EPR Paradox Failure Explained for High Schoolers

[nismaratwork]

If you're going to make statements like this, then I think you should be required to back them up. This is what I mean by vitriol, of a sort that might not be readily apparent, but nevertheless can undermine the credibility (whether that's the intent or not) of the person who it's aimed at. What I've been waiting, hoping, for you to do is to make some substantive comments regarding the questions that are being asked and the topics that are being discussed. Unless you do that, then I think you should just keep your opinions regarding other posters' credibilities to yourself.

Regarding Zonde's considerations, personally I think they're somewhat off-topic and if he wants to pursue them then he should start a different thread on it. Regarding his motivation(s) for his considerations, how can any of us pretend to know that? Regarding the validity of his arguments, well just deal with the arguments, straightforwardly, instead of all this circuitous , and yes, shadily vitriolic and disruptive stuff that you write.

Let's just have a nice discussion. Take whatever comes. Maybe we can all learn something. Unless you want to pretend that you know everything, then what's the problem with listening to somebody's concern and dealing with it in a straightforward manner?

Having said that, I agree with you that the OP has more than enough feedback to answer his/her question. Zonde can start a new thread on the fair sampling loophole if he wants to. And, after I reply to DA, who has had some interesting and substantive things to say wrt the topic of the thread, then that's it for me in this thread -- unless dx has some clarifications/corrections of my, possibly incorrect, replies to him, or whatever.

Lets get this straight, saying that you have preconceptions IS NOT VITRIOL, and the evidence is in the thread started by Deepak Kapur. VITRIOL is: "Bitterly abusive feeling or expression." This, is, not, vitriol. I'm not undermining you either, as I've made quite the point that you are, however... um... reticently, willing to expand your horizons beyond those original preconceptions. It is meant to be a contrast of someone who is, and I don't mean this as an insult, very stubborn, with someone who is simply sessile in their beliefs and means of disseminating them (Zonde).

 

[ThomasT]

HUP is about the nature of the QM world.

I don't think it is. But we can agree to disagree on this.

If we interpret HUP as only a "measurement problem" – that the properties and the object is truly there, but damned thing doesn’t let us measure it – then you have to give up Locality, according to Bell's Theorem. (And to me, a non-local reality is as 'unreal' as a local non-reality...)

The hup is interpreted, in the mainstream, as having to do with measurements. This is the de facto, mainstream, statistical interpretation of the hup. Whether or not it has anything to do with properties of or objects in an underlying reality is entirely a matter of inferential speculation. I suppose that you can get, logically, to some statement like "p and q can't have simultaneous reality", but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Such are the quandries associated with attempts to ascertain the physical meaning of the quantum theory. For all we (can) know, qm is just a fancy probability theory.

Models of certain aspects of reality, certain observed phenomena, do seem to be somewhat constrained. But whether those constraints are due to the makeup of reality or due to our ignorance thereof is unknown.

If you accept that QM is about probabilities (and not determinism), then the elementary events are not realized in actuality; otherwise the recourse to probabilities would be pointless. For instance, when you play lotto, you do not assume that all possible outcomes are actually realized, but only that one is actually realized.

So I guess we agree about this, but maybe there's a better way to phrase it. I don't know.

Regarding EPR 'elements of reality'. I agree with dx. It's quite ambiguous. Suffice it to say that we don't need entanglement to infer the existence of elements of reality. Any detection event will do.

Anyway, I'm reading over your 'hypotheses and corollaries'. Maybe I missed something. I'm known for that.

What I meant by ...

The explicit premise of Hidden Variable interpretations is value definiteness:

... not being quite correct is just that not all local realistic models depend on value definiteness in the way that BIs and GHZ require. These are the sorts of local realistic models of entanglement that quantify the situation in terms of a relationship between the entangled particles and the relationship between that relationship and the angular difference between the polarizers (regarding optical biphoton tests). In this way of looking at it the variables that determine individual detection are somewhat different than the variables determining joint detection.

But are there other local realistic models?

You can refer back to the very long thread. Of course none of these sorts of 'local realistic' models will pass DrC's 'test'. But keep in mind that DrC's test has only to do with Bell-type formulations based on his conception of the meaning of EPR 'elements of reality'. Also keep in mind that no viable theory can pass DrC's test. The problem of course is that it isn't really a test of local realism in the broadest sense of the term. It's a test that's based on the assumption that prospective detection attributes are in one to one correspondence with the properties of objects in an underlying reality. An unwarranted assumption, imho, and not in keeping with EPR at all.

And yes, of course there are other purported local realistic formulations that are experimentally viable and agree with qm predictions. Are they mainstream? No. Are they truly local and/or realistic? Well, it's a matter of contention. You can look at them and decide for youself. Do I believe that they're local realistic models? Well, maybe not.

The hup doesn't exclude value definiteness. Every detection attribute is associated with a definite value. The hup states that, wrt a pair of conjugate variables, the product of the statistical spreads of the definite values of the two variables will be more than or equal to Planck's constant.

See my previous post and you’ll realize this is reasoning is going to cause 'consistency trouble'.

I don't understand. What consistency trouble? Either the above statement of the hup (however simplistic) is correct or it's incorrect. Either way it involves accumulations of definite detection attributes.

 

[ThomasT]

Lets get this straight, saying that you have preconceptions IS NOT VITRIOL, and the evidence is in the thread started by Deepak Kapur.

It's shady, sneaky vitriol. And, since you said it, I want you to back it up with quotes -- or retract it.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's shady, sneaky vitriol. And, since you said it, I want you to back it up with quotes -- or retract it.

I will if a staff member gives me the green light, otherwise as I understand it blending two separate threads is verboten. Even then, I can assure that there is little emotional content in what I'm saying, and certainly nothing vitriolic. Anyone here can go to the thread in question and read more than select quotes I choose, and draw their own conclusions.

To be honest, I'm still not sure what you're objection is, because calling someone stubborn is hardly vitriol; you can't just massage and warp the language to suit your purposes. The word vitriol means what it means... I'd say that if you wish to continue to characterize what I've said as vitriolic, you should find a source that agrees with that, or retract your statement. There's a thread full of you running in circles with Dr. C and others... there's no dictionary on Earth that's going to agree with your definition of vitriol. In that context, you've accused me of being bitter and abusive... so prove it, or retract what is in essence, an insult.

 

[ThomasT]

I will if a staff member gives me the green light, otherwise as I understand it blending two separate threads is verboten.

You're the one who brought up the other thread in the first place, aren't you?

Even then, I can assure that there is little emotional content in what I'm saying, and certainly nothing vitriolic. Anyone here can go to the thread in question and read more than select quotes I choose, and draw their own conclusions.

What quotes??

There's a thread full of you running in circles with Dr. C and others... there's no dictionary on Earth that's going to agree with your definition of vitriol. In that context, you've accused me of being bitter and abusive... so prove it, or retract what is in essence, an insult.

Your posts are, generally, unnecessarily disruptive and off-topic. They don't add anything helpful to the discussions. They create bad feelings. And I happen to know that you've had similar problems in other threads. Now, as I've asked you before, do you want to discuss the topics at hand, or just go on and on with this silliness? If you don't have anything to say wrt the topic of the thread, then just don't say anything.

 

[zonde]

Why do you keep it going?

Because you are trying to ban the topic from discussions?
If you don't like it you can ignore it.

The above says it all: however unlikely... it is possible... And so are leprechauns. No evidence for them either.

So instead of giving your own argument you are questioning mine.
And for you "it is possible"="question closed and should be banned from discussions".
But then we are not talking in the same language. Only question is then in what language is Weihs talking.

By the way, your quote is a reference from 1998. I.e. prior to the generally accepted result of Rowe et al, which does NOT assume fair sampling. Same result.

Interesting, and how does Rowe's et al experiment justify application of fair sampling assumption to photon detections?
Because if you do it you get ion entanglement? But in that case I don't understand why in photon polarization experiments photons are entangled but atoms are classical and can not be entangled but in ion experiment atoms are entangled but photons are classical and can not be entangled.
Does it depend in what way we intend to interpret results of experiment?

There are probably hundreds of examples, variations on a theme:

How about entanglement of particles that have never existed in the same light cone? Not something you would expect in a local realistic universe. QM confirmed, LR rejected... again.

Can you give reference to prediction and explain why it can be considered falsifiable?
Please understand that I am not talking about cataloguing empirical facts but about predictions.

 

[nismaratwork]

You're the one who brought up the other thread in the first place, aren't you?

What quotes??

Your posts are, generally, unnecessarily disruptive and off-topic. They don't add anything helpful to the discussions. They create bad feelings. And I happen to know that you've had similar problems in other threads. Now, as I've asked you before, do you want to discuss the topics at hand, or just go on and on with this silliness? If you don't have anything to say wrt the topic of the thread, then just don't say anything.

So that's a "no" to the whole vitriol issue?

Zonde: Dr. C, or me or anyone else doesn't have to make a novel argument to challenge your fringe idea! Fair sampling is ASSUMED, so you're the one who needs to present evidence to the contrary, which you have been unable to do. You're doing what you always do, and retreat into rhetorical circles... instead, how about you present that evidence which meets PF guidelines to support your ATM view?

EPR fails, because of Bell Inequalities... something that can be said here because fair sampling is the widely and generally accepted view. If you wish to present something else, maybe this isn't the place for you. Certainly the issue of whether or not EPR fails at all is central to the OP, and you're angry because no one is willing to go off on a tangent with you?... come on. You're just attacking Dr. C now, when you should be providing evidence to support your position.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

HUP is about the nature of the QM world.

I don't think it is. But we can agree to disagree on this.

Hum... you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with mainstream science.

The hup is interpreted, in the mainstream, as having to do with measurements.

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle"
...
Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the principle means that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and momentum of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. Moreover, his principle is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics.

Whether or not it has anything to do with properties of or objects in an underlying reality is entirely a matter of inferential speculation. I suppose that you can get, logically, to some statement like "p and q can't have simultaneous reality", but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Such are the quandries associated with attempts to ascertain the physical meaning of the quantum theory.

It would be great if you could end statements like this with; "but this is just my personal wishing & thinking, mainstream science has a completely different view." I think you are mixing up philosophy and physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory"

In the sciences, a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]

A scientific theory is a type of deductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2]

In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment.

For example I can claim that Einstein was wrong: We can’t know if there is an luminiferous aether or not, it’s entirely a matter of inferential speculation. Relativity doesn’t say anything about the true nature of space!

This statement is scientifically obsolete, unless I have something more substantial than "philosophical speculations".

Sure, there are different interpretations of QM, however according to SEP this is the 'minimal' interpretation:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/#MinInt"
...
Here we only describe a point of view, which we call the ‘minimal interpretation’, that seems to be shared by both the adherents of the Copenhagen interpretation and of other views.

In quantum mechanics a system is supposed to be described by its quantum state, also called its state vector. Given the state vector, one can derive probability distributions for all the physical quantities pertaining to the system such as its position, momentum, angular momentum, energy, etc. The operational meaning of these probability distributions is that they correspond to the distribution of the values obtained for these quantities in a long series of repetitions of the measurement. More precisely, one imagines a great number of copies of the system under consideration, all prepared in the same way. On each copy the momentum, say, is measured. Generally, the outcomes of these measurements differ and a distribution of outcomes is obtained. The theoretical momentum distribution derived from the quantum state is supposed to coincide with the hypothetical distribution of outcomes obtained in an infinite series of repetitions of the momentum measurement. The same holds, mutatis mutandis, for all the other physical quantities pertaining to the system. Note that no simultaneous measurements of two or more quantities are required in defining the operational meaning of the probability distributions.

As you can see, this is not solely a question about "simultaneous p and q", but the fundamental nature of the QM world.

As ZapperZ explains on his blog http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2006/11/misconception-of-heisenberg-uncertainty.html" :

While classical mechanics does not prohibit us from making as accurate of a prediction as we want, QM does! It is this predictive ability that is contained in the HUP. It is an intrinsic part of the QM formulation and not just simply a "measurement" uncertainty, as often misunderstood by many.

Zz.

And if you suspect there something 'wrong' in his rezoning, here’s physical proof of what Zz is talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lewin" (MIT) – The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="640" height="505">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KT7xJ0tjB4A&fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KT7xJ0tjB4A&fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed>
</object>

(Personally I can’t see how you can reject the fact above? New "loopholes" or "unfair sampling" or what...??)

For all we (can) know, qm is just a fancy probability theory.

Wow! Just a fancy probability theory!? Well...

Have you considered what this "fancy probability theory" has brought to you?? I guess you have a computer, ISP, cell phone, TV, DVD player, CD player, MP3 player, digital camera, etc, etc? An estimated 30 percent of the U.S. gross national product is based on inventions made possible by quantum mechanics. That’s pretty impressive for "just a fancy probability theory", right?

I don't understand. What consistency trouble?

When I say "consistency trouble" I mean that we cannot "pick & choose" what fits our personal taste of QM, without getting into trouble in other parts of the scientific framework. HUP has been a fundamental part of QM since 1927. If you "change" the meaning of HUP, it will of course have consequences.

Let’s start with "nothing"; Zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have and it is the energy of its ground state. All quantum mechanical systems undergo fluctuations even in their ground state and have an associated zero-point energy, a consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It was developed by Max Planck, Albert Einstein and Otto Stern. Zero-point energy is non-zero, due to HUP.

This is in turn important for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle" , such as electric or magnetic fields, that exist without excitations that result in the carrying of information from place to place.

And then we can continue with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuations" .

The concept of virtual particles infers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy" on cosmological scales.

Now you might say – Bahh! Virtual particles and vacuum energy doesn’t impress me. This is just talk!

Well it isn’t. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect" was proposed and formulated an in 1948, to show that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force:

And in 1998 the Casimir effect was measured accurately:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9805038"

Precision Measurement of the Casimir Force from 0.1 to 0.9 microns
Authors: U. Mohideen, Anushree Roy

(Submitted on 29 May 1998 (v1), last revised 9 Dec 1998 (this version, v2))
Journal reference: Phys.Rev.Lett.81:4549-4552,1998

Abstract: We have used an atomic force microscope to make precision measurements of the Casimir force between a metallized sphere of diameter 196 microns and flat plate. The force was measured for plate-sphere separations from 0.1 to 0.9 microns. The experimental results are consistent with present theoretical calculations including the finite conductivity, roughness, and temperature corrections. The root mean square average deviation of 1.6 pN between theory and experiment corresponds to a 1% deviation at the smallest separation.

This is just a few examples, and I can go on with the shapes of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_cloud" , etc, etc - but I think this says it all.

If you remove the "HUP brick" in the "house of QM", and make something else of it – the whole house falls apart.

If you want to challenge HUP, you better bring "the full house" – not one 'tasty' personal speculation.

Your personal speculation doesn’t work, because QM is built on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution" , and HUP is at the base of this fundament:

 

[ThomasT]

Hum... you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with mainstream science.

DA, great post. I knew right after I said that I disagreed that the hup is about the nature of the quantum world that I should have qualified what I meant. I was assuming that by the quantum world you were referring to some reality underlying instrumental behavior. I'm just taking the quantum world to mean quantum experimental preparations, quantum experimental phenomena, and the formalism of the theory. If we agree on that, then of course I agree that the hup is about the nature of the quantum world.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Thanks!

Well... maybe we are sliding into the measurement problem...

But, let’s formulate it like this: In the framework which QM uses to make predictions about the physical world, HUP is about indeterministic probabilities.

Okay?

Note: Personally I don’t think that the scientific evolution ends with QM in 2010. Of course there will be new theories, which most probably will discover completely new facts about the world. But today QM is, without competition, the most precise theory we have.

 

[DrChinese]

...how does Rowe's et al experiment justify application of fair sampling assumption to photon detections?
Because if you do it you get ion entanglement? But in that case I don't understand why in photon polarization experiments photons are entangled but atoms are classical and can not be entangled but in ion experiment atoms are entangled but photons are classical and can not be entangled.
Does it depend in what way we intend to interpret results of experiment?

1. Once you know fair sampling assumption is explicitly tested and supported, it can be extended elsewhere to similar tests. So we know that unfair sampling cannot be the cause of Bell test results.

2. Atoms are not classical and can be entangled.

 

[nismaratwork]

1. Once you know fair sampling assumption is explicitly tested and supported, it can be extended elsewhere to similar tests. So we know that unfair sampling cannot be the cause of Bell test results.

2. Atoms are not classical and can be entangled.

Those are the essential basics... how appropriate that your's is post "101"!

 

[ueit]

Wikipedia – Uncertainty principle
...
Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the principle means that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and momentum of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. Moreover, his principle is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics.

This is not the first time when a false statement appears on Wikipedia (which is, by the way, not the direct expression of mainstream science).

In his book, "The physical principles of the quantum theory", page 20, Werner Heisenberg writes:

This formulation makes it clear that the uncertainty relation does not refer to the past; if the velocity of the electron is at first known and the position then exactly mesured, the position for times previous to the measurement may be calculated. Then for these past times Delta p x Delta q is smaller than the usual limiting value, but this knowledge of the past is of a purely speculative character, since it can never (because of the unknown change in momentum caused by the position measurement) be used as an initial condition in any calculation of the future progress of the electron ant thus cannot be subjected to experimental verification. It is a matter of personal belief whether such a calculation concerning the past hystory of the electron can be ascribed any physical reality or not

Now, in my oppinion, the simple fact that a simultaneous position and momentum can be ascribed for the past is strong evidence in favour of their physical reality. Otherwise, this fact has no explanation other than a strange coincidence. On the other hand there is a good explanation for uncertainty as a consequence of the measurement.

 

[DrChinese]

This is not the first time when a false statement appears on Wikipedia (which is, by the way, not the direct expression of mainstream science).

...

Now, in my oppinion, the simple fact that a simultaneous position and momentum can be ascribed for the past is strong evidence in favour of their physical reality. Otherwise, this fact has no explanation other than a strange coincidence. On the other hand there is a good explanation for uncertainty as a consequence of the measurement.

Everything here is basically absurd. And that is being kind.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that there is a simultaneous position and momentum for any quantum object. You can make an extrapolation as Heisenberg suggested. I can also multiply any value by any other value. So what is the physical meaning of such? Answer: none, in both cases.

As to Wikipedia, everything you say about that is wrong too. As per usual. If I wanted to get a summary of mainstream science in any area, Wikipedia would be one of my first sources. There is no better "direct expression of mainstream science" that I am aware of.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

This is not the first time when a false statement appears on Wikipedia

You have to explain why both Wikipedia & http://plato.stanford.edu/" are false.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/#MinInt"
...
The same holds, mutatis mutandis, for all the other physical quantities pertaining to the system. Note that no simultaneous measurements of two or more quantities are required in defining the operational meaning of the probability distributions.

(which is, by the way, not the direct expression of mainstream science)

Okay, can you please tell us what the direct expression of mainstream science is? Don’t forget references.

Now, in my oppinion, the simple fact that a simultaneous position and momentum can be ascribed for the past is strong evidence in favour of their physical reality.

Well, that just your personal speculation, right?

My personal speculation is that physics is about making mathematical models and predictions about nature, and verify these predictions in physical experiments. If you are about to construct a CD player, using the knowledge of physics, you probably want to know in advance if the construction is working, theoretically. Not execute trial & error for a hundred years, to finally confirm that the last version worked, in retrospect...


@DrC: Agree.

 

[dx]

I would like to point out again that the EPR paradox (as far as the 'physical reality' issue is concerned), involves nothing more than what is already contained in the 'single-slit experiment' involving a single particle. As is well known, such a set up serves to illustrate that P and X cannot simultaneously enter the description of quantum phenomena, since phenomena which permit a causal analysis cannot appear in situations that permit a spacetime analysis.

Now, in the EPR experiment, we have two particles instead of one. Since [P₁ + P₂, X₁ - X₂] = 0, situations can be arranged where both X₁ - X₂ and P₁ + P₂ are meaningful. Now, a measurement of X₁ will fix X₂, and a measurement of P₁ will fix P₂, but such measurements demand mutually exclusive experimental arrangements since X₁ and P₁ do not commute. This is what Bohr is referring to in this passage:

"The wording of the above mentioned criterion ... contains an ambiguity as regards the meaning of the expression "without in any way disturbing a system". Of course, there is in a case like that just considered no question of a mechanical disturbance of the system during the last critical stage of the measuring procedure. But even at this stage, there is essentially the question of an influence on the very conditions which define the possible types of predictions regarding the future behavior of the system..."

 

[ueit]

Everything here is basically absurd. And that is being kind.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that there is a simultaneous position and momentum for any quantum object. You can make an extrapolation as Heisenberg suggested. I can also multiply any value by any other value. So what is the physical meaning of such? Answer: none, in both cases.

As to Wikipedia, everything you say about that is wrong too. As per usual. If I wanted to get a summary of mainstream science in any area, Wikipedia would be one of my first sources. There is no better "direct expression of mainstream science" that I am aware of.

Heisenberg said there is a matter of belief if a particle has a simultaneous position and momentum. The wiki article sais otherwise. I prefer to believe the man who discovered the HUP and got a Nobel price in the field over a net source where anyone, even those without a degree in the field, can edit.

The fact that you use wiki as your main source for "mainstream science", does not prove anything at all. It explains however your supperficial understanding of physics.

 

[DrChinese]

The fact that you use wiki as your main source for "mainstream science", does not prove anything at all. It explains however your supperficial understanding of physics.

Gosh, that really hertz. Guess I'll go back to my supper.

 

[ueit]

You have to explain why both Wikipedia & http://plato.stanford.edu/" are false.

Stanford Encyclopedia does not say the same thing as wiki and it does not contradict what I have said.

Okay, can you please tell us what the direct expression of mainstream science is? Don’t forget references.

The oppinion of the great names in the field, in this example Heisenberg himself. I don't understand what references would you expect for this.

Well, that just your personal speculation, right?

It is my interpretation of the available data. The particle goes from a place to another. The assumption that it has a trajectory is natural. Do you have another explanation that is more natural, or has more experimental evidence in its favour?

My personal speculation is that physics is about making mathematical models and predictions about nature, and verify these predictions in physical experiments. If you are about to construct a CD player, using the knowledge of physics, you probably want to know in advance if the construction is working, theoretically. Not execute trial & error for a hundred years, to finally confirm that the last version worked, in retrospect...

I agree with you but unfortunately QM in its standard interpretation does not offer us a model about the world, it does not describe the evolution of a system in our 3D+ time universe. It is a black-box that gives very good predictions, but still a black-box. Therefore one is free to chose a model as long as it does not contradict the QM formalism. In this case, the particle having a trajectory is not in conflict with any of QM postulates and experiments, as Heisenberg himself pointed out.

I wouldn't engage here in a debate about the phylosophy of science but I would say that explanations of past data is as scientiffic as the predictions of the future. This is the case of cosmology (Big-Bang-theory), paleonthology, and others.

 

[DrChinese]

The oppinion of the great names in the field, in this example Heisenberg himself. I don't understand what references would you expect for this.

Generally, people's opinions are not considered references - even Einstein's. Heisenberg's statement is simply a comment to the effect that there is no evidence in favor of one side or the other. I believe you will find that was said long before Bell. Possibly around the time of EPR even. So it is not really relevant, which is par for you. Please, continue to bob and weave to try to deceive those who come here to learn something.

For those who actually come here to learn something: Wiki is a great source of background on physics. Then come here to PhysicsForums to gain additional understanding and ask specific questions. When you get further along, try arxiv.org to search raw research materials.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Stanford Encyclopedia does not say the same thing as wiki and it does not contradict what I have said.

Read again.

The oppinion of the great names in the field, in this example Heisenberg himself. I don't understand what references would you expect for this.

Heisenberg is not saying what you are saying. Reference please.

It is my interpretation of the available data. The particle goes from a place to another. The assumption that it has a trajectory is natural. Do you have another explanation that is more natural, or has more experimental evidence in its favour?

Who says QM has to be natural according to your preferences?

I agree with you but unfortunately QM in its standard interpretation does not offer us a model about the world, it does not describe the evolution of a system in our 3D+ time universe. It is a black-box that gives very good predictions, but still a black-box. Therefore one is free to chose a model as long as it does not contradict the QM formalism. In this case, the particle having a trajectory is not in conflict with any of QM postulates and experiments, as Heisenberg himself pointed out.

Chose any model you want, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism" , but please don’t call it "mainstream science".

 

[ueit]

Generally, people's opinions are not considered references - even Einstein's. Heisenberg's statement is simply a comment to the effect that there is no evidence in favor of one side or the other. I believe you will find that was said long before Bell. Possibly around the time of EPR even. So it is not really relevant, which is par for you. Please, continue to bob and weave to try to deceive those who come here to learn something.

For those who actually come here to learn something: Wiki is a great source of background on physics. Then come here to PhysicsForums to gain additional understanding and ask specific questions. When you get further along, try arxiv.org to search raw research materials.

Well, I let those "who actually come here to learn something" to choose if they want to believe you or some quasi anonimous source on wikipedia or the oppinion of a Nobel price laureate in QM.

Anyway, the wiki statement that HUP "is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics" is clearly wrong and it has been proven so by the very existence of Bohm's interpretation.

The fact that you know about Bohm's interpretation (as proven by your debates on this forum) but still support the wikipedia claim, recommends you as a prime deciever.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, I let those "who actually come here to learn something" to choose if they want to believe you or some quasi anonimous source on wikipedia or the oppinion of a Nobel price laureate in QM.

Anyway, the wiki statement that HUP "is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics" is clearly wrong and it has been proven so by the very existence of Bohm's interpretation.

The fact that you know about Bohm's interpretation (as proven by your debates on this forum) but still support the wikipedia claim, recommends you as a prime deciever.

Newton was a brilliant man, but quoting his views on gravity don't really hold water here... I'd rather have a contemporary account of the science than the words of a brilliant man from an irrelevant time. Insulting Dr. C just makes you look weak... he's proven his knowledge in this area dozens of times over. Make an argument from REAL evidence or have the grace to be silent.

 

[ueit]

Read again.

wiki sais HUP does not allow simultaneous position and momentum ("is a statement about the nature of the system itself")
Stanford sais "no simultaneous measurements of two or more quantities are required"

There is a difference between being impossible and not being required. Here, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy should help you.

Heisenberg is not saying what you are saying. Reference please.

Heisenberg sais that you are wrong.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

E o d

 

[ueit]

Newton was a brilliant man, but quoting his views on gravity don't really hold water here... I'd rather have a contemporary account of the science than the words of a brilliant man from an irrelevant time.

Newton's gravity has been replaced by Einstein's GR. HUP didn't change a bit since Heisenberg discovered it. Your analogy is therefore false.

 

[nismaratwork]

wiki sais HUP does not allow simultaneous position and momentum ("is a statement about the nature of the system itself")
Stanford sais "no simultaneous measurements of two or more quantities are required"

There is a difference between being impossible and not being required. Here, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy should help you.



Heisenberg sais that you are wrong.

Heisenberg is a dead Nazi, cite your references or just let it go.

 

[nismaratwork]

Newton's gravity has been replaced by Einstein's GR. HUP didn't change a bit since Heisenberg discovered it. Your analogy is therefore false.

That was NOT my analogy. My analogy is that you can't quote people who died before a modern age of progress occurred, and call that a reference. You're not acting in the spirit of PF guidelines here, and it sounds like you're spouting nonsense.

 

[jtbell]

Closed pending cleanup.