Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Spirituality & Beliefs > Science & Spirituality

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 16-04-2012, 12:29 PM
Kepler
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaysonR
The question then becomes, "why"?
How is the macro level of the world incorporated by realism, but not the quantum?

...

In short; I think we're still missing a piece to the puzzle, but I agree that QM allows us the ability to probabilistically predict reality considerably well in regards to materials that are so fine, fast, and brief that they defy the imagination the ability to fully visualize them.
The answer to all of this is called quantum decoherence:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse (the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer) and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation: decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges out of a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaysonR
I still think my original stance holds: it is a bit of a miss to think of the math as the reality and not a representative model of the reality.
You're right that math is a model of reality. However, Bell's theorem has been tested experimentally. It's not just a mathematical thing, so it's not fair to say that the math is being "confused for reality". Forget the math for a moment, and the result's of Bell's theorem experiments still stand.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 16-04-2012, 03:00 PM
Kepler
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hybrid
Waves do affect the location of a particle.
Waves of what? Particle of what? In many cases, sure. For example, EM waves affect the location of an electron because the electron will oscillate in the changing EM field. Is this what you mean?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hybrid
Since waves are fractal / self similar , it's always in infinite progression. The main wave always create a secondary waves that interact with one another in an infinite progression.
Waves are not necessarily self similar. In fact, most are not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hybrid
The greater number of interaction the lesser the effect so those infinitistimal effects can be considered negligible. But to me that explains why particles cannot be have an exact location, because the subsequent waves that affect the particle is neverending. Iow, particle has no final location in space therefore we predict its location and to get an exact location of the particle we must capture it in an instant of time.
Again, waves of what?
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 16-04-2012, 10:46 PM
JaysonR JaysonR is offline
Knower
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Alaska
Posts: 152
  JaysonR's Avatar
Kepler;
My point in that was that the way in which we determine the probability of where a given particle is, is not itself a representation of how the particle behaves in appearing.

Meaning, because we use collapsing to determine the location, should not be confused with the idea that the particle is popping in and out of existence in literal fashion of the probability computations.

The probability of a particle being in a given range does not indicate that it literally is everywhere at once in that given range until observed and only then finite (it's riiiiight...there!).
__________________
I would like more people to embrace their religion; not the religion they belong to. The religion of life, instead, that comes from being them.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 16-04-2012, 11:50 PM
Kepler
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaysonR
Kepler;
My point in that was that the way in which we determine the probability of where a given particle is, is not itself a representation of how the particle behaves in appearing.

Meaning, because we use collapsing to determine the location, should not be confused with the idea that the particle is popping in and out of existence in literal fashion of the probability computations.

The probability of a particle being in a given range does not indicate that it literally is everywhere at once in that given range until observed and only then finite (it's riiiiight...there!).
Yes, I get your point. Your position is not the standard view. This is not a completely resolved issue (I doubt it will be anytime soon since it is more of a philosophical thing) but there is reason to think what you are saying is incorrect.

Again, see counterfactual definiteness ('realism') and note that most interpretations do not include this.

I know, I know. It's weird to think that an electron doesn't have a position until it is measured. This is very strange! But it is part of many interpretations of QM.

If you want to stand by your position, you're going to have to give me a little more to work with. (I've been including a bunch of links [too many, probably ] in each of my posts, supporting my assertions and for the curious reader that wants to learn more.) Otherwise, I'm going to keep referring you to EPR and Bell's theorem (and relatedly the Kochen-Specker theorem).
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 16-04-2012, 11:54 PM
Kepler
Posts: n/a
 
BTW, great discussion. I've learned a lot, researching and double checking things.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 17-04-2012, 12:00 AM
hybrid hybrid is offline
Master
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,882
  hybrid's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kepler
I know, I know. It's weird to think that an electron doesn't have a position until it is measured. This is very strange! But it is part of many interpretations of QM.

If you want to stand by your position, you're going to have to give me a little more to work with. (I've been including a bunch of links [too many, probably ] in each of my posts, supporting my assertions and for the curious reader that wants to learn more.) Otherwise, I'm going to keep referring you to EPR and Bell's theorem (and relatedly the Kochen-Specker theorem).

what's the relation of a QM interpretation that an electron has no position until measured with the bell's theorem which is about non-locality?
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 17-04-2012, 12:11 AM
JaysonR JaysonR is offline
Knower
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Alaska
Posts: 152
  JaysonR's Avatar
Kepler:

It's like I said before; I don't have a computational standpoint (outside of basic logic) to offer.

I have a visualization of what I think would be interesting to test (the 3D wave concept mentioned previously); but I have no current means of testing this.
I've toyed with the concept's basic functions, but I can hardly say that's enough to stand on.
All it really shows myself is that it might be possible; but it's also an empty assertion at this point.


As to the general standing of the citations.
Of course the tests are going to produce results of particles without realism.
That's why I bothered to mention Zeilinger.
Because he's not even willing to toss out realism full bore, and that man really knows how to use and abuse the lack of realism in QM.

It's clear that realism isn't needed on the QM level for accounting for action and state; easily.
And we can even prove this experimentally.
And we can even show the threshold of where such stops being the case in scale.

But we really don't have an answer as to why that is the case.


What my visualization is looking at is a speculative, and imagined, way things might be arranged to pull of both.
Not how things are in measure, but why they are.

I'm not sure if I'm making a good amount of sense or not on this tangent...


And agreed: good discussion
__________________
I would like more people to embrace their religion; not the religion they belong to. The religion of life, instead, that comes from being them.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 17-04-2012, 12:12 AM
hybrid hybrid is offline
Master
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,882
  hybrid's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kepler
Waves of what? Particle of what? In many cases, sure. For example, EM waves affect the location of an electron because the electron will oscillate in the changing EM field. Is this what you mean?
yes and a bit more.
in a particle - field model ... Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended (as fields). In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton. ... The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables - the co-ordinates of space and time. Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. (Albert Einstein, Metaphysics of Relativity, 1950)

Quote:
Waves are not necessarily self similar. In fact, most are not.
waves create harmonics ad infinitum.


Quote:
Again, waves of what?

waves of space.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 17-04-2012, 12:33 AM
JaysonR JaysonR is offline
Knower
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Alaska
Posts: 152
  JaysonR's Avatar
Perhaps I should put it this way, Kepler...if we knew the why, then we wouldn't need to be hunting for a Higgs Boson.

Of which, btw, it is the lack of realism in QM that has never had me thinking that Higgs' Boson will be found.
It doesn't fit.
__________________
I would like more people to embrace their religion; not the religion they belong to. The religion of life, instead, that comes from being them.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 17-04-2012, 12:48 AM
hybrid hybrid is offline
Master
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,882
  hybrid's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaysonR
Perhaps I should put it this way, Kepler...if we knew the why, then we wouldn't need to be hunting for a Higgs Boson.

Of which, btw, it is the lack of realism in QM that has never had me thinking that Higgs' Boson will be found.
It doesn't fit.

what do you mean lack of realism in QM?
are you assuming that the weirdness of QM makes it unreal?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums