What is the relationship between scale and rate of change in quantum mechanics?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
No kidding. Experiments never claim anything; it's always the experimenter making the interpretations of their findings. Not sure why this needed to be pointed out. If this weren't the case then I would have been much more careful with the wording. But I thought you'd know what I was talking about.

I knew what you were talking about, except I thought you must have(somehow) missed all of the implications (in the way that the summary of the results were written) to knowledge - and, thus, consciousness - on the part of the experimenters.

This is why you do different experiments varying the way it is done. You keep changing things, based on results, trying to narrow down the possibilities of what causes the collapse. This is done in these experiments and it is the "potential for knowledge" that it is narrowed down to.

Not necessarily. I wish I had more time, but I will make a real effort to get them read, since this can't possibly be conclusive (it would be much more famous.

I don't agree with this. If you have an equation with 2 unknowns then you have an equation that says nothing. However, if one of those unknowns becomes fixed, then by default the other unknown can be calculated creating potential for knowledge. It actually being calculated by a conscious being is not necessary. The point is that this equation now has only one answer and can now be solved. To me these experiments could simply mean that the universe understands math and logic. (before you go ballistic, I know the universe doesn't "understand" anything. It is simply a figure of speech.)

Yes, it is a figure of speech. However, the only conclusion that I can draw from your reasoning, is that (for this interpretation of the experiment to be true) the Universe must literally understand logic. The fact that the Universe doesn't understand logic (and neither does a subatomic particle) leaves this explanation in my "possible, but highly unlikely" group.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
since this can't possibly be conclusive (it would be much more famous.

The reason these specific experiments aren't more famous is because they haven't concluded or found anything that is inconsistent with the results of other experiments. And even so, I have seen these specific experiments mentioned in readings elsewhere.

Yes, it is a figure of speech. However, the only conclusion that I can draw from your reasoning, is that (for this interpretation of the experiment to be true) the Universe must literally understand logic. The fact that the Universe doesn't understand logic (and neither does a subatomic particle) leaves this explanation in my "possible, but highly unlikely" group.

And this is exactly what I was disagreeing about so here we go with the seemingly inevitable circle of responses in yet another thread. The universe does not have to "understand" math in order to work off of math principles. Does a rock understand erotion?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
And this is exactly what I was disagreeing about so here we go with the seemingly inevitable circle of responses in yet another thread. The universe does not have to "understand" math in order to work off of math principles. Does a rock understand erotion?

I didn't say that the Universe understood math, you did - or, at least, that's what I got from your reasoning. You said that when one factor becomes known (again, a reference to knowledge, which bothers me already but is not the focus of this particular post) then the Universe "fills in" the what should logically follow. The only way this could be the case (AFAICS) is that the Universe would understand mathematics, and this cannot be the case.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't say that the Universe understood math, you did - or, at least, that's what I got from your reasoning. You said that when one factor becomes known (again, a reference to knowledge, which bothers me already but is not the focus of this particular post) then the Universe "fills in" the what should logically follow. The only way this could be the case (AFAICS) is that the Universe would understand mathematics, and this cannot be the case.

If you take a triangle and make 2 of it's angles equal to 45 degrees, guess what happens to the third angle? It actually gets "filled in" automatically with no help from you.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
If you take a triangle and make 2 of it's angles equal to 45 degrees, guess what happens to the third angle? It actually gets "filled in" automatically with no help from you.

Perfectly reasonable, since a physical interaction would occur between both of the sides that I have changed and the unchanged angles. No physical interaction can occur when someone is merely "conscious" of the possible condition of a particle, and so the particle has no "reason" (please forgive my free use of this term) to change at all.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Perfectly reasonable, since a physical interaction would occur between both of the sides that I have changed and the unchanged angles. No physical interaction can occur when someone is merely "conscious" of the possible condition of a particle, and so the particle has no "reason" (please forgive my free use of this term) to change at all.

But as I've said before and reading the article will confirm, someone being conscious is not what is required. What is required is the "potential for knowledge". A conscious person being around to see the collapse isn't required.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
But as I've said before and reading the article will confirm, someone being conscious is not what is required. What is required is the "potential for knowledge". A conscious person being around to see the collapse isn't required.

Even removing the need for a conscious person, doesn't change the need for a conscious particle. After all, how could the particle be changed by just the "threat of knowledge". It's not as though knowledge - or the potential for it - are physical entities or anything (outside of the workings of the brain, of course).

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Even removing the need for a conscious person, doesn't change the need for a conscious particle. After all, how could the particle be changed by just the "threat of knowledge". It's not as though knowledge - or the potential for it - are physical entities or anything (outside of the workings of the brain, of course).

That's what my triangle example was trying to illustrate. That a partcle can have a value fixed for it depending on what's happening elsewhere simply because it is obeying the rules of logic and math. Not because it understands those rules.

Let me also say that this is just a possibility as I see it. The actual interpretation of quantum experiments has been and continues to be up for debate. That was the main point of my posting in this thread.

 

[Mentat]

Well, Fliption, I don't think there's much more that can be said. I don't want to say "let's agree to disagree", since I agree with you that there are many different P'soV and that I had just been exposed to one but that doesn't meant that that's the "right" one. Even great Physicists like John Wheeler are of the opinion that "information" (whatever it is that they think that means) plays a role in all quantum occurances, so no one really "knows".

I will agree to leave the topic alone and just agree that it's undetermined, if you want.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, Fliption, I don't think there's much more that can be said. I don't want to say "let's agree to disagree", since I agree with you that there are many different P'soV and that I had just been exposed to one but that doesn't meant that that's the "right" one. Even great Physicists like John Wheeler are of the opinion that "information" (whatever it is that they think that means) plays a role in all quantum occurances, so no one really "knows".

I will agree to leave the topic alone and just agree that it's undetermined, if you want.

Absolutely! But I would like for more people to start more threads on quantum physics. The fact that it is so unknown is exactly why I think it is interesting to think about it. I had thought that attitudes like Tiberius were part of the reason no one ever talked about it. But if we agree we have lots to learn then I would think there would be more topics on it here. But hey, since this thread started there have been many changes here and I think there is a forum dedicated to it now! A whole forum called "Quantum Physics"!

 

[Dogman]

Wave Function Collapse

If a wave function collapse does require observation, the perhaps this is proof that God exists. If waves have been collapsing in a universe 7+ billion years old, who else would have been "observing"?

 

[quantumcarl]

And of course, it doesn't help matters when dimwits like Frijtof Capra write "literature" like Tao of Physics. People read that garbage and think they actually know quantum mechanics.

Yo! At least the garbage alerts people to the study of quantum physics.

What's confused me is that when people say the Quantum universe is so very different from Relative universe in that things relatively appear so predictable in the RelativeU when they appear much less so in the QUniverse.

They site the constant and fast changing environment of the nanoscopic quantum mechanics and the slow predictable curves etc... of the universe on the scale we are more prone to observe.

What I would interject is that the larger scaled universe, which is considered relative, has a rate of change that is equal to its scale. The same applies to the nanoscopic scale where quantum mechanics is precieved to be completely unpredictable. The rate of change at a nano level is going to be beyond our synaptic ability to comprehend and only predictability models generated by math or whatever can be used to probe such rapid and seemingly unpredictable changes.

This conjecture disregards the overall nature of simultaneous occurances at a quantum level and I am only asking that those of you who are privy to the workings of the quantum theories to remember the fact that with a change of scale comes a difference in "rate of change" (also known as "time").