Examining the Myth of Decoherence & the Measurement Problem

[Maaneli]

Maaneli,

About your claim that we know quantum experiences time. I looked this up in my nw version of John Barrow's "New Theories of everything".

Under the chapter title: "The Quantum mystery of Time"

He starts the first paragrapgh by saying:

"In quantum theory the status of time is an even greater mystery than it appeared to Einstein and Newton. IF it exists in a transcedent way then it is not one of those quantities subject to the famous Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg..."

Okay? Just plain english and common sense. And from a great mathematician too
I guess he should go back to school and learn more maths because he doesn't agree with your point about classical time being applied to quantum fundamentals?

LOL, I don't think you understood what he means. He's not denying that there is a time parameter in QM and that wavefunctions have a time-dependent evolution. What he is worrying about is the physical interpretation of the time parameter in QM, and rightly so if he is starting from the assumption that the orthodox intepretation of QM and the HUP is fundamentally correct.

 

[Coldcall]

LOL, I don't think you understood what he means. He's not denying that there is a time parameter in QM and that wavefunctions have a time-dependent evolution. What he is worrying about is the physical interpretation of the time parameter in QM, and rightly so if he is starting from the assumption that the orthodox intepretation of QM and the HUP is fundamentally correct.

You are back peddling here big time My original point was about whether "time" existed at the deepest quantum fundamental - which is something Barrow admits is an open question. Same thing I said (perhaps poorly) but you argued against that saying that we could be certain that time exists in the quantum level - even leaving aside our classical coniderations.

Before i posted the Barrow comments you expressed no distinction between our sense of time, and whatever is going on at the fundamental quantum end. And whenever i tried to raise this difference of time perspectives you completely ignored the idea. No wonder i am skeptical of so-called forum maths exerts - especially ones with severe Determinist tendencies

 

[Coldcall]

Maaneli,

"Look, I could tediously take the time to explain all this to you in english and some math (which I already have tried actually), but I don't have the time or patience to do that any further, because you don't seem to know some very basic prerequisites."

Unfortunatley all I've really heard from you are tedious excuses or contradictions. The reason you don't make any sense is because you appear to be brainwashed with a emotional attachement to super-determinsim. Maybe you need to look at that study about what your brand of super-determinsim does to people's minds and then do a little inward refelction.
"Destined To Cheat? New Research Finds Free Will Can Keep Us Honest"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0129125354.htm

" You're asking a question about quantum gravity which is a different issue."

We are talking about foundational issues here so any genuine quantum gravity theory would necessarily impact upon any genuine intepretation of quantum theory or vice versa.

"In terms of deBB, there is nonetheless an extension of it to a BD quantum gravity theory, namely, string field theory."

There you go. This why you are confusing. Check out the last two statements you've made. Its as if these things have to be dragged out of you kicking and screaming.

"We don't really need his opinion on this, as this is not a controversial issue at all. But, if you want to as him anything, ask him exactly this: do wavefunctions have time-dependence in standard nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics?"

If my orignal point was not controversial why were you arguing? You know and I know i was making a distinction between our practical application of quantum mechanics from a classical perspective (ie. time), and the question of time at a deeper fundamental level. You refused to accept such distinctions. And i even mentioned the Shrodinger equation before you did just to make sure you understood the distinction, but then again you just barged ahead.

"And what is meant by a stationary state in QM? And make sure to tell him this is not a question about quantum gravity."

Here we go again It is, its not, it is, its not - LOL

"Retrocausality has a very definite meaning in the foundations of physics literature. You just seem to be ignoring that and redefining things as you feel like it. That's the problem I have with you using the word "retrocausality" to describe QM nonlocality."

It is an open argument whether retrocausality is an accurate way to define the effects of Wheeler's Delayed choice or Quantum experiment, or even entanglement. Its ongoing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality

But I am willing to concede to you sir the use of the word, for retro-active instead, because it doesn't really matter in as far as the instantaneous effects of entanglement across large distances is a known. My point was that our limited glimpse of this "spooky action at a distance" may be indicating that on that fundamental (non-classical) level of quantum mechanics it operates outside of "time". Entanglement seems to be one of the few observable effects we know about whatever is the guts of fundamental quantum mechanics. And the fact that the effect is apparently instantaneous even if tested across lightyears should make us stop and think for a moment what that could be telling us about whatever level of the universe quantum mechanics is reaching into, or out of. We cannot know that our maths (with the classically constucted time-dependence) is describing that fundamental level.

And surely you must agree with that if you are going to stay true to Bohmian principles - namely quantum mechanics is as of yet incomplete? Right? We may not agree on things like the Determinsim inherent in Bohmian mechanics but i would have thought you'd keep an open mind about the status of "time" in any true fundamental theory.

"Also, determinisim is not something intrinsic to just classical physics."

Its not even *intrinsic* to classical mechanics. There were plenty of early classical scientists along the way who warned about the impossibility of knowing all starting conditions at anyone given time. Then there's chaos and the butterfly effect which should be classed as classical non deterministic emergent behaviour. You only cling on to any concepts which promote a Deterministic worldview, because for you to admit just one non-deterministic system exists - breaks your whole philosophical pro-Determinsim bias. Which frankly is why you and most strong Determinists hook up so closely to Bohmian theory.

Am i right or wrong about that?

"The point is just that there is nothing mathematically inconsistent about writing down an equation of motion for a particle in terms of something mathematically abstract (like the quantum wavefunction or classical Hamiltonian). Yes of course there are differences in details that still should be explored, but that is not my point. And please don't bother to insist that it is."

Thank heavens you've at least said "abstract". You know this has been my whole point all along in relation to the wonderful feats you attributed to Bohmian mechanics. They most certainyly are abstracts and by saying so you admit - rather belatedly - that the maths we use for these quantum calculations are indeed abstract for the simple reason we don't really know either the status of a "reality" or "time" inside the wave function.

In any case. I've never questionaed any of the maths from our classical perspective, but the fact is the maths for all intepretations works as well as the others. Thats a well documented fact even without a maths degree.

The only difference in Bohmian theory that I can establish after all this, is that it represents a neo-classical Determinist view of quantum mechanics. Its deeply motivated by a philosophical or theological angst about the nature of reality. Sad but true.

From Bohm to Bell, to Legett; its sad to see the house of cards coming down boys.
Oh yeah, now I know why you have not much nice to say about the brilliant Anton Zeilinger, he slam-dunked Legett's tests for quantum realism. Ouch.

 

[Hurkyl]

The reason you don't make any sense is because you appear to be brainwashed with a emotional attachement to super-determinsim.

Or maybe... just maybe... the problem is with you?

 

[Coldcall]

Or maybe... just maybe... the problem is with you?

I doubt it and there is an ever increasing amount of evidence which confirms that realism is non-existent at the quantum mechanical level. Get use to it guys. Party is over for Determinism and once Zeilinger finally ejects the primitive idea of realism at the quantum level, you'll have to reformulate Bohmain so it makes some sense to someone. I can hear the clenching of arses

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2008/06/the_reality_tests_1.php?page=all&p=y

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/nature05677.html

"Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism'—a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality. Here we show by both theory and experiment that a broad and rather reasonable class of such non-local realistic theories is incompatible with experimentally observable quantum correlations. In the experiment, we measure previously untested correlations between two entangled photons, and show that these correlations violate an inequality proposed by Leggett for non-local realistic theories. Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0801/0801.3050v1.pdf

"The before-before experiment demonstrates free will acting from outside space-time. The experimental violation of the Leggett’s inequality supports the view that it is not appropriate to attempt to limit this freedom in Nature by forcing it to mimic classical features."

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/34774

"A quantum renaissance"

 

[Hurkyl]

I doubt it and there is an ever increasing amount of evidence which confirms that realism is non-existent at the quantum mechanical level.

What sort of evidence? It's certainly not empirical -- all of the major interpretations are observationally indistinguishable. It's certainly not logical; the existence of realist interpretations proves that such an argument cannot exist. (Assuming the consistency of logic and the corresponding mathematics) (also assuming you are not assigning an exotic meaning to the word 'realism') Argumentum ad populum is a

So what sort of evidence could it be? And if it's neither empirical nor logical, why should I listen to it?


Your citation speaks only of a certain class of theories -- assuming their conclusion is correct, that class must exclude both the Bohm interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation.

 

[Coldcall]

What sort of evidence? It's certainly not empirical -- all of the major interpretations are observationally indistinguishable. It's certainly not logical; the existence of realist interpretations proves that such an argument cannot exist. (Assuming the consistency of logic and the corresponding mathematics) (also assuming you are not assigning an exotic meaning to the word 'realism') Argumentum ad populum is a

So what sort of evidence could it be? And if it's neither empirical nor logical, why should I listen to it?

Your citation speaks only of a certain class of theories -- assuming their conclusion is correct, that class must exclude both the Bohm interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation.

On checking the time of my previous post with the links and this response of yours I KNOW you could not have looked at those articles. The one in Seed is very long just on its own. How could i know that without having observed you? Wow , according to your *beliefs* that must mean hidden variables exist!

I suggest you and Maaneli call together some Bohmian conference in order to induce mass panic amongst the evangelical ranks of super-Determinists.

Anyways i certainly can't un-brainwash you lot- so i will go and have a nice Saturday afternoon, Cheerio!

 

[Hurkyl]

On checking the time of my previous post with the links and this response of yours I KNOW you could not have looked at those articles.

You're right, I didn't read them in their entirety; I simply skimmed them long enough to realize they are a red herring. And then I realized I didn't even have to bother with that, because the parts you quoted said they were a red herring.

 

[Maaneli]

You are back peddling here big time My original point was about whether "time" existed at the deepest quantum fundamental - which is something Barrow admits is an open question. Same thing I said (perhaps poorly) but you argued against that saying that we could be certain that time exists in the quantum level - even leaving aside our classical coniderations.

Before i posted the Barrow comments you expressed no distinction between our sense of time, and whatever is going on at the fundamental quantum end. And whenever i tried to raise this difference of time perspectives you completely ignored the idea. No wonder i am skeptical of so-called forum maths exerts - especially ones with severe Determinist tendencies

<< Before i posted the Barrow comments you expressed no distinction between our sense of time, and whatever is going on at the fundamental quantum end. >>

I was not talking about our sense of time, I was talking about the existence of the time parameter in wavefunctions obeying the time-dependent Schroedinger equation.

<< You are back peddling here big time My original point was about whether "time" existed at the deepest quantum fundamental - which is something Barrow admits is an open question. >>

This isn't back peddaling. This is correcting your misunderstanding of what Barrow is worrying about. Furthermore, I thought we were always talking about nonrelativistic and relativistic QM, not quantum gravity until a couple posts ago. This word "deepest level" is ridiculously vague, and if you want people to know what you're talking about, you got to be precise about what you're talking about. Finally, you were claiming that time "does not exist" in QM, which is something that Barrow clearly doesn't claim, and which you certainly have no evidence for, and so to claim this as if it is obvious or well accepted, is simply disingenuous. But then again, that's not surprising considering how conveniently disingenuous you have been in your last couple posts by trying to brand me as a hard-core determinist, even though I repeatedly pointed out that I am not so and that determinism is not the main point or purpose of deBB theory, and that there are stochastic versions of deBB, and that GRW theory is a purely stochastic theory. Maybe you just don't know what the word "stochastic" means, in which case you should say so before making any more assumptions. By the way, I think it's fair to say that you're quickly losing credibility in this forum based on my impressions, and your interactions with the others.

 

[Maaneli]

I doubt it and there is an ever increasing amount of evidence which confirms that realism is non-existent at the quantum mechanical level. Get use to it guys. Party is over for Determinism and once Zeilinger finally ejects the primitive idea of realism at the quantum level, you'll have to reformulate Bohmain so it makes some sense to someone. I can hear the clenching of arses

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2008/06/the_reality_tests_1.php?page=all&p=y

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/nature05677.html

"Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism'—a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality. Here we show by both theory and experiment that a broad and rather reasonable class of such non-local realistic theories is incompatible with experimentally observable quantum correlations. In the experiment, we measure previously untested correlations between two entangled photons, and show that these correlations violate an inequality proposed by Leggett for non-local realistic theories. Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0801/0801.3050v1.pdf

"The before-before experiment demonstrates free will acting from outside space-time. The experimental violation of the Leggett’s inequality supports the view that it is not appropriate to attempt to limit this freedom in Nature by forcing it to mimic classical features."

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/34774

"A quantum renaissance"

Yes I looked at this too. Indeed it is all BS red herring stuff.

 

[jostpuur]

I doubt it and there is an ever increasing amount of evidence which confirms that realism is non-existent at the quantum mechanical level. Get use to it guys. Party is over for Determinism...

Claims like this implicitly assume that the "realism" must be kind of realism of Bohmian interpretation or something similar. I think that the wave functions of QM are the objective reality (according to the best current knowledge), and I don't see any reason for changing philosophical attitude towards reality.

It would be notably bad terminology to choose such meaning for the word "reality", that the reality would not exist!

 

[Coldcall]

You're right, I didn't read them in their entirety; I simply skimmed them long enough to realize they are a red herring. And then I realized I didn't even have to bother with that, because the parts you quoted said they were a red herring.

LOL, of course you don't have to bother. I would not want anything to burst your little bubble of Determinist insecurity.

What your's and Maaneli's behaviour proves to me beyond a reasonable doubt; is that it would not matter how much proof or evidence appears which contradicts either local or non-local realism. I hope neither of you work in the sciences because you would be about as useful as an ID proponent or Creationist. Very sad indeed.

 

[jostpuur]

What do you mean by "realism"? Is it synonym with "determinism"?

 

[Coldcall]

Maaneli,

" was not talking about our sense of time, I was talking about the existence of the time parameter in wavefunctions obeying the time-dependent Schroedinger equation"

I mentioned the Schrodinger equation first, not you. I did that in order for you to distinguish between how we treat "time" and whether time actually exists in an independent fashion in the quantum realm. Problem is you seem unable to separate our classical reality from the quantum world. You appear to think they are one and the same. You're plain wrong.

"Finally, you were claiming that time "does not exist" in QM, which is something that Barrow clearly doesn't claim, and which you certainly have no evidence for, and so to claim this as if it is obvious or well accepted, is simply disingenuous."

But we don't know whether time exists in the fundamental quantum world. Thats a bloody fact! You seem intellectually unable to understand that "time" is a human measurement construct for our classical reality. Of course since you believe in fairytale hidden variables I guess it should not be surprising that you insist on the quantum world behaving with the same heuristic properties as our classical reality. You're wrong again. And for a guy who is such a maths-head you certainly lack some very basic logic skills.

And yes there is cirucmstantial evidence that within the quantum mechanism responsible for entanglement, time has no meaning. Why? Because its effects are instantaneous. Its just obvious..well obvious to anyone but you and Hurkyl, and i suppose any other self-deluded Bohmians who are holding onto quantum realism for their lives.

Additionally it was noted 30 or 40 years ago that any cosmological quantum theory which treated the universe as a wave function could not include a time function as we understand it. It had to be based on discreet transitions. ie: Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Such a universal wave function mapped from the moment of the big bang is necessarily fundamental since space/time would not yet have been created.

The fact that you keep banging on about "time" as if its something fundamental shows you really don't understand the wider picture. Are you involved in science at a professional level? Please do answer - I am very curious.

"But then again, that's not surprising considering how conveniently disingenuous you have been in your last couple posts by trying to brand me as a hard-core determinist, even though I repeatedly pointed out that I am not so and that determinism is not the main point or purpose of deBB theory"

You are clearly a Determinist by the very fact you support a compeletely fanciful idea that a particle in a wave function has a defintie value before its measured...but its just hidden from us. Bohmian mecahnics is the last refuge of Determinists, and by denying this it is you who is acting dishonestly. Not only that but you reject as red herrings any experiments which remove realism from a quantum state before its measured. That is bonafide Determinism.

"By the way, I think it's fair to say that you're quickly losing credibility in this forum based on my impressions, and your interactions with the others."

LOL, how old are you exactly? You sound like you are ready for summer camp where you can make lots of friends.

 

[Coldcall]

What do you mean by "realism"? Is it synonym with "determinism"?

Its not synonymous but its very tightly connected, particularly in quantum intepretations. If you want to understand what this is about read the (June) Seed article - it covers some new experiments on the way from Anton Zeilinger and tells the history about the argument which started long ago between Einstein and Bohr. Whats funny here is that Determinists like Legett have just about thrown the towel in but as you can see Maaneli and Hurkyl refuse to believe what science is telling them. Go figure

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2008/06...p?page=all&p=y

 

[Hurkyl]

is that it would not matter how much proof or evidence appears which contradicts either local or non-local realism.

When such proof appears, it would give rise to an interesting discussion. (And would be an incredibly important advance, because it would yield a contradiction to quantum mechanics, thus finally giving a lead towards the next theory of the universe) Until then, I suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension and logic. The former so that you realize the papers you cite only refer to a certain class of 'realist' theories, and the latter so realize that "some X can't be true" is not a proof of "all X are false".

 

[Coldcall]

When such proof appears, it would give rise to an interesting discussion. (And would be an incredibly important advance, because it would yield a contradiction to quantum mechanics, thus finally giving a lead towards the next theory of the universe) Until then, I suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension and logic. The former so that you realize the papers you cite only refer to a certain class of 'realist' theories, and the latter so realize that "some X can't be true" is not a proof of "all X are false".

Hurkyl,

First of all, let's not forget Bohmian mechanics is an "interpretation", which joins the ranks of many other "interpretations" which all equally predict the same quantum mechanical outcomes. The difference with Bohmian mechanics is that it alone asks us to take as an article of faith, that something is indeed occurring of which there is absolutely no proof, ie: a defined value for a particle before measurement/observation.

So let's remember that really it should be on Bohmians to prove this rather mystical intepretation. And this has been seriously attempted twice; first Bell, then Legett (with some tests for non-local realism theories).

Legett's specific non-local realism theories have been falsified and no-one questions that fact.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.0584

So while this did not specifically falsify Bohmian mechanics, it is a further step in closing down this absurd notions of hidden variables and quantum realism. I could just as easily say that there are invisible elastic bands controlling gravity, and of course it would be ridiculously hard to falsify. So its no wonder that Bohmians motives are questioned when there is zero evidence to support their theory. It completely un-scientific.

 

[Maaneli]

[/B]

Maaneli,

" was not talking about our sense of time, I was talking about the existence of the time parameter in wavefunctions obeying the time-dependent Schroedinger equation"

I mentioned the Schrodinger equation first, not you. I did that in order for you to distinguish between how we treat "time" and whether time actually exists in an independent fashion in the quantum realm. Problem is you seem unable to separate our classical reality from the quantum world. You appear to think they are one and the same. You're plain wrong.

"Finally, you were claiming that time "does not exist" in QM, which is something that Barrow clearly doesn't claim, and which you certainly have no evidence for, and so to claim this as if it is obvious or well accepted, is simply disingenuous."

But we don't know whether time exists in the fundamental quantum world. Thats a bloody fact! You seem intellectually unable to understand that "time" is a human measurement construct for our classical reality. Of course since you believe in fairytale hidden variables I guess it should not be surprising that you insist on the quantum world behaving with the same heuristic properties as our classical reality. You're wrong again. And for a guy who is such a maths-head you certainly lack some very basic logic skills.

And yes there is cirucmstantial evidence that within the quantum mechanism responsible for entanglement, time has no meaning. Why? Because its effects are instantaneous. Its just obvious..well obvious to anyone but you and Hurkyl, and i suppose any other self-deluded Bohmians who are holding onto quantum realism for their lives.

Additionally it was noted 30 or 40 years ago that any cosmological quantum theory which treated the universe as a wave function could not include a time function as we understand it. It had to be based on discreet transitions. ie: Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Such a universal wave function mapped from the moment of the big bang is necessarily fundamental since space/time would not yet have been created.

The fact that you keep banging on about "time" as if its something fundamental shows you really don't understand the wider picture. Are you involved in science at a professional level? Please do answer - I am very curious.

"But then again, that's not surprising considering how conveniently disingenuous you have been in your last couple posts by trying to brand me as a hard-core determinist, even though I repeatedly pointed out that I am not so and that determinism is not the main point or purpose of deBB theory"

You are clearly a Determinist by the very fact you support a compeletely fanciful idea that a particle in a wave function has a defintie value before its measured...but its just hidden from us. Bohmian mecahnics is the last refuge of Determinists, and by denying this it is you who is acting dishonestly. Not only that but you reject as red herrings any experiments which remove realism from a quantum state before its measured. That is bonafide Determinism.

"By the way, I think it's fair to say that you're quickly losing credibility in this forum based on my impressions, and your interactions with the others."

LOL, how old are you exactly? You sound like you are ready for summer camp where you can make lots of friends.

<< I mentioned the Schrodinger equation first, not you. >>


I doubt that. And even if you did, then you really have no excuse for insisting that time does not exist in QM. I agree the time parameter in QM is classical, but that doesn't mean time doesn't exist in QM or that I'm putting classical physics in QM (it is just a basic fact about Schroedinger wave mechanics). That was my point which in your hotheadedness seem to have overlooked.


<< But we don't know whether time exists in the fundamental quantum world. Thats a bloody fact! You seem intellectually unable to understand that "time" is a human measurement construct for our classical reality. >>


First you say you don't believe time exists in QM, now you're saying we don't know if time exist in QM. Which is you believe. Look, we have evidence that something like time exists in QM by the mere fact that there is a t-parameter in the Schroedinger evolution for subsystems.


<< And for a guy who is such a maths-head you certainly lack some very basic logic skills. >>

If by logic you mean YOUR ambiguous and confused style of reasoning, then I admit that.


<< And yes there is cirucmstantial evidence that within the quantum mechanism responsible for entanglement, time has no meaning. Why? Because its effects are instantaneous >>


Tsk, tsk. Let me ask you a question Einstein. If time doesn't exist, then what is the meaning of instantaneous? And I guess by your logic, the fact that there exists instantaneous velocity in CM means that time does not exist in CM either.


<< It had to be based on discreet transitions. ie: Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Such a universal wave function mapped from the moment of the big bang is necessarily fundamental since space/time would not yet have been created. >>

You should also know that the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is controversial in QG research. Meaning that not everyone thinks it is a valid equation to describe QG.


<< Are you involved in science at a professional level? Please do answer - I am very curious. >>


Of course. Are you? No! :rofl:


<< You are clearly a Determinist by the very fact you support a compeletely fanciful idea that a particle in a wave function has a defintie value before its measured...but its just hidden from us. >>


Now you've proven you don't even understand the basics of standard QM. And thank you for admitting you are disingenuous.

 

[Maaneli]

LOL, of course you don't have to bother. I would not want anything to burst your little bubble of Determinist insecurity.

What your's and Maaneli's behaviour proves to me beyond a reasonable doubt; is that it would not matter how much proof or evidence appears which contradicts either local or non-local realism. I hope neither of you work in the sciences because you would be about as useful as an ID proponent or Creationist. Very sad indeed.

<< I hope neither of you work in the sciences because you would be about as useful as an ID proponent or Creationist. Very sad indeed. >>


I guess this is your way of overcompensating for your own insecurities about not having any academic degree. I pity you a bit.

Well, whatever, in the end nothing you think matters because I am a physicist, you're not, and in fact you don't even have a HS or college degree and never will. So cheerio!

 

[Hurkyl]

Coldcall:
Just to make sure it's crystal clear -- you have retracted your claim that evidence contradicts realism, correct?

Anyways, are you arguing for solipsism? If not, then your current argument carries no force, since any other epistemological position requires an 'article of faith'.

So its no wonder that Bohmians motives are questioned when there is zero evidence to support their theory.

Eh? BM, like all interpretations of QM (that don't make changes), is the best tested theory in the history of mankind.

It completely un-scientific.

Eh? Interpretation is a part of science, both in the practice and the pedagogy, since it is a prerequisite to applying math & logic to the study of reality.

 

[Coldcall]

Professor Maaneli

"I doubt that. And even if you did, then you really have no excuse for insisting that time does not exist in QM. I agree the time parameter in QM is classical, but that doesn't mean time doesn't exist in QM or that I'm putting classical physics in QM (it is just a basic fact about Schroedinger wave mechanics). That was my point which in your hotheadedness seem to have overlooked."

Re: Schrodinger equation. It's a fact i mentioned it first. Look back through the thread and you can confirm it for yourself. I made it clear over and over again in regards to the classical nature of using time in relation to quantum mechanics. You ignored it and kept insisting otherwise.

"First you say you don't believe time exists in QM, now you're saying we don't know if time exist in QM. Which is you believe. Look, we have evidence that something like time exists in QM by the mere fact that there is a t-parameter in the Schroedinger evolution for subsystems."

Perhaps english is not your first language because you seem to have difficulties distinguising nuance. I know for a fact we don't know the answer to the question about whether time exists at a quantum fundamental level. However i speculated that the "spooky action at a distance" may indicate that the quantum is timeless/instaneous. There is a big difference in the two perfectly logical statements.

On the other hand you were just arguing that its a certainty that time exists at the quantum level, and then you claimed Schrodinger's heuristic equation proved it. And now above you have agreed that it is indeed a classcial construct - finally.

"Tsk, tsk. Let me ask you a question Einstein. If time doesn't exist, then what is the meaning of instantaneous? And I guess by your logic, the fact that there exists instantaneous velocity in CM means that time does not exist in CM either."

Thats a good question. What is the meaning of instantaneous? It means right now with no passing of time. So it may follow that any fundamental law which can act on universe-wide scale instantaneously (as in entanglement) does not experience "time" as we know it. Another thing i cannot understand about your stance on this is that this idea about "time" is still considered an open mystery not only in reference to fundamental quantum mechanics, but also in the macroscopic universe. The way you have been behaving one would think we wrapped up the nature of time years ago.

"You should also know that the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is controversial in QG research. Meaning that not everyone thinks it is a valid equation to describe QG."

That equation, no matter how useful it will be for a final theory or not, started off quantum cosmology and led to quantum gravity research. But the fact is one of the most interesting aspects is the way it handles the question of "time" in a universal wave function. But I'm surprised that you being a Physics professor and all would denigrate research or equations by Wheeler or Zeilinger for instance. Dont you think your Determinist bias hampers your work in physics? Its a serious question

"Well, whatever, in the end nothing you think matters because I am a physicist, you're not, and in fact you don't even have a HS or college degree and never will. So cheerio"

That is the scariest part of this whole conversation! You've allowed your ideological, philosophical, or perhaps theological inclinations, get the better of your scientific principles of objectvity. You're 100% right; I'm not a scientist - i am a businessman and luckily can indulge my interests (or even biases) in these subjects without harming any principles relevant to my profession.

However you fail on that test because this is actually your profession. If i was a peer of yours in the scientitifc community and had I read this thread, i would be highly distrustful of any research you conducted or papers published on this subject.

 

[Coldcall]

Hurkyl,

"Just to make sure it's crystal clear -- you have retracted your claim that evidence contradicts realism, correct?"

I have not retracted anything. Legett's tests for non-local realism have been falsified! I clearly spelt the current situation out to you in my last post. Like i said, Bohmian mechanics is probably unfalsifiable so it has zero credibility anyway. Its like me asking you to prove that invisible elastic bands are not responsible for gravity, or that fairies don't live at the bottom of my garden.

"Anyways, are you arguing for solipsism? "

No I'm not arguing for anything, other than what i argued about with Professor Maaneli. In fact i get the feeling I'm more objective than either of you because I'm willing to accept the basic tenets of Quantum mechanics including the HUP, without promoting some incredible mythical tale about how there are defined values in the wave function but nature is hiding them from us. It would be laughable if it had not been dreamt up by a scientist.

"Eh? Interpretation is a part of science, both in the practice and the pedagogy, since it is a prerequisite to applying math & logic to the study of reality"

The difference with Bohmian mechanics is it's a counter-intepretation of the observables. It asks us to *believe* (as this appears unfalsifibale) that HUP is not fundamental, and there is some last instance Deterministic failsafe - to save all the control freaks in the world

Its not science. It's philosophy or theology. There is a clear Deterministic principle at the heart of Bohmian mechanics. It cannot be got away from.

 

[jostpuur]

Like i said, Bohmian mechanics is probably unfalsifiable so it has zero credibility anyway.

Non-Bohmian interpretation is unfalsifiable too. It would be equally logical to claim that the claim "Bohmian mechanics is wrong" is not science, because it cannot be tested.

The difference with Bohmian mechanics is it's a counter-intepretation of the observables. It asks us to *believe* (as this appears unfalsifibale) that HUP is not fundamental

Wrong, now the fact that you have learned you QM from non-mathematical sources is turning against you. The HUP deals with the shapes of the wave functions. The Bohmian mechanics still has wave functions, and surely they obey the HUP just like in non-Bohmian interpretations.

EDIT: I just noticed that I'm not liking my own post here. The feel of misunderstandings is so great... *sigh*

 

[Count Iblis]

Measurement problem

Hugh Everett's relative state interpretation, also referred to as the many-worlds interpretation, attempts to avoid the problem by suggesting it is an illusion. Under this system there is only one wavefunction, the superposition of the entire universe, and it never collapses -- so there is no measurement problem. Instead the act of measurement is actually an interaction between two quantum entities, which entangle to form a single larger entity, for instance living cat/happy scientist. Everett also attempted to demonstrate the way that in measurements the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics would appear; work later extended by Bryce DeWitt and others and renamed the many-worlds interpretation. Everett/DeWitt's interpretation posits a single universal wavefunction, but with the added proviso that "reality" from the point of view of any single observer, "you", is defined as a single path in time through the superpositions. That is, "you" have a history that is made of the outcomes of measurements you made in the past, but there are many other "yous" with slight variations in history. Under this system our reality is one of many similar ones.

So, there isn't a problem to be solved here in the first place.

 

[jms5631]

Coldcall,
Your claim that realism has been refuted is both extreme and unfounded. Even if you take Leggett's inequality as unquestionably true (and there has been debate on this issue in the physics community) then I still fail to see how the elimination of a class of non-local realistic theories dooms realism by itself. In what way is this accomplished? There are still a range of non-local realistic theories (i.e. Bohm) local realistic (MWI) objective collapse (GRW, Penrose's gravitational collapse of the state vector) and decoherence based approaches (quantum darwinsim) that preserve "realism" in some fashion. Certainly there have been some physicists like Wigner and Wheeler who think as you do, but your ideas are far from having any kind of majority acceptance. I'm interested in learning how your idea of conciousness inducing collapse is any less "philosophical" or "theological" then Bohmian mechanics or any other interpretation for that matter, because last time I checked they were all empirically equivalent.

 

[Hurkyl]

Hurkyl,

"Just to make sure it's crystal clear -- you have retracted your claim that evidence contradicts realism, correct?"

I have not retracted anything.

Then I reject your attempt to change the subject. Either make the retraction, or give evidence supporting your claim that the evidence contradicts realism.

 

[Coldcall]

Non-Bohmian interpretation is unfalsifiable too. It would be equally logical to claim that the claim "Bohmian mechanics is wrong" is not science, because it cannot be tested.



Wrong, now the fact that you have learned you QM from non-mathematical sources is turning against you. The HUP deals with the shapes of the wave functions. The Bohmian mechanics still has wave functions, and surely they obey the HUP just like in non-Bohmian interpretations.

EDIT: I just noticed that I'm not liking my own post here. The feel of misunderstandings is so great... *sigh*

You've missed the point entirely. Bohmian mechanics ignores the final indeterminacy of the HUP by claiming hidden variables.

And the ridiculous claims that Bohmian mechanics is not a deterministic theory are widely refuted by most scientists. For example Henry Stapp on Bohm:

"This second approach was developed by David Bohm (1952, 1993). His formulation of quantum theory postulates, in effect, the existence of the old-fashioned world of classical physical theory. This classical-type world is supposed to exist in addition to the wave function of quantum theory and, like that wave function, it evolves in a way completely determined by what precedes it in time. This theory reinstates determinism in a way compatible with the predictions of quantum theory, but at the expense of abandoning locality: Bohm’s theory entails strong, long-range, instantaneous action-at-a-distance.

One serious failing of Bohm’s approach is that it was originally formulated in a non-relativistic context, and it has – after half a century and great effort – not been extended to cover the most important domain in physics, namely the realm of quantum electrodynamics, which is the theory that covers the atoms that make up our bodies and brains, along with the tables, chairs, automobiles, and computers that populate our daily lives. This deficiency means that Bohm’s theory is, at present, primarily a philosophically interesting curiosity, not a practically useful physical theory."

Wake people and stop brainwashing yourselves!

 

[Coldcall]

Coldcall,
Your claim that realism has been refuted is both extreme and unfounded. Even if you take Leggett's inequality as unquestionably true (and there has been debate on this issue in the physics community) then I still fail to see how the elimination of a class of non-local realistic theories dooms realism by itself. In what way is this accomplished? There are still a range of non-local realistic theories (i.e. Bohm) local realistic (MWI) objective collapse (GRW, Penrose's gravitational collapse of the state vector) and decoherence based approaches (quantum darwinsim) that preserve "realism" in some fashion. Certainly there have been some physicists like Wigner and Wheeler who think as you do, but your ideas are far from having any kind of majority acceptance. I'm interested in learning how your idea of conciousness inducing collapse is any less "philosophical" or "theological" then Bohmian mechanics or any other interpretation for that matter, because last time I checked they were all empirically equivalent.

I've been very clear about the types of (Legett) non-local realism theories which have been falsified. The papers are above so there is the evidence to demonstrate the falsification of those specific non-local realism theories. You want to dispute those findings then I suggest you find me some papers doing so. I've looked high and low and found almost nil research to refute the falsifications of Legetts tests.

But I don't claim either CCC or any other intepretation is a certainty. Yes I have my preferences which of course are based on a philosophical bias but none of them are counter-interpretational in the sense of turning the observed indeterminacy of quantum observables into a Determinist and classical re-interpretation.

On the other hand what I find amusing about Bohmians is how sure they are that it is a legit intepretation, and then when pushed deny the control-freak Determinsim at its heart.

 

[Coldcall]

Then I reject your attempt to change the subject. Either make the retraction, or give evidence supporting your claim that the evidence contradicts realism.

You are being a pedantic bore. The evidence for the falsification of first Bell's tests, and the more recent Legett tests are cited above. I'll retract when hell freezes over

 

[Hurkyl]

You are being a pedantic bore. The evidence for the falsification of first Bell's tests, and the more recent Legett tests are cited above. I'll retract when [edited for content] freezes over

Pointing out serious flaws in your reasoning hardly counts as pedantry. You claimed that the evidence contradicted realism. Your claim is obviously false, and you know it: you are aware the evidence is consistent with QM and there exists a realist interpretation observationally equivalent to QM. It's somewhat mystifying how tightly you cling to your original claim; I'm beginning to think¹ you have the most serious defect of a crackpot -- an inability to admit you're wrong, both to others and to yourself.

1: actually, I've thought this for a while, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt

 

[humanino]

Note that you make an assumption when you say :

Pointing out serious flaws in your reasoning hardly counts as pedantry.

If someone does not care too much about logic, then your argument fails, and you were indeed pedantic for such a person. I should say at this point in the discussion, the idea is almost scientific, since it explains quite a lot.

 

[Coldcall]

Pointing out serious flaws in your reasoning hardly counts as pedantry. You claimed that the evidence contradicted realism. Your claim is obviously false, and you know it: you are aware the evidence is consistent with QM and there exists a realist interpretation observationally equivalent to QM. It's somewhat mystifying how tightly you cling to your original claim; I'm beginning to think¹ you have the most serious defect of a crackpot -- an inability to admit you're wrong, both to others and to yourself.

1: actually, I've thought this for a while, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt

The evidence falsifying Legett's form of realistic qm theories is above. I have asked you a number of times to cite papers refuting by claim re; Legett's falsifid tests. However you fail to cite anything which leads me to the conclusion you are a pedantic bore.

Realism in quantum mechanics has zero credibility from any experimentation ever conducted. In fact every test for realism has failed. And Zeilinger quite rightly has pointed out that the argument for a quantum realism is becoming more difficult to maintain in the light of his and others work.

So all you've got is some mystical belief in variables and quantum realism of which there is no evidence. As Henry Stapp quite rightly tells it: "This deficiency means that Bohm’s theory is, at present, primarily a philosophically interesting curiosity, not a practically useful physical theory".

Any fairies at the bottom of your garden lately?

 

[Coldcall]

Note that you make an assumption when you say :If someone does not care too much about logic, then your argument fails, and you were indeed pedantic for such a person. I should say at this point in the discussion, the idea is almost scientific, since it explains quite a lot.

He is being a pedantic bore because he knows the way Bohmian mechanics was formulated to match the prediction by the more objective intepretations, means its practially unfalsifiable. In science any such theory is frowned upon because it cannot be proven. I am sure Hurkyl and Professor Maaneli would both criticize any other unfalsifiable theories, but when it comes to Bohm's control freakery inteperpretation they demand there is no need for it to be falsifiable.

It would be like me coming on here and saying its a certainty that invisible elastic bands are responsible for gravity. Its laugable, and if either Hurkyl or Prefessor Maaneli are an example of the next generation of scientists then I am afraid we are in for a long haul Dark Age.

 

[Hurkyl]

The evidence falsifying Legett's form of realistic qm theories is above.

I have asked you a number of times to cite papers refuting by claim re; Legett's falsifid tests. However you fail to cite anything which leads me to the conclusion you are a pedantic bore.

Nothing needs to be cited; you have already accepted all of the premises of my argument refuting your claim that the evidence does not contradict realism. You just refuse to put the pieces together! You already realize that the papers you have been citing only apply to a specific class of realist theories, and you have already admitted that BM (a realist theory) cannot be falsified (assuming the correctness of quantum mechanics). But for some mystifying reason, you keep clinging to your claim that realism has been contradicted by the evidence. I don't see how discussion can fruitfully if you refuse to participate in a rational manner.

 

[humanino]

Hurkyl and Professor Maaneli

Why would you add "professor" to Maaneli ? Do you want to emphasize Hurkyl's inferior intellect ?

Understand that this is not a critisism against Maaneli at all, but you don't know Hurkyl, do you ? How do you know Hurkyl is not Maaneli PhD advisor, Nobel prize, Fields medal, violin virtuose, and whatever you consider to be an "mentionable" (argumentum ad verecundiam) ?
Why would you show so little respect to the people in a discussion, where supposedly we all just want to exchange ideas ?

I maintain my opinion that you prove to be intellectually dishonnest. But probably you don't care (cf previous theory, which experiment only support so far).

BTW, Hurkyl is very patient, considering he (as a mentor) has access to argumentum ad baculum.