Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How many of you guys accept quantum theory?

  1. Yes, I accept the current, statistical nature of quantum theory unreservedly and without question.

    2 vote(s)
    20.0%
  2. I accept current quantum theory, but still hold out for a causal explanation.

    4 vote(s)
    40.0%
  3. I accept quantum theory on the basis of its success in prediction. It holds no value beyond that.

    2 vote(s)
    20.0%
  4. I do not accept the current state of quantum mechanical affairs; the theory is incomplete.

    2 vote(s)
    20.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Oct 26, 2008 #1
    By ways, I mean, how many of you guys accept that there is only meaninglessness behind "things we can't know anything about?" How many side with Dirac? Or, are you with Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in at least thirsting for some tenable explanation for phenomena such as entanglement?
    Are you at all like me, in thinking Wolfgang Pauli's opinion with regard to the non-locality of quantum phenomena is akin to the Communist dictator, demanding the social rule be followed without explanation? From Pauli:
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 26, 2008 #2

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2015 Award

    I think DaveC426913 said it best (in a similar thread of yours that ended up locked): "I am fairly certain the universe is not obliged to arrange itself in a way that fits within your day-to-day experiences."
     
  4. Oct 26, 2008 #3
    Now I don't know, but suppose there are instances of entanglement occurring all around us (we can't see it, of course, because the iron-fisted rules prevent us from seeing entanglement in the classical way). In that instance, Davec426913 would still fall in category 1, since he's saying Mother Nature isn't obligated to show us how the rules of QM work (even if, as in the case of spontaneous entanglement, they happen on a "day-to-day" basis).
    But what's DaveC's rationale?
     
  5. Oct 26, 2008 #4

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2015 Award

    Stuff and nonsense. Entanglement is an engineering fact of life at not one but two particle accelerators: KEK-B in Japan and PEP-II in California. If you didn't have entanglement, the machines would have to be designed very differently.

    You know, if you put the same effort into understanding what QM actually says that you do proclaiming your superior wisdom to us poor, deluded physicists, you might learn some really neat things.
     
  6. Oct 26, 2008 #5
    Can you give me some words to google so I can put in that effort to which you recommend? In other words, how exactly are the accelerators built around entanglement? Do you have a few words I may google to learn more? Your help would be appreciated. 'KEK-B PEP-II entanglement' didn't return anything concrete.
     
  7. Oct 26, 2008 #6

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2015 Award

    From Google:

    Results 1 - 10 of about 488 for pep-ii entanglement. (0.29 seconds)

    Results 1 - 10 of about 573 for kek-b entanglement. (0.22 seconds)

    Are you sure you are using the same Google we are using?
     
  8. Oct 26, 2008 #7
    I was looking for returns that were explicit in how entanglement and its properties necessitated a different design parameter for these accelerators.
    Thanks
     
  9. Oct 27, 2008 #8

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2015 Award

    Which is what many of those references show.

    Like it says in the Good Book (Jeremiah, I believe), "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not".
     
  10. Oct 27, 2008 #9

    Fra

    User Avatar

    To me "the explanation of the rule" is simlpy a modest demand for basic constructivity which is pretty much synonymous to self-preservation which I consider to be a basic trait of life and nature.

    Given that asking questions is an investment in a particular direction, why insist asking questions, in which there seems to be no difference in utility of the possible answers? It doesn't come out as constructive behaviour to me. Constructive behaviour is to invest your best where you think you have best gain/loss ratio. ie you choose to ask the questions that are likely to give you best gain and minimum loss in the competition.

    I think nature tends to be constructive, so it still begs the question to explain why some humans which are certainly part of nature insist asking these questions. I think it's because they do see a possible difference, that others don't. But then it's their gain and their loss to pursue these questions.

    And only time will tell which is more successful, that's the essence of selection I guess.

    /Fredrik
     
  11. Oct 27, 2008 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    To me, the answers don't match the question in the title very well and the question really isn't well posed anyway. If you use the parameters of science (ie, how well does it measure up to other theories according to how the scientific method says they should work), then it is essentially an objective fact that QM is the most successful theory in the history of science. But "accept" isn't really a scientific word - it must have the hedge that any theory is only "accepted" insofar as the limitations of the experiments used to prove it are not exceeded.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: How many of you guys accept quantum theory?
  1. How many of you (Replies: 24)

Loading...