific people you want scientific facts to be substituted by myths. Steven Weinberg is right when affirms that "Physicists and their apparatus must be governed by the same quantum mechanical rules that govern everything else in the universe". You are not in a superposition of states because you are not an isolated system; the decay rate of a macroscopic superposition is of the order of Planck time, as predicted by QM. Finally, your claim that QM does not apply to observers if does not model "conscious thought" is so wrong as claiming that thermodynamics or Newtonian mechanics do not apply to humans if do not model "conscious thought". You did not challenge the "whole scientific community", you are only posting your misconceptions about science in an internet forum where some people is replying you for fun because he is on vacations.
  5. First, the authors already show their lack of rigour when they define 'locality' and 'realism' in the first page. Starting from 'special' definitions you can prove anything. If I (re)define a cat to be a house, then I can claim that there are red cats that are 20 metres high, and I can even give you experiments confirming the existence of those giant cats. Second, their experiment worked because the separation principle works: the system under study is disentangled from the surrounds. This is the reason why they can write something as (4) or something as the polarization singlet state of two photons. Third, the other link is a philosophers article which is full of typical misleading statements. Nope, as shown above. Such experiments are not possible if nature was not separable. After saying us what the said, you added that they were right. Therefore you were so wrong as them. The history is different. An accurate presentation of the facts is given by Steven Weinberg in Physics Today, November 2005, page 31 (emphasis mine): You wrote "some physicists" only in one the quotes, your other quotes refer to "physicists", and the term physicists denote the whole community.
  6. That correlation of particles is explained by quantum theory. There is similar correlations in classical physics. Correlations have nothing to do with your nonsensical claims about the non-existence of systems or the end of scientific realism. Furthermore, what part of "Separability of quantum systems is a fundamental principle behind high-precision tests of the Standard Model" do you believe that supports your claim that nature is not separable? You are wrong on the three! The Standard Model is based on quantum field theory. Moreover, anyone who has studied quantum field theory knows that the fields are unobservable, by definition. The assertion that the world is made of particles is an experimental claim: Finally, contrary to what you believe, information requires a physical substrate. There are lots of information in this forum, but it is stored in servers made of known particles. In the Physics Today article he does not even mention the "Many world interpretation". He merely reports why Born's version of quantum mechanics is wrong. The argument is very simple: physicists and their apparatus are made of atoms and those atoms follow the quantum rules. It is ironic that you appeal to "evidence", when you systematically ignore the evidence given to you whereas appeal to quotes from people who is known by not understanding such matters. Some quotes from you in this funny thread:
  7. There are quantum systems for which n=>infinity, a well-known example is a quantum field, which is not describable by classical theory albeit n=infinity. Separability of quantum systems is a fundamental principle behind high-precision tests of the Standard Model. And any textbook explains that the model is local, although you insist (incorrectly) that locality is forbidden in nature... What part of Weinberg's quote ("Bohr's version of quantum mechanics was deeply flawed") in Physics Today, November 2005, page 31 do you think support your belief? It is ironic that a person (you) who has decided he alone that all the physicists of the world are wrong and would not be named physicists anymore make the above claim.
  8. Physicists/astronomers do not need 1 nor 2 to build a model of the Moon for instance. 1 is false, even if two quantum systems were to be 'entangled' forever, we can study each one of them. Somewhat as we can study the Moon although it is not an isolated system. 2 is false as well, even if we were to accept the first part (which is a much) we already know that quantum mechanics is not a classical theory! Observers play absolute no role in quantum measurements. This is why models of quantum measurement do not even mention observers. I repeat this once again: Bohr/Heisenberg ancient philosophical ruminations about observers was completely incorrect. This is all incorrect. E.g. (3) and (4) do not apply.
  9. The same link that you gave above explains how Einstein was right and the moon is here when we do not look to it. Contrary to a common myth, Einstein did not reject quantum mechanics but only Bohr/Heisenberg interpretation of it and specially the unphysical and ambiguous role of the observer. Einstein was a strong supporter of the Statistical Interpretation of quantum mechanics and quantum mechanics is perfectly compatible with the Bell inequalities. Quantum mechanics is a theory of physical reality as any other theory of physics. As Steven Weinberg remarks in Physics Today, November 2005, page 31: Only a minor correction, instead of "quantum mechanical rules" I would say "quantum physical rules" or just "quantum rules". Wheeler speculated about such matters, but he never offered a scientific argument and still less evidence of any kind. No known cosmology uses his invalid speculations.
  10. What I said about the ammonia molecula is well-known. I do not know why you mix scientific knowledge with religion, but it is still more strange when one notices that you have been accused by other poster, in another thread, of preaching us. It is not true that all of nature is a process. For instance Benzene resonance is not a process (as explained to you), a stationary state is not a process, etcetera. Also I do not know what you mean by "our space-time point of view". Wavefunctions are not defined in spacetime for example. The notion of process used in computer science is not fundamental and do not represent what we know about nature. In fact the old idea that nature is a kind of computer does not hold up on close inspection http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2002/oct/24/is-the-universe-a-computer/?pagination=false We differentiate between sciences of Nature such as physics, chemistry, biology... and disciplines such as mathematics and logic. Feynman has a delightful discussion of the difference between optics (a branch of physics) and maths in his famous lectures.
  11. This post is very worthy of reply. Your statement that mine is a strange point of view is entirely correct. You see, I view the world as being entirely mathematical in its form, I do not entertain a 'dynamical' view of the world, and I haven't since I was a teenager reading about the behavior of an electron in a cathode ray tube. I concluded then and there that all we knew about the electron were things that could be expressed mathematically and the notion of the electron was only to be understood in such a context. So to me physics is entirely about building mathematical representations of Nature, the electron is one such, the wavefunction is another. But we have to understand the significance of each representation, and place it in its proper context. So I'll study more about the 'collapse of the wavefunction', but from what I've seen so far it supports my own view that it represents the best information that we have about a system, and how that information evolves with time through the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian representations, but is not to be taken too literally. My post remarks your strange point of view about textbooks and websites and made a specific question to you, which you ignored. My post was not related about your point of view about Nature... in any case, let me emphasize that physics is not a synonym for theoretical physics neither for mathematical physics. I said something different. There is nothing as an "Ammonia molecule time varying representations". Molecules are not static objects but translate, rotate, vibrate, etc. One of the vibration modes of Ammonia gives umbrella like inversion. Each mode is not a representation of the molecule but there are two different molecules as correspond to two different minima in PES (each minimum is separated of the other by a potential barrier as was said to you). I never said that this ordinary molecular process "has a strange implication in itself". Inversion of Ammonia molecule has nothing to do with a superposition of "two base states" (I already explained to you the difference between a molecular process and the concept of resonance in benzene, which is not a process).
  12. First, none of them has contradicted the standard cosmological/astrophysical model where atoms and planets existed before the first human was born. Second, you cite people who is known for their work on applications of quantum mechanics (e.g. applications to optics) rather than by some contribution to the foundations. And several of them are notorious by their misunderstanding of some basic aspects of quantum mechanics. Third, you cite people who are not in mutual agreement. E.g., Deutsch is well-known by being a proponent of the many-worlds nonsense, whereas Leggett correctly notice: To add more, there is not a single "many-world interpretation", because Deutch version openly disagrees with Everett version, Hoyle version openly disagrees with Deutch version... To be precise none of those many-world interpretations is a valid interpretation of QM, as a minority believes, but all them are a gross misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. The non-existence of perfect textbooks is not characteristic of quantum mechanics. We know that no text on thermodynamics is perfect, we know that no text on organic chemistry is perfect, we know that no text on cell biology is perfect... And the same link says: Only people who do not understand quantum mechanics claims otherwise. In that link, a philosopher quotes ancient thoughts by Bohr and Heisenberg. Both were wrong about their interpretations of some aspects of QM that they help to develop, but they were pioneers, and it is much more easy to be wrong when exploring unknown territory than when the territory is covered in textbooks. However, posterior authors quoted in your link, such as Bernard d'Espagnat or David Mermin, have no excuse for saying nonsense once after QM was developed. The same link offer philosophical arguments on why the Moon exists with independence of any human observing it. The same link explains why authors as Mermin are plain wrong (e.g. read point 2 in page 6).
  13. Can you give some examples of the kind of posts that prompted your anxiety? Here's two examples: http://www.sciencefo...__1#entry654800 http://www.sciencefo...__1#entry671373 But they're really all over the web. There's hardly a forum you can go to that someone isn't discussing or hasn't discussed 'collapse of the wavefunction' or the related 'Schrodingers cat problem'. The collapse of wavefunctions is one of the postulates of QM [*] and was introduced by Von-Neumann. Moreover, as it is said in one of your above links there are dynamical models of the collapse discussed in advanced literature. Yours is a very strange point of view. At the one hand you claim that you do not worry by what that textbooks say. At the other way you worry a lot of, when material in textbooks is discussed on the web. Why? [*] E.g. see postulate III in Shankar. See also the further discussion about postulate III in the section "The Collapse of the State Vector".
  14. This is a repetition of the same flawed argument that you presented to us earlier. The correction is the same now. Universe existed before the first human was born here at Earth. This is a scientific fact. P.S.: What says an author whose main award is a prize given by an critiziced pseudo-religious foundation or what says a polemic author in a sensationalist magazine with a record of many mistaken covers does not qualify as evidence. Specially when corrections to 'arguments' are found in basic textbooks.
  15. It was several years ago and I do not remember now the details. I suppose that I was able to obtain the IP either from the firewall (during a attack) or I was able to find the IP in the source code of the trojan. But it was many time ago and I do not remember many details (for instance I do not remember now the name of the trojan neither the antivirus/firewall combination I used then).
  16. You have not provided any evidence in your posts.
  17. As has been said to you several times now, quantum resonance in benzene molecule does not involve "two time varying states". First, each one of the resonant forms is not a quantum state for benzene, but that the quantum state of benzene molecule is given by the two resonant forms. Second, each resonant form and, as a consequence, the resulting quantum state are all time independent.
  18. Indeed. I think that it is difficult to find a dog that was not happy.
  19. Microsofts XPs have lots of security holes and any half-expert hacker can write a program to control your PC remotely. I had a similar problem with a official XP professional edition. One day my computer it alone automatically dial-up to internet and when it got connection I could detect flow of data from my computer, but I could not disconnect or control the computer (fortunately modem was external and I was able to disconnect it manually). Latter, when I did learn a bit more about computers I was able to trace the hacker to China and I was able to find the trojan hidden in some obscure system's folder. The problem is that when I eliminated it from the hard disk, the trojan was somewhat reintroduced when I connected to internet again. Installation of service packs for XP (those service packs eliminate hundred of security holes that people can use to enter in your computer) plus a good antivirus plus a good firewall mitigated rather the situation, but did not eliminate completely the attacks. After several months trying to find a solution, I abandoned that insecure operative system and installed a Linux distribution. Since then I forgot antivirus and firewalls... I would recommend you to install a secure and modern operative system.
  20. Human beings are living in universe and it is difficult to believe that our universe can be sustaining life forever. According to current cosmological knowledge the Universe is evolving towards a future state where life is not possible. You can consider shorter scales of time. Think, for instance that even if you biologically manage to live forever at Earth, Sun will die and life will be not possible at Earth.
  21. The time-symmetry of the Schrödinger equation is independent of the interpretation that you chose. The equation is time-symmetric in all of them. But neither one nor the other can explain the very important ultimate facts such as the triple duality of the singularity. I will try again: Can you (or your "traditional scholars") explain the triple duality of the singularity without the great spiritual power of the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
  22. Both Physics and Nature claim otherwise.
  23. The canonical belief can give explanations and answers to questions for which even modern science doesn't have an answer. For instance it can explain how the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe "after drinking heavily". Before? Do you know that the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics is time-symmetric? t --> -t. Your "traditional scholars" arrived at results for the unreal classical reality of the quantum, but cannot explain the very important ultimate facts such as the triple duality of the singularity. Can you explain the triple duality of the singularity without the great spiritual power of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? No you cannot.
  24. As said to you "The inversion of the Ammonia molecule is a real process". Feynman is just describing that. What part of the statement "the Benzene molecule is not given by any of the resonant forms but that both resonant forms together describe the molecule" you do not still understand? Take a look to the image in #23. That is a representation of the Benzene molecule beyond the limitations of Lewis structures. Nobody, except you, mentioned a W boson. Evidently the W boson is real. What is your misunderstanding here?
  25. Those traditions give explanations for the unreal reality, but cannot explain the very important facts. For instance the "canonical beliefs" reveal us that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe "after drinking heavily" [1]. But what was he/she/it drinking? We need to study this!! Those traditional scholars are wrong [2]. Empirical reality was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster as modern scholars have shown. What we need to discuss is the inherent duality of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which can be both Pink and Invisible [3]. This duality is very fundamental and reflects the ultimate real reality of the real beings. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spagetti_monster [2] According to a previous suggestion your scholars are not real scholars. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
  • 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.