Quantum Probability

[SamBridge]

 

Although cosmology and astrophysics are different, there is nothing holistically logical about quantum physics. :s

That's what many people thought, and thousands of experiments proved them wrong.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

If you believe something just because he says it and not because there is evidence, you have violated one of his highest regards, which is science.

 

As far as I know it the electron is one of the most common particles, which is very small, very fast, yet approachable. I and many others have and are still making a living out of the manipulation of electrons. The movement of this easily manipulated particle, can produce magnetism , it can produce electro-magnetic waves that hare off at the speed of light into the "ether" and appear thousands of miles away with information. No one seems to have broken it down into smaller particles like the proton into quarks. Our current high tech , industrial world exists by dint of the little electron , yet still we do no fully get to grips with quite what it is and how it behaves , what with spin, probability, wave/particle duality, location, etc etc.

 

You can produce a few in your lap with a battery and a piece of wire, or a balloon and a jumper for that matter.

 

Perhaps, as photosynthesis, utilizes electrons, our future energy requirements may yet be found in a new manipulation of electrons. Also the major part of the earths crust consists of Silicon. What are we doing, the future lays before us in the humble yet prolific 'ELECTRON'

Edited January 17, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Gen1GT]

That's what many people thought, and thousands of experiments proved them wrong.

 

That's my point. I'm not saying the science is incorrect, but if quantum physics was logical, the principles would have been discovered long ago. If quantum entanglement is so logical, why can't we figure it out?

[SamBridge]

It is logical, and what you're saying could have been applied to the curvature of the Earth. The Earth was always curved, but we didn't discover the methods to logically conclude that until at least complex mathematics was invented. We could have assumed that the Earth had any shape: a cube, a sphere, a plane, a hyperdonut, and the same principal is true right now for the creation of the universe.

[elfmotat]

but if quantum physics was logical, the principles would have been discovered long ago.

 

They were - about a century ago.

 

 

If quantum entanglement is so logical, why can't we figure it out?

 

Figure what out? What about entanglement do you think we don't understand?

[Gen1GT]

Figure what out? What about entanglement do you think we don't understand?

 

How it can happen instantly across any distance.

 

The best argument that quantum physics is not logical is in the reaction you get when you first explain the basics to a layperson. "That is fucked up" is a typical reaction.

[SamBridge]

 

How it can happen instantly across any distance.

 

The best argument that quantum physics is not logical is in the reaction you get when you first explain the basics to a layperson. "That is fucked up" is a typical reaction.

It happens instantly across distance because distance isn't a factor, the correlation is the same regardless of 3 dimensional coordinates, which means that the connection exists through higher dimensional coordinates.

[elfmotat]

How it can happen instantly across any distance.

 

Why shouldn't it be able to? There's no fundamental reason to think that physics should be local.

 

Say a particle decays into two electrons traveling in opposite directions. We have it setup so that, in one frame, one electron is detected before the other. Say we find that this electron is spin-up, and then we go and see what the other detector had to say about the state of the other electron. We (always) find that the second electron was spin-down.

 

But relativity tells us that an instantaneous "interaction" (I use that word loosely) will result in the order of events being reversed in some frames. We can find a frame in which the spin-down electron is detected first. Since the events aren't causally related, there is no contradiction and relativity is not violated.

 

The best argument that quantum physics is not logical is in the reaction you get when you first explain the basics to a layperson. "That is fucked up" is a typical reaction.

 

QM is a mathematical theory, and as such is necessarily "logical." It may be unfamiliar or unintuitive, but it's still logical.

[swansont]

It happens instantly across distance because distance isn't a factor, the correlation is the same regardless of 3 dimensional coordinates, which means that the connection exists through higher dimensional coordinates.

 

I don't think this is part of any mainstream theory of entanglement.

[Gen1GT]

elfmotat, are you able to explain that in simpler terms? What is spin down?

 

Also, I was under the impression that quantum entanglement was a mystery because it defies the theory of interactions occuring faster than the speed of light...my assumption must be incorrect, however, I guess I don't understand the vehicle for the instantaneous interaction through infinite distances.

 

QM may seem logical to those of you whom understand it deeply, however, I and MW define logic as "interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable."

 

I'm, not trying to be offensive to anyone, because I'm also a fan of QM and logic, but I'm sorry, the subject is entirely illogical. How many pioneering scientists have studied the topic and gotten results that have caused them to respond, "this just can't be, it doesn't make sense." But then would run the calculations and experiments again only to come up with the same result. I'll wager that QM is a field containing reluctant observers.

 

From Wiki: "Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects, resulting in a contradiction with common sense."

 

Schrodinger believed quauntum entanglement to be a "reduction to absurdity" but you guys are telling me it's logical. I'm sorry gents, but it is definitely not.

[SamBridge]

 

I don't think this is part of any mainstream theory of entanglement.

Look at the equation for when the wave functions of particles become combined. Do you see the strength dependent on distance? No, you just see the correlation of position. This is the mainstream concept, as far as mainstream theories go I suppose you're right that it's not mainstream yet, though I have seen it mentioned on a couple pop-science shows like nova and one of brian greene's movies.

Edited January 18, 2013 by SamBridge

[swansont]

Look at the equation for when the wave functions of particles become combined. Do you see the strength dependent on distance? No, you just see the correlation of position. This is the mainstream concept, as far as mainstream theories go I suppose you're right that it's not mainstream yet, though I have seen it mentioned on a couple pop-science shows like nova and one of brian greene's movies.

 

i don't see any higher-dimensional connection. That sounds a lot like hidden variables.

 

elfmotat, are you able to explain that in simpler terms? What is spin down?

 

Particles like electrons (Fermions, with spin 1/2) can have two spin orientations, with the z-axis projection of the spin vector in opposite directions. We often call these spin up or spin down.

 

Also, I was under the impression that quantum entanglement was a mystery because it defies the theory of interactions occuring faster than the speed of light...my assumption must be incorrect, however, I guess I don't understand the vehicle for the instantaneous interaction through infinite distances.

 

It's a mystery if you assume the particles are secretly communicating with each other, i.e. you place certain constraints on the problem that aren't inherent to QM.

 

QM may seem logical to those of you whom understand it deeply, however, I and MW define logic as "interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable."

 

I'm, not trying to be offensive to anyone, because I'm also a fan of QM and logic, but I'm sorry, the subject is entirely illogical. How many pioneering scientists have studied the topic and gotten results that have caused them to respond, "this just can't be, it doesn't make sense." But then would run the calculations and experiments again only to come up with the same result. I'll wager that QM is a field containing reluctant observers.

 

From Wiki: "Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects, resulting in a contradiction with common sense."

 

Schrodinger believed quauntum entanglement to be a "reduction to absurdity" but you guys are telling me it's logical. I'm sorry gents, but it is definitely not.

 

 

Logical manifests itself as being able to predict results. Logical allows to figure out answers as long as you know the rules. As elfmotat mentioned, it may not be intuitive, but that's not the same thing. We can predict the results of entanglement, in that once we know the state of one particle, we also know the state of its entangled partner. Nothing illogical about that.

 

Schrödinger's cat is an attack on the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. That's not QM itself, it's a philosophy about how to think about QM.

[SamBridge]

 

i don't see any higher-dimensional connection. That sounds a lot like hidden variables.

it's not exactly hidden variables in the traditional sense, its more like a wormhole. Two different higher dimensional coordinates become the same coordinate when particles are entangled. Otherwise the only explanation is "that's just the way it is". There's multiple theories that use higher dimensions than 3 or even 4, even quantum physics can, and different aspects of particles can supposedly interact in those higher dimensions. Of course you can take the non visual Heisenberg route and just treat everything as mathematical matrices, but that doesn't always work.

Edited January 18, 2013 by SamBridge

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

 

What choice do I have? I'm a man in my late 30's with three children under five

 

Besides, we’re talking about theoretical physics, most of which is currently out of practical possibility to confirm with experimentation.

 

 

 

There is something you can do. you can experiment with electrons. they are easily available. In wires, on balloons, comb your hair with a plastic comb and pick up tiny bits of dry paper, look at a cathode ray tube, get a spark generator, take it to just striking and light a lighter flame near it and see what happens. make a spark near a radio , set up all manner of experiments with electrons.

 

Make observations of anything rather interesting.

 

Then go away and think, think, think.

 

Come up with a hypothesis.

 

Try your hypothesis out a few times.

 

THEN GO AND TELL SOMEONE ABOUT IT.

 

You will be a happy man ! ( with five kids and a mortgage ) I guarantee it ( I have had 4 daughters and a love of electrons )

Edited January 19, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Look at the equation for when the wave functions of particles become combined. Do you see the strength dependent on distance? No, you just see the correlation of position. This is the mainstream concept, as far as mainstream theories go I suppose you're right that it's not mainstream yet, though I have seen it mentioned on a couple pop-science shows like nova and one of brian greene's movies.

 

Do these other two dimensions you talk of have names ? Like location are the x,y,z, coordinates ( 3 dimensions ) and time ( 1 fourth dimension) =4 Dimensions . What are the names of these other 2 dimensions you speak of. Are these 2 of the umteenth string theory dimensions.?

Edited January 19, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[SamBridge]

 

Do these other two dimensions you talk of have names ? Like location are the x,y,z, coordinates ( 3 dimensions ) and time ( 1 fourth dimension) =4 Dimensions . What are the names of these other 2 dimensions you speak of. Are these 2 of the umteenth string theory dimensions.?

I don't think they have names, after 4 it just becomes too complex to give dimensions any sort of visual name, they just call those dimensions "dimension n" of a "n" dimensional manifold in "n" dimensional space. With our current framework, light can travel as the way it currently does in 10 dimensional space but not in 3 dimensional space, which explains why the lighting always seems off when I do 3-D modeling. or at least according to the string theory model, I'm not sure if that's exactly true. Essentially the way you just have to think of higher dimensions as just something parametric equations. As one coordinate dimension changes according to a certain equation, the coordinates of the lower dimensions change to sustain the correlation of the position of the object in that n dimensional space. What these dimensions actually are is just unknown, if an object is higher than 3 dimensions, all it means is you need "n" components to describe its location.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I don't think they have names, after 4 it just becomes too complex to give dimensions any sort of visual name, they just call those dimensions "dimension n" of a "n" dimensional manifold in "n" dimensional space. With our current framework, light can travel as the way it currently does in 10 dimensional space but not in 3 dimensional space, which explains why the lighting always seems off when I do 3-D modeling. or at least according to the string theory model, I'm not sure if that's exactly true. Essentially the way you just have to think of higher dimensions as just something parametric equations. As one coordinate dimension changes according to a certain equation, the coordinates of the lower dimensions change to sustain the correlation of the position of the object in that n dimensional space. What these dimensions actually are is just unknown, if an object is higher than 3 dimensions, all it means is you need "n" components to describe its location.

 

So are you saying that particles that are separated in normal geometric 3d space are linked via one of these other two dimensions you talk about.?

 

 

As far as I can understand, a particle can be absolutely measured for momentum or location inversely proportional to each other.

 

So if we're measuring an electron's momentum absolutely, then its position is entirely unknowable.

 

However, do electrons not travel at the speed of light? If we nab an electron to measure its position, why can we not assume it was travelling at the speed of light just before we measured it, therefore measuring absolute momentum and position?

 

I'm a quantum rookie, so be kind to me and my ignorant question!

 

 

 

I have a few observation which might be of some use :

 

As far as I understand

 

1. the probability wave which is associated with each and every thing no matter how large or how small extends from - infinity to + infinity having almost zero probability at infinity rising in an oscillatory manner of amplitute to a maximum that then falls away in a similar oscillatory manner to minus infinity , be they large like a person or an earth or miniscule like a quark.

The peak amplitude is where we normally are, and infinity or near infinity is where there is the minutest of possibility , none the less a finite real possibility that we could be there. The nature of the waves are such that for objects our size, and the earth the probability wave is of sufficient frequency and distribution, that it falls off to practically zero, just off centre. So we are where we are. For an electron however the probability wave is of sufficient frequency and distribution for one or two or maybe more of its probability amplitude peaks to be somewhere else, than where you think it is. There is an area of electronics called quantum tunneling where electrons appear to escape over or through barriers which appear to imprison them .

 

2. When the probability is 1:1,000,000,000 or one billionth one might think. well that is as good as not going to happen.

 

3. There are in the universe many places , where there are billions of opportunities in fact billions upon billions. eg in the center of stars . So unlikely fusion to higher elements occurs because although it is very improbable the 1 in a billion comes around very very often.

 

4. The Universe is full of Billions of Billions of Stars so even though the conditions for intelligent life to survive are highly highly unlikely ( Here we are )

5 . Pollen is produced in vaste numbers , as is human seed.

 

So the universe is built around Probability and vast numbers !

Edited January 20, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[SamBridge]

 

So are you saying that particles that are separated in normal geometric 3d space are linked via one of these other two dimensions you talk about.?

No I'm saying they possibly exist as more than 3 dimensional objects.

[derek w]

There has to be conservation of energy,within the 4 dimensions that we know of.

[SamBridge]

There has to be conservation of energy,within the 4 dimensions that we know of.

Yeah? So? Why wouldn't there be?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

No I'm saying they possibly exist as more than 3 dimensional objects.

But what dimension , variable or quality is available to the particle in these other dimensions.

Sorry you have appeared to have answered this above . Need to do a bit more thinking.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[SamBridge]

But what dimension , variable or quality is available to the particle in these other dimensions.

Sorry you have appeared to have answered this above . Need to do a bit more thinking.

It's just "n", we don't know what they mean, it's just that if you have a 9 dimensional object, then you can mathematically make a 9 dimensional cube of 3 dimensional manifolds as surfaces, things like that, or instead of time existing as a line it could exist as a plane in higher dimensions, ect, what it really boils down to is geometry, but there's no clear visual representation for higher dimensions.

Edited January 20, 2013 by SamBridge

[MigL]

Forces such as gravitational and electromagnetic fall off as the power (n-1), where n is the number of spatial dimensions. In effect in our 3 spatial dimensioned world, they fall off with the square of distance or radius.

If there were any other 'large' spatial dimensions, they would fall off as a higher power. The fact that they don't pretty well excludes the possibility of more 'large', non-compacted dimensions.

Edited January 21, 2013 by MigL

[SamBridge]

Forces such as gravitational and electromagnetic fall off as the power (n-1), where n is the number of spatial dimensions. In effect in our 3 spatial dimensioned world, they fall off with the square of distance or radius.

If there were any other 'large' spatial dimensions, they would fall off as a higher power. The fact that they don't pretty well excludes the possibility of more 'large', non-compacted dimensions.

That has little to do with the existence of higher dimensions and more 100% to do with mathematics, your statements don't even make sense. They don't fall off at all, regardless of however many dimensions there actually are, we observe that gravity and electromagnetism have an inverse relationship relating their strength and distance from whatever's emitting them, we can't even completely explain why that even happens in just 3 dimensions.

Edited January 21, 2013 by SamBridge

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

The structural foundation of science is the experimentation and results from those preceeding you. Their work cannot be disregarded because I'm expected to be skeptical to all new theories unless and until I can confirm with my own experimentation.

These scientist up through the early part of the last 130 years have done some amazing research and experimentation around your question of Probability and the Quantum. . Lets see if there are any gems which can inspire you.

 

How about Prince De Broglie and his Wave, Associated with every thing, Neutrino, electron. the earth

.