Search results

  1. E

    I Defining electromagnetic waves

    Visible light/which is photons/ is an electromagnetic field. In QFT the electron field is what produces electrons. Different situations.
  2. E

    I Superluminal Quantum tunneling without FTL messaging

    I more or less view the standard textbook 'measurement causes collapse' approach as physics(as it's in the textbooks) and all other explanations as philosophy. Are the alternative explanations ever mentioned/discussed in universities? I would love to stand corrected.
  3. E

    I Superluminal Quantum tunneling without FTL messaging

    We know that it's the same electron that got on the other side of the barrier because experiment after experiment confirm the predictions of QM. It's not in doubt. It's 100% certain. It's not that the electron is in the barrier as much as it's being a wavefunction when it's not being measured...
  4. E

    I Superluminal Quantum tunneling without FTL messaging

    There is some tension with relativity if you take the front of the wavefunction and it's that part that turns out on the other side. The electron is an emanation of its wavefunction. We observe the electron, but as far as the formalism says anything, it's the wavefunction that is primary, not...
  5. E

    I Superluminal Quantum tunneling without FTL messaging

    Neither QM nor QFT specify what 'physical' or 'physical barrier' mean. Both are just instrumental theories for making predictions. My take is that they are both incompatible with classical realism. Esp at the atomic level. Things happen as they do for whatever reason and this is largely left to...
  6. E

    I Superluminal Quantum tunneling without FTL messaging

    In QFT the particle is a momentary excitation of the field. This is the only coherent way to look at quantum tunneling through classically impenetrable barriers.
  7. E

    B Decoherence and entanglement

    In your selected scenario interaction and measurement are one and the same - it's measurement during interaction of the measuring device with the measured object. Measurements break the entanglements created ubiquitously during interactions by collapsing the wavefunction of the entangled...
  8. E

    B Decoherence and entanglement

    This is a case where interaction and measurement can be used interchangeably. Interactions that can't reveal information about the quantum state are generally not measurements. They lead to entanglements. Measurements break the entanglement generated during interactions.
  9. E

    B Decoherence and entanglement

    Decoherence on its own cannot explain single outcomes. It could, if measurement was involved on top of decoherence. Or if a new world was created. Few physicists believe the wavefunction has an ontic status that shifts its ontic phase during interaction with other ontic wavefunctions and thus...
  10. E

    B Decoherence and entanglement

    For this level of question you were given appropriate answers. Otherwise, it's all one field if we talk about electrons or photons. Everything is entangled with everything else, as interaction also means entanglement. In some situations, interaction also means measurement which this time breaks...
  11. E

    B Why do superpositions occur? What causes them to occur?

    They are the natural state of matter and this is how the world works.
  12. E

    I Ontology

    When several interconnected neurons fire without apparent outside stumuli, you call that a dream(they do fire - usually when you are sleeping and your senses are less active or shut down). The brain interprets the random firing in a seemingly random way. This is why most often dreams are...
  13. E

    I Heisenberg on ''uncertainty relation does not apply to the past''

    I thought that the double slit experiment with detectors on proved that quantum particles can have a definite trajectory(when being 'watched'). Interference only happens in the absence of which-path information. If single electrons do not interfere with themselves, they move as if they have a...
  14. E

    I Ontology

    They should switch camps to MWI or BM. Too bad the CI is probably right, though. You get sort of classical "particles" behavior whenever the particles can be detected(straight line trajectories in the Double slit experiment after the detector). If there is no way for them to be detected in any...
  15. E

    A Can Quantum Mechanics be postulated to exclude humans?

    There is no cut and the difference between QM and CM amounts mostly to brain structure and aspects of perception. Our perception is not equipped to probe below 1/100th of a millimeter, hence we always observe the classical aspect of QT and never noticed in close to a million years of evolution...
  16. E

    A Can Quantum Mechanics be postulated to exclude humans?

    But QT postulates only observables and measurements. The environment and measuring devises are all subjects to these measurements. It seems there are no apparati and environment outside the measurement framework. Namely, there are classical measuring devices because there's colossal amount of...
  17. E

    A Can Quantum Mechanics be postulated to exclude humans?

    QM can be postulated to exclude humans. The question is would it stand scrutiny. Would there be "particles" observed(measured and perceived) if there were no sentient beings to do measurements? The evidence is not very conclusive. Being sentient must be a very special feature(result) of...
  18. E

    I About non-observable assumptions

    Because all of science as it is known is based on the assumption that the world is composed of objects persisting in time and space which form cause and effect relationships between them. We can't use another model as we'd have to conclude that "dinosaur bones show us that this is where the...
  19. E

    I About non-observable assumptions

    The definition of objective reality seems to require particles existing in time and space under causal relationships. If we are talking of fields that raise a reality under specific circumstances, that hardly falls under the category of objective reality. If on the hand by objective reality we...
  20. E

    I About non-observable assumptions

    It's like physicists are too afraid to drop the particle picture, even though they reluctantly know they have to. For they stand to lose everything. There is no objective reality without some concocted particle picture ala trillion-world MWI or the uber extravagant Bohmian mechanics... Hang on...
  21. E

    I About non-observable assumptions

    QM doesn't specify what a particle is, yet it's mostly about particles and measurements. This is a big shortcoming. There is just one theory that specifies what a particle is - QFT. This is the model of reality that is superior to anything we've ever had. Including classical physics. It talks...
  22. E

    Relational Quantum Mechanics

    Unless you put a detector before one of the slits. Then you know which slit it went through. I don't see your point. People have been marking particles in these types of experiments for decades. The point is - having a body of mass nearby won't act as a detector no matter what fancy setup you...
  23. E

    Relational Quantum Mechanics

    Isn't the whole proposition that nearby objects with considerable mass are enough to induce wavefunction collapse on the path of the photons/electrons ruled out by the very double slit experiment, where the slits can act as such bodies(but obviously do not, since results show you need additional...
  24. E

    A Assumptions of the Bell theorem

    Causality, space, time, locality, realism, common causes, correlations... are necessary macroscopic "accessories" to quantum fields. Influences do not travel through an ether but through the respective relativistic electron, gluon, quark etc. field. This model explains pretty much all of...
  25. E

    I Scientific realism and QM

    It just tells you that everything is not made of particles, but of fields. Lay people got fooled because appearances can often be deceptive and their "making sense" of everything couldn't be further from the truth.
  26. E

    Relational Quantum Mechanics

    Explain to me what you mean by massive bodies, gravitational tides, etc in terms of wavefunctions. without resorting to acts of measurements by other unexplained "classical" objects. The framework wasn't devised to explain how the world works but to make predictions. You are using it wrongly to...
  27. E

    Relational Quantum Mechanics

    I specifically said that you can't infer anything about the classical world from just purely quantum terms. This is why you always insist on having observational gravity waves, tides, massive bodies and other classical items to explain the emergence of.... other classical behaviour...
  28. E

    Relational Quantum Mechanics

    You implicitly assume those objects are not quantum in nature but classical(Newtonian and persisting in time and space). You justify this fallacy with an even bigger fallacy - that you naturally observe the effects of their Newtonian existence on other classical-like objects(like measuring...
  29. E

    I Where is the quantum system prior to measurement?

    You don't poke fun at classical physics, despite its blatant shootings and wrong predictions. Is classical physics a complete theory and description of reality? Rithorical question
  30. E

    I Where is the quantum system prior to measurement?

    You are asking a nonsensical question in this thread which kind of gives away your incomplete knowledge of QT, rather than the incompleteness of QM. This naive question was asked in 1935 - but the theory has moved on and advanced immensely since then. It was relevant in the beginning when...
Top