
#37
Dec1110, 03:08 PM

P: 1,967

The idea that we can only be motivated by preconceptions and expectations is also flawed. Feynman and many of the more famous physicists who made great advances managed to retain that childlike wonder and curiosity about anything that everything. In fact, Einstein once complained that he should of have deduced the HUP himself from his photoelectric effect some twenty years earlier. Perhaps if he had been less metaphysically oriented he would have. 



#38
Dec1110, 03:57 PM

P: 10

Still I do agree with you. Did you mean if Einstein was "more" metaphysically inclined? But anyway it takes great minds to make these advancements. The rest of us have to try even if many of us cannot overcome our preconceptions. The fact is most do take what they learnt as gospel and will fight change. This can still advance some knowledge even if it does not lead to the biggest breakthroughs. 



#39
Dec1110, 05:00 PM

P: 1,967

I suppose I am agreeing and disagreeing (I'm not really sure!) There will always be those like Einstein who insist an answer must exist for metaphysical reasons and no doubt such an approach worked extremely well for him. However, making metaphysical assumptions is not an objective approach and history has also demonstrated many cases where it was counterproductive. Therefore as useful as it can be to make metaphysical assumptions it must never be forgotten that objectivity is paramount. 



#40
Dec1110, 05:33 PM

P: 10





#41
Dec1110, 08:30 PM

P: 27

Maui,
Dismissing everything that doesn't fit our world view is not rational and reasonable especially if that world view is wrong. 



#42
Dec1110, 09:11 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,215

Similarly, the unobserved moon continues to effect the tides and is therefore, the moon at work. 



#43
Dec1210, 06:21 AM

P: 10

The collapse of a wave function doesn't just form the reality of the object at that moment. It is not that before that time there was only a wave function of probability and no tree. There is a temporal nature to it all as well. Remember Wheelers delayed choice double slit experiments. SO. suppose the tree is unobserved by yourself. It can be very well argued that from your point of view it is in a superpostion if states, and always has been if you have never been there before or had any interaction with it or its environment (how far to take this is hard to say but it is probably very hard to isolate you from it as you are bound to have breathed in he odd O2 molecule that it broke down). Anyway the point is from your point of view it has existed in a superpostion of states from seed to fully grown tree. The moment you interact with it you see a fully grown tree and not some weird seed/tree wave form. The collapse of the wave function solidifies the past as much as the present. SO of course it was producing oxygen the whole time. Wheelers delayed choice experiment has been theorised to be done at the cosmological level. An experiment can be devised where a measurement we make now could effect the path taken by a photon billions of years ago. This is actually no more impressive than experiments done. Experiments do show decisions we make with this set up effect the past , just by a few nanoseconds though so billions of years seems better. But really it is no different. You cannot think of time as linear when talking about wave functions. Therefore notions of what is existing at any one point in time are also redundant. That photon whose path we can effect long in the past. Does it have an existence before we take the measurement? YES/NO/MAYBE 



#44
Dec1210, 09:16 AM

P: 724

My main gripe with this argument is again the classical concepts that fail in closer examination. If we stick to classical concepts and knowledge only, we would be pressured to question the existence of matter itself, whether we talk about trees, moons, cats, etc. 



#45
Dec1210, 02:16 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,215





#46
Dec1210, 08:37 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,215





#47
Dec1310, 03:09 AM

P: 724

No, you misunderstand. I said we might be tempted to question if anything exists at all, IF we sticked too tightly to the classical concepts. But we don't(those engaged in fundamenal physics at least). As i replied to ZapperZ, you can't rebuild a coherent model of the universe from just classical concepts. The moment you attempt to do so, you may fall prey to solipsism. For the overall consistency of the universe and everything in it, i am willing to believe that it exists apart from my perception, but at the same time,imo, there is an obvious need to reexamine not our basic assumptions about the world, but our classical concepts(as i said earlier, we may need a theory of how brains work). 



#48
Dec1310, 05:19 AM

Mentor
P: 28,775

You cited string or quantum gravity, etc. All of those are based on classical ideas. Quantum mechanics really is the rule on how these classical idea will give its result when applied to a world in which these idea may not be totally kosher. But we can't get away from that, and there is no way to get away from that at the moment. I asked for you to show an working alternative, and you don't have one, mainly because there's none! So essentially, your argument is based on (surprise!) a matter of TASTES! BTW, coming back to the original topic (I'm strange, I know!), how many people who've been involved in this discussion actually understand what is meant by a "quantum superposition"? Zz. 



#49
Dec1310, 01:23 PM

P: 724

Yes, that's how we approximate our models to reality but our classical models are inherently flawed because they are based on those classical concepts. That's NOT how the universe is, is it? The results of those measurements can not always be framed in clasical concepts, can they? Exactly how accurate is the socalled classicallike model of 'waveparticle duality'? Can we understand matter at the tiniest scales in classical concepts? Can you? If there's none, then we lapse into the 3 remaining alternatives: 1. Instrumentalism 2. Different grades of voodoo that preserve some form of classicality 3. Solipsism But my choice is definitely not based on a matter of tastes, If something exists in a causal relationship with other entities, there's got to be a coherent description of it. My point is that we would likely have to accomodate a 'relaxed' version of the usual classical notions  existnot exist; realnotreal; therenotthere, etc. instead of the above 3 choices. Superposition is another concept that resists a classical explanation. AFAIK, it's still considered by most only a microscopic phenomenon, but it should in principle be possible to put a larger macroscopic body  bacteria, cell, etc. I need to find the magazine that featured a macroscopic experiement that was done years ago, that demonstrated further the inadequacy of the classical concepts. 



#50
Dec1310, 01:32 PM

Mentor
P: 28,775

Quantum superposition, while it is a quantum concept, still make use of classical parameters of position, momentum, energy, spin, etc... and the experimental measurements are all classical, i.e. they measured these quantities. Again, talk is cheap, really. I haven't seen a single example where a classical concept isn't invoked, even in the quantum picture. And please, tell me what "quantum superposition" is! Zz. 



#51
Dec1310, 01:48 PM

P: 724

Okay, i am going to say it  from what you say it follows that you don't understand what matter is. You say we have to stick to our classical concepts, because we don't have a choice. But NOT all of the properties matter fit the classical picture. Instrumentalism is not viable for philosophy, so we need to move on to the other alternatives. This doesn't mean the approach is wrong. I already stated that i consider the internal workings of the brain an essential part of how the classical notions emerge. Until we have a theory of brains what i propose will lie in obscurity(this holds for the rest of the interpretations as well, imo). A superposition of states is the simultaneous existence of all possible states of a system at the same time. Including classically impossible states, like leftandright, upanddown, deadandalivecat, etc. etc. Explain to me in classical terms the existence of a virus that's put in superposition of states. I'd prefer a picture/image of it(imagine that we could take a measurement without destroying the superposition). This is the issue. The inadequacy of the classical models. I have no other point to make in this thread, except the limited applicability of the classical concepts for a coherent worldview. 



#52
Dec1310, 02:43 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,215

Maui, perhaps your magazine has succumbed to the confines of probability theory and is
P(AnotB) + P(AandB) + P(BnotA) + P(notAnotB) = 1 (magazine) We may be missing a point here: no observation means there is no observer. There's no way to prove anything else concerning the lack of observation. 



#53
Dec1310, 03:03 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,432

A metaphysical concept (such as position or entropy) is a quality (a qualitative description) that justifies a crisp quantitative measurement in its name. In philosophy, such concepts are formed dichotomously  if A, then notA. So position is defined by its complementary quality of momentum. Position is what doesn't change, and momentum is all the kinds of possible change. With a welldefined pair of terms like this, you can then make quantitative measurements. You have a spectrum of states that lie now between the absolute limits of complete stasis and complete flux. So whether classical or nonclassical, we would expect the same metaphysical game. We would need to anchor the discussion in terms of complementary pairs of qualities, that then would allow the clear quantification of observables. Now the essense of classicality is surprisingly complex. But it involves a variety of reductions (a causal reduction being the claim that while complementaries may always be necessary, reality can in fact be reduced to one end of the spectrum as a fundamental truth). So classicality assumes at least all of the following  locality, atomism, determinism, monism, mechanicalism. And we can see that QM challenges all of these ontic categories. And we can see that the "other" is already present in the metaphysics of classicality. To have locality as a crisply meaningful concept (something we can actually measure or quantify), we had to have the idea of its "other"  nonlocality or globality. We just do not have a welldeveloped physics which uses globality as a quality, a causal extreme, to which our measurements of the world can be anchored. It is the same story for the other ontic categories. We have a clear idea of how to measure atomism, but not holism; monism, but not some kind of dualism or dyadicy (or indeed triadicy); mechanicalism, but not some kind of organicism. Determinism seems a little different as we do have a welldeveloped way of measuring randomness (whoops, recent discussions here reveal that the basis of this system is not widely understood). Anyway, QM is indeed a metaphysical challenge to classicality. But the good news is that classicality is itself so sharply defined as a collection of ontic concepts that the "other" is already clearly in sight if you care to look. We are not waiting for a philosophical revolution. Just for scientists to step back from what they think they know and appreciate the wider view. When people stop worrying about the weirdness of nonlocality and start talking about the effects of globality, then the penny will have dropped. 



#54
Dec1310, 04:09 PM

Mentor
P: 28,775

I'm an experimentalist. I have to be aware of what I'm measuring. I don't just TALK about it on some public forum. 1. A superposition of states (or what you call "simultaneous existence of all possible states") isn't anything interesting at all. We have classical superposition all the time in wave mechanics. Yet, no one makes any philosophical discussion ad nauseum on that topic on here. So what's so different with quantum superposition? 2. The difference comes in in what has been called as the First Quantization, i.e. the commutation relation of 2 observables or operators, i.e. [A,B]. When one makes a measurement, the naive view of this process is that the wavefunction is an eigenfunction of the operator, such as A, such that a particular value (eigenvalue) will be the outcome. However, this is NOT the full story! If B commutes with A, then if the wavefunction is nondegenerate, then one would have determined the value of B as well with a measurement of A. But what if B does not commute with A? Then the superposition for observable B REMAINS, i.e. the measurement of A does NOT destroy the superposition represented by observable B. 3. What this means is that the question on whether an object "exists" or not as representing "quantum superposition" is a fallacy! "Exist" isn't an observable. A measurement of position is. One doesn't determine the existence of the ENTIRE object. One determines INDIVIDUAL properties, such as position, momentum, energy, spin, charge, etc... etc., where EACH ONE Of these properties are represented by a particular observable operators (Hermitian operators). Thus, the question of the "existence" of a virus in a superposition of states" is meaningless. One can measure, say, the energy eigenvalue, position eigenvalue, etc. (assuming that the wavefunction are eigenfuctions of these observables, i.e. the matrix is purely diagonal), but to ask if such a thing "exist" in a superposition is a bastardization of quantum mechanics. Zz. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Superposition and Coherence in quantum physics  Quantum Physics  3  
Quantum superposition  Quantum Physics  1  
Philosophy of Quantum Gravity  Beyond the Standard Model  15  
Quantum Interpretational Philosophy  Quantum Physics  0  
Quantum Superposition  Quantum Physics  6 