Is the Perception of Objects Relative to Our Senses?

[Werg22]

What is an object (I will use the term here to signify a coalition of matter and energy)? It seems that most do not contemplate the question; the understanding of what an object is, for most, is subconscious and never comes to the forefront of their minds. A child will point out at an object without the slightest doubt crossing his mind. This having been said, having asked myself the question I found that the definition of what an object is subject to change due to the relativity of things. An object, so do I conclude, is the perception of a foreground on a background; binary logic, if you will. A celestial body is really the perception of a background, empty space, and a foreground, matter and energy. We either perceive existence or nonexistence, 1 or 0.

Keeping all this in mind, the basis of this logic lies in our senses. We cannot define the background nor the foreground without their use. All information we can gather about the universe has to have an element pertaining to one of our senses. Is it not, then, right to assert that the perception of objects is relative? If we were all crippled from one of our current senses, would every object that we now define as so remain an object? This raises a further question: might an ultimate understanding of the ways of the universe be impossible because science is confined within the framework of our senses?

 

[Rade]

There is a very nice book, "The Evidence of the Senses" by the philosopher David Kelly, 1988, Louisiana State University Press. I think you will find much in common with your thinking in this book.

 

[JoeDawg]

What is an object (I will use the term here to signify a coalition of matter and energy)? It seems that most do not contemplate the question; the understanding of what an object is, for most, is subconscious and never comes to the forefront of their minds.

Kant, amongst others, discussed objects in terms of the 'thing-in-itself'. Basically one type of object, for Kant, is the 'unknowable' things that exist and cause our perceptions. Direct knowledge of these 'things' however is impossible, due to the limits of our ability to interact with them, the limits of our human perception. In philosophy this is generally referred to as 'ontology' which is the study of being, or that which exists.

An object, so do I conclude, is the perception of a foreground on a background; binary logic, if you will. A celestial body is really the perception of a background, empty space, and a foreground, matter and energy. We either perceive existence or nonexistence, 1 or 0.

You could also say that we always 'percieve' the 1, on this basis. Even when we see empty space, it is 'something' to our minds. Here you have switched from a discussion of what is generally referred to as 'objects', to objects of perception. Kant and others talk about this in terms of what is called phenomenology, or peceived things.

Keeping all this in mind, the basis of this logic lies in our senses. We cannot define the background nor the foreground without their use. All information we can gather about the universe has to have an element pertaining to one of our senses.

This is why physics and math stump most people. We, our senses, evolved based on a very specific level of interaction with the world. Hard, soft, sharp, hot, bright, dim, etc... Our recent development of higher intelligence has opened up a world of 'internal' perception, that is still quite foreign to us, and that in turn showed us that our 'level' is not the only one that we can interact with. The microscopic and the cosmic levels being the most obvious examples, are quite alien to our evolved senses. Which makes making sense of things on those levels very difficult.

Is it not, then, right to assert that the perception of objects is relative? If we were all crippled from one of our current senses, would every object that we now define as so remain an object? This raises a further question: might an ultimate understanding of the ways of the universe be impossible because science is confined within the framework of our senses?

I would say that this is so, however, I'd question your need for some sort of 'ultimate' anything. Even mathematics is only an abstraction of reality. Its not the thing in itself, but a description. And yet, it can be quite handy, just like our sense of smell when there is a gas leak. If something is described well enough that it allows us to manipulate and do what we want/need with it, then knowing the 'thing in itself' is unnecessary.

 

[Werg22]

Rade, thanks for the recommendation, I'll be sure to examine that book. JoeDawg, you make very interesting points. Could you orient me towards the writings of Kant that your making allusion to?

 

[JoeDawg]

JoeDawg, you make very interesting points. Could you orient me towards the writings of Kant that your making allusion to?

I'm not a huge fan of Kant, mostly because I don't agree with him on a number of things. However, Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" is really required reading for any serious student of philosophy, not just for the ideas in it, but because so many modern philosophers reference it, either to agree or disagree with him on this or that.

I'd recommend reading and researching these... and in this order.

Rene Descartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy"
David Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding"
Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason"
Friedrich Nietzsche's "Twilight of the Idols"

Be aware though that this is not 'easy reading', people spend years studying this stuff, so you might want to read an overview or introduction to their philosophy before you actually start reading the texts. Even check out wikipedia or an encyclopedia of philosophy in order to get your bearings.

Luck.

 

[wuliheron]

Some languages do not have the verb "to be", and do not think in terms of objects. Instead, they view reality as a process of constant change where everything is in the process of becoming something else. This is more consistent with modern physics than the concept of objects.

As physicists like to say, "If it has no properties it does not exist". However, in the case of particles that are also waves the definition of properties becomes somewhat obscured. Therefore about all we can say is objects have demonstrable properties.

 

[ZapperZ]

Some languages do not have the verb "to be", and do not think in terms of objects. Instead, they view reality as a process of constant change where everything is in the process of becoming something else. This is more consistent with modern physics than the concept of objects.

As physicists like to say, "If it has no properties it does not exist". However, in the case of particles that are also waves the definition of properties becomes somewhat obscured. Therefore about all we can say is objects have demonstrable properties.

Er.. you have somehow misinterpreted the meaning of the word "property" in physics. Having parameters like "wavelength", "charge", "mass", "spin", etc.. are all properties. It has nothing to do with wave or particles. A wave also have properties (i.e. wavelength, amplitude, frequency, velocity, etc). There's nothing "obscure" about these properties.

Zz.

 

[wuliheron]

Having both properties at once is what is obscure. Something being both localized and nonlocal at the same time is a paradox which, by definition, is about as obscure as anything ever gets.

 

[Chronos]

In science, the universe has three properties - matter, energy and location. The first two properties are generally not in dispute.

 

[ZapperZ]

Having both properties at once is what is obscure. Something being both localized and nonlocal at the same time is a paradox which, by definition, is about as obscure as anything ever gets.

It doesn't. The "wave-particle" duality is simply an explanation to laymen about the behavior of quantum particles. In QM, there are no duality. All you need to do to confirm this is to open a QM textbook, and you'll never find any formulation of a particle being described by some "particle" equation in one instant, and in the next instant, we switch gears and describe it using some "wave" description. Such a thing doesn't occur in QM. It does, however, occur when we try to describe these things to the general public in terms of what the general public can understand, which are "wavelike" and "particlelike" properties.

[See, for example, one of the FAQ in the General Physics forum on the issue of wave-particle duality of light

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=867751&postcount=3]

So no, it isn't obscure. It may be obscure to you, but it isn't obscure as far as how these things are described in physics. As always, one needs to go directly to the source (in this case, actual QM formulation of these things) and not simply rely on popular science description of these things in order to draw a conclusion based on accurate facts.

Besides, even if something has those characteristics, this qualifies as the PROPERTY of that object. So it is also wrong to say that such an object has no property.

Zz.

 

[JoeDawg]

Besides, even if something has those characteristics, this qualifies as the PROPERTY of that object. So it is also wrong to say that such an object has no property.

Would it be wrong to say then that x particle only has y property in the presense of an observer? The observer in this case would be like a catalyst for said property. I'm thinking of when a wave function collapses, but I'm not an expert in these things.

 

[octelcogopod]

IMO everything we know and think are based on the properties or things we have seen.
An apple is round, green, sour, it has a size and so forth.
None of these things are unique to the apple, and from a certain perspective , even when combined, they do not make an apple.

An object will always be the sum of its properties, but to humans who have a brain, an object is a whole.
When you try to describe an object you will always be using properties that all objects have, and these properties are imo the key issue to what consciousness and the brain is capable of.
I don't want to stray too off topic, but the brain has a very unique way of collecting stimuli and ordering it into objects that make sense.
But on the other end we can say that the ocean will aways ripple when you throw a rock into it, so the rock and the ocean (and some of its properties like weight, size, material etc) does exist as a whole even with no one perceiving it.

Hope I understood you correctly.

 

[wuliheron]

It doesn't. The "wave-particle" duality is simply an explanation to laymen about the behavior of quantum particles.

Do not confuse the map with the territory. The mathematics of quantum mechanics are merely a useful description of the reality we observe. In this case, I was referring to the metaphysics that these mathematics imply. If you don't believe quantum mechanics implies serious paradoxes I suggest you check out the Stanford library. Furthermore, I am proud to say that I stand in the company of such greats as Einstein who used the term wave/particle duality not only to explain quantum mechanics to lay people, but also to have discussions with his peers.

http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

 

[ZapperZ]

Do not confuse the map with the territory. The mathematics of quantum mechanics are merely a useful description of the reality we observe. In this case, I was referring to the metaphysics that these mathematics imply. If you don't believe quantum mechanics implies serious paradoxes I suggest you check out the Stanford library. Furthermore, I am proud to say that I stand in the company of such greats as Einstein who used the term wave/particle duality not only to explain quantum mechanics to lay people, but also to have discussions with his peers.

http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

But I think you are the one confusing the map with the territory. QM first and foremost is the mathematical formulation. The interpretation is what comes later, and that is what is at issue, even with Einstein!

And I would also suggest that you go beyond what Einstein has said, because Einstein did not live to see the EPR-type experiments being verified, nor did he live to see all the various other Schrödinger Cat-type experiments being performed and verified.

The problem with QM has always been that people do not understand and studied the mathematical formalism of it, but still wish to discuss it based only on the philosophical understanding of it. This is similar to discussing the shape of an object simply based on looking at its shadow, and arguing about the apparent paradox of it simply because one is looking at the shadow from different angles, all without actually looking at the actual object itself. In QM, the actual object is the mathematical formalism, which has been shown to work and which has zero dispute even among people who disagree with its interpretation or completeness.

So really, if you truly think that there is a wave-particle duality in QM, all you need to do is point out to me exactly where we teach that in an undergraduate QM class. Pick up Griffith's QM text, for example, and show me exactly where there is such a thing as a "wave-particle" duality. I'm sure you'll understand why I would not base the actual content of QM from a philosophy paper or discussion. I'd rather look at the object rather than rely on people discussing about the shadow.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Would it be wrong to say then that x particle only has y property in the presense of an observer? The observer in this case would be like a catalyst for said property. I'm thinking of when a wave function collapses, but I'm not an expert in these things.

I'm not sure if that is necessary the case all the time. For example, we can describe a system by either writing down its Hamiltonian, or solving for its wavefunction. Technically, the wavefunction contains all of the ingredients necessary to describe the system. If you make a measurement, the wavefunction will tell you what you will get, or can get.

Now one might be tempted to say "Yes, but it is a description on what you will get UPON measurement". So while that may be true, it isn't that simple because in QM, there is such a thing as a "non-commuting observable". A position and momentum observable, for example, are non-commuting observable with respect to each other. If you measure position, the momentum still remains undetermined. This is the source of the uncertainty principle. What this means is that the wavefunction can still remain "uncollapse" for that property even after another property has been measured. Such non-collapsed can, in fact, produce a measured effect which becomes part of the property of the system. In Chemistry, we observe this via the existence of bonding-antibonding bonds. In fact, chemistry is full of quantum mechanical manifestation. Yet, all of these are due to observables that remain uncollapsed and are part of their properties.

To make a long story short, no, I would not consider a property to only be associated with the presence of an observer.

Zz.

 

[JonF]

What is an object (I will use the term here to signify a coalition of matter and energy)?

you ask what an object is then define it. Usually in phil. an object is anything that can have properties

An object, so do I conclude, is the perception of a foreground on a background; binary logic, if you will.

this limits objects to perception, not physical entities that they correspond to. If you use this definition when me and you look at the same table we experience different objects…

Keeping all this in mind, the basis of this logic lies in our senses.

If you are using sense here how I think you are this is false

All information we can gather about the universe has to have an element pertaining to one of our senses.

I disagree with this too. The existence of at least one entity for example doesn't depend on your senses.

 

[JonF]

Rene Descartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy"
David Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding"
Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason"
Friedrich Nietzsche's "Twilight of the Idols"

Russell’s A critique of philosophy discusses almost his exact ideas too.

 

[RetardedBastard]

So really, if you truly think that there is a wave-particle duality in QM, all you need to do is point out to me exactly where we teach that in an undergraduate QM class. Pick up Griffith's QM text, for example, and show me exactly where there is such a thing as a "wave-particle" duality.
Zz.

OK ZZ, I took up your challenge.

page 374, footnote 1. Enjoy :)

 

[RetardedBastard]

also 7th line, page 113 in Principles of Quantum Mechanics, second edition, R. Shankar.

 

[wuliheron]

But I think you are the one confusing the map with the territory. QM first and foremost is the mathematical formulation. The interpretation is what comes later, and that is what is at issue, even with Einstein!

And I would also suggest that you go beyond what Einstein has said, because Einstein did not live to see the EPR-type experiments being verified, nor did he live to see all the various other Schrödinger Cat-type experiments being performed and verified.

Being a physical science, quantum mechanics is first and foremost what we observe. There are more than one mathematical interpretation of what we observe, some of which have different strengths and weaknesses.

Secondly, I only gave Einstein as an example, there do exist others. Likewise, the epr and other experiments have yet to resolve the particle/wave duality. If someone had resolved this issue it would be the biggest news since Newton's Principia.

The problem with QM has always been that people do not understand and studied the mathematical formalism of it, but still wish to discuss it based only on the philosophical understanding of it. This is similar to discussing the shape of an object simply based on looking at its shadow, and arguing about the apparent paradox of it simply because one is looking at the shadow from different angles, all without actually looking at the actual object itself. In QM, the actual object is the mathematical formalism, which has been shown to work and which has zero dispute even among people who disagree with its interpretation or completeness.

So really, if you truly think that there is a wave-particle duality in QM, all you need to do is point out to me exactly where we teach that in an undergraduate QM class. Pick up Griffith's QM text, for example, and show me exactly where there is such a thing as a "wave-particle" duality. I'm sure you'll understand why I would not base the actual content of QM from a philosophy paper or discussion. I'd rather look at the object rather than rely on people discussing about the shadow.
Zz.

Sigh... and the problem with physicists who should know better is that they keep arguing philosophical points when it is obvious they know little about philosophy!

Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. When you start talking about the metaphysics of quantum mechanics you are squarely into philosophical territory. No doubt a book on the mathematics of modern standard theory for budding physicists does not go into the metaphysics behind the subject. Physics is not philosophy.

Again, mathematics is just another language. Show me the evidence, not more words.

 

[ZapperZ]

Being a physical science, quantum mechanics is first and foremost what we observe. There are more than one mathematical interpretation of what we observe, some of which have different strengths and weaknesses.

More than one "mathematical interpretation"? Such as what? You never gave any example to support your claim. There are no variation of "mathematical interpretation". (Mathematical interpretation is a strange expression in itself).

So show me how you can have more than one "mathematical interpretation" when solving for the hydrogen atom, for example.

Secondly, I only gave Einstein as an example, there do exist others. Likewise, the epr and other experiments have yet to resolve the particle/wave duality. If someone had resolved this issue it would be the biggest news since Newton's Principia.

There's nothing to resolve as far as the mathematical formulation of the EPR experiments. NONE. Even Einstein never disputed that this is what QM produces. After all, he was the one who saw it. Please give citation of papers that do this. What you DO have is variation in the philosophical interpretation of it.

Sigh... and the problem with physicists who should know better is that they keep arguing philosophical points when it is obvious they know little about philosophy!

Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. When you start talking about the metaphysics of quantum mechanics you are squarely into philosophical territory. No doubt a book on the mathematics of modern standard theory for budding physicists does not go into the metaphysics behind the subject. Physics is not philosophy.

Again, mathematics is just another language. Show me the evidence, not more words.

No mathematics isn't just another language. It is devoid of any cultural connotations and is understood across the board by anyone no matter what language they speak. Can you say the same about any other human language? If you think so, then this is a very serious fallacy that you are holding on to.

And I wasn't discussing about "metaphysics", because I dislike such meaningless exercise. I was disputing your understand of QM and using that understanding as a foundation to draw your conclusion. Your understanding of QM is faulty, and it isn't based on actual knowledge, but rather based on second-hand interpretation. Wave-particle duality doesn't exist. The fact that you are unable to present the exact formalism in QM to support this is my evidence for stating that you don't know what you are talking about. This isn't "metaphysics" and I never wanted to discuss metaphysics, so do not change the subject and cloud the issue that I was point out.

From now on, please me specific references to physics papers when you make such claims about physics. If not, you are making speculative and possibly wrong statements which would violate our Guidelines.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

OK ZZ, I took up your challenge.

page 374, footnote 1. Enjoy :)

also 7th line, page 113 in Principles of Quantum Mechanics, second edition, R. Shankar.

Oh good! Now, tell me exactly WHERE in the mathematics is there a switch of gears where QM had to go from "particle" to "wave" that makes you think that there is a "duality" here. I sincerely hope that you don't think Shankar's discussion on the CLASSICAL waves and particles as such evidence for QM!

Zz.

 

[Doctordick]

More than one "mathematical interpretation"? Such as what? You never gave any example to support your claim. There are no variation of "mathematical interpretation". (Mathematical interpretation is a strange expression in itself).

Mathematics is a language like any other language except for one very important fact: mathematicians have done their best to assure that what they mean is clear. And they have done a pretty good job; however, even mathematics contains expressions which can be interpreted in more than one way. A specific example would be F(x+y). That expression can be interpreted to be a reference to some function F which is to be evaluated for the case when the argument is the sum of x and y. On the other hand, the writer could also have intended to mean the number represented by F multiplied by the sum of x and y. Which interpretation is correct must be arrived at by knowing the context; exactly the same mechanism used to resolve ambiguous interpretation in any language.

In fact there is another ambiguous situation in physics which is the source of many quack theories of thermodynamics behind perpetual motion machines. In any treatise on thermodynamics, you will find v standing for the average velocity of a molecule and you will also find v standing for the actual velocity. By mixing valid equations taken from a respected treatise where the meaning of v is inconsistent, one can generate a great many invalid relationships; easily demonstrating lack of energy conservation.

There is no difference between the quacks who mix their terms in supposed technical papers and quacks who use the ambiguity of English words to prove stupid philosophical propositions.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[ZapperZ]

Mathematics is a language like any other language except for one very important fact: mathematicians have done their best to assure that what they mean is clear. And they have done a pretty good job; however, even mathematics contains expressions which can be interpreted in more than one way. A specific example would be F(x+y). That expression can be interpreted to be a reference to some function F which is to be evaluated for the case when the argument is the sum of x and y. On the other hand, the writer could also have intended to mean the number represented by F multiplied by the sum of x and y. Which interpretation is correct must be arrived at by knowing the context; exactly the same mechanism used to resolve ambiguous interpretation in any language.

In fact there is another ambiguous situation in physics which is the source of many quack theories of thermodynamics behind perpetual motion machines. In any treatise on thermodynamics, you will find v standing for the average velocity of a molecule and you will also find v standing for the actual velocity. By mixing valid equations taken from a respected treatise where the meaning of v is inconsistent, one can generate a great many invalid relationships; easily demonstrating lack of energy conservation.

Er.. this is not ambiguity in mathematics. It is the ambiguity in NOTATION!

Just because someone bastardize some mathematics does not mean the mathematics itself is faulty. You appear to be confusing those two.

If you think such ambiguity can occur, I'm waiting for you to show how you can have a different "mathematics" for the QM formulation of the hydrogen atom.

Zz.

 

[RetardedBastard]

Oh good! Now, tell me exactly WHERE in the mathematics is there a switch of gears where QM had to go from "particle" to "wave" that makes you think that there is a "duality" here. I sincerely hope that you don't think Shankar's discussion on the CLASSICAL waves and particles as such evidence for QM!

Zz.

Yeah, I totally agree with you that those two books present the same mathematical formalism whether the equations are describing quantum "particles" or "waves." However, you asked exactly where "wave-particle duality" is brought up in undergrad QM textbooks, so I did a search and gave 2 examples.

And the way I see it, the fact that each of these 2 widely-used textbooks only bring up the term "wave-particle duality" only once in each book, with VERY little discussion about what it means, only goes to show that the "duality" is not considered important enough by professors to teach to students (otherwise, they presumably would voice their concern to the authors of the books and get the texts updated). So, no, I don't think there's a duality either, as far as the math is concerned. But this is the philosophy forum, so I don't know if the lack of a mathematical duality necessarily means anything here.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yeah, I totally agree with you that those two books present the same mathematical formalism whether the equations are describing quantum "particles" or "waves." However, you asked exactly where "wave-particle duality" is brought up in undergrad QM textbooks, so I did a search and gave 2 examples.

And the way I see it, the fact that each of these 2 widely-used textbooks only bring up the term "wave-particle duality" only once in each book, with VERY little discussion about what it means, only goes to show that the "duality" is not considered important enough by professors to teach to students (otherwise, they presumably would voice their concern to the authors of the books and get the texts updated). So, no, I don't think there's a duality either, as far as the math is concerned. But this is the philosophy forum, so I don't know if the lack of a mathematical duality necessarily means anything here.

Well, if you look at what I wrote earlier, the context that I asked that was in relation to the mathematical formalism of QM. So I asked where is this being taught, and asked for it to be illustrated using standard QM texts that students use in college. As you have noticed, there's no such thing being taught for undergraduate QM, and there will be none in graduate level QM either.

So then claiming that QM has a "wave-particle duality" is false. Plain and simple. That is the point that I was trying to get across. Many people who freely use such term and associate it with QM are not aware of this fact.

Zz.

 

[Pythagorean]

Well, if you look at what I wrote earlier, the context that I asked that was in relation to the mathematical formalism of QM. So I asked where is this being taught, and asked for it to be illustrated using standard QM texts that students use in college. As you have noticed, there's no such thing being taught for undergraduate QM, and there will be none in graduate level QM either.

So then claiming that QM has a "wave-particle duality" is false. Plain and simple. That is the point that I was trying to get across. Many people who freely use such term and associate it with QM are not aware of this fact.

Zz.

I'm still confused about this myself. I too, have a generic assumption that 'wave-particle duality' is a fundamental concept of quantum physics.

It's not that I doubt you, but I'd like to give you my arguments for criticism so that I can better understand the flaw in my assumptions, I guess:

I have taken 'intro to modern physics'. I haven't taken the real, year-long modern physics course yet.

1) Experimentally, we have the double-slit experiment. That light (and other particles) behave like a wave when both slits are open, but like a particle when one is open.

2) In my 'concept of physics' class (a physics history class) we were taught how light was viewed as both a particle and a wave throughout history, until it was finally accepted that it can behave like both.

3) As for as the math, it was my understanding that the Hamiltonian dealt with the particle view (momentum and mass) and Schroedinger dealt with the wave view (frequency and energy).

4) In 'intro to modern physics' we learn how Debroglie, having see how light (generally thought to be wave-like at the time) can be treated as a particle, made a great leap and tried treating electrons (generally assumed particle-like) to be waves.

I guess my point is... why is the concept pushed at us if it's such a misleading concept?

5) This is a separate, but related question. Is there any relationship between the particle-like properties of light (imparting momentum to other particles) and the peak of it's wave at the time it is in contact with such other particles?.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm still confused about this myself. I too, have a generic assumption that 'wave-particle duality' is a fundamental concept of quantum physics.

It's not that I doubt you, but I'd like to give you my arguments for criticism so that I can better understand the flaw in my assumptions, I guess:

I have taken 'intro to modern physics'. I haven't taken the real, year-long modern physics course yet.

1) Experimentally, we have the double-slit experiment. That light (and other particles) behave like a wave when both slits are open, but like a particle when one is open.

2) In my 'concept of physics' class (a physics history class) we were taught how light was viewed as both a particle and a wave throughout history, until it was finally accepted that it can behave like both.

3) As for as the math, it was my understanding that the Hamiltonian dealt with the particle view (momentum and mass) and Schroedinger dealt with the wave view (frequency and energy).

4) In 'intro to modern physics' we learn how Debroglie, having see how light (generally thought to be wave-like at the time) can be treated as a particle, made a great leap and tried treating electrons (generally assumed particle-like) to be waves.

I guess my point is... why is the concept pushed at us if it's such a misleading concept?

5) This is a separate, but related question. Is there any relationship between the particle-like properties of light (imparting momentum to other particles) and the peak of it's wave at the time it is in contact with such other particles?.

I think this is a common reason why there is a misconception regarding what QM does.

First of all, you need to be clear on what is meant by "duality". In classical mechanics, you have to use a completely different set of description for particles, and then for waves. There is no direct relationship between those two. That is why it is inconceivable that in classical mechanics, something can exhibit both properties.

In QM, the "Hamiltonian" and the "Schrödinger Eqn" are essentially the same thing. We do not switch gears when we describe ALL of the properties of quantum object, whether they are behaving like a particle or a wave. The Marcella paper that I've highlighted several times show in painful details the QM formalism to describe photon diffraction and interference with multiple slits without invoking any "wave mechanics". And as you've said, the deBroglie relations shows a clear connection between "wavelike" and "particlelike" properties that is absent in classical mechanics. This shows that just ONE formulation can describe ALL of the observed phenomena, not two separate one. If we had discovered QM first ahead of classical mechanics, we would have never thought wavelike and particle like behavior to be different things, because we can describe them using the same starting point.

Zz.

 

[wuliheron]

More than one "mathematical interpretation"? Such as what? You never gave any example to support your claim. There are no variation of "mathematical interpretation". (Mathematical interpretation is a strange expression in itself).

So show me how you can have more than one "mathematical interpretation" when solving for the hydrogen atom, for example.

What you keep referring to is more properly known as modern standard theory, which is taught to undergraduate students. It is a comparatively simple formulation of quantum mechanics and is currently the most widely accepted interpretation, but nonetheless has well known limitations and problems. If you wish to study theoretical physics there are any number of distinct mathematical interpretations, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

For example, "metric" theories such as the string theories describe quantum mechanics in terms of geometry, supersymmetry describes qm in terms of symmetry, Bohmian mechanics in terms of particles and waves, wave mechanics in terms of waves, etc. What all of these theories have in common is the central enigma of quantum mechanics: Just what the heck does it describe anyway?

There's nothing to resolve as far as the mathematical formulation of the EPR experiments. NONE. Even Einstein never disputed that this is what QM produces. After all, he was the one who saw it. Please give citation of papers that do this. What you DO have is variation in the philosophical interpretation of it.

Yes and no. Einstein used logic (the foundation of mathematics) to assert that quantum mechanics is incomplete. This included not only the philosophical interpretations but the mathematical formulations as well.

No mathematics isn't just another language. It is devoid of any cultural connotations and is understood across the board by anyone no matter what language they speak. Can you say the same about any other human language? If you think so, then this is a very serious fallacy that you are holding on to.

LOLOLOLOL...

Study the history of mathematics and you will understand my laughter. For example, the Pythagorean Theorem which is so central to physics was invented by mystics who claimed it described just about everything including what is perfect and beautiful. Aristotle banned the use of infinities claiming they couldn't be real. And when the Asians first learned of quantum mechanics they immediately made several fundamental contributions that had escaped their western counterparts because their languages are so much more holistic than western ones.

In the case of ordinary languages, in general, the more holistic they are the more capable they are of understanding foreign languages. This reminds me of a story of a famous Chinese general who attended west point and graduated first in his class. Supposedly some other cadets asked him how he did so well when English wasn't even his native language. He replied, "English is nothing, try learning a language with 250,000 letters in the alphabet!"

By definition holistic viewpoints describe more than reductionist ones.

And I wasn't discussing about "metaphysics", because I dislike such meaningless exercise. I was disputing your understand of QM and using that understanding as a foundation to draw your conclusion. Your understanding of QM is faulty, and it isn't based on actual knowledge, but rather based on second-hand interpretation. Wave-particle duality doesn't exist. The fact that you are unable to present the exact formalism in QM to support this is my evidence for stating that you don't know what you are talking about. This isn't "metaphysics" and I never wanted to discuss metaphysics, so do not change the subject and cloud the issue that I was point out.

From now on, please me specific references to physics papers when you make such claims about physics. If not, you are making speculative and possibly wrong statements which would violate our Guidelines.

Zz.

This is the metaphysics and epistemology forum, if you don't wish to discuss such things you are in the wrong place. Furthermore, standard theory is not the Alpha and Omega of quantum mechanics despite its wonderful successes. And, last but not least, words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context.

The idea that you can separate metaphysics from physics is an oxymoron. Especially when you keep pushing the mathematics of physics. Because of their logical foundations all mathematics have metaphysical and epistomological foundations.

 

[ZapperZ]

What you keep referring to is more properly known as modern standard theory, which is taught to undergraduate students. It is a comparatively simple formulation of quantum mechanics and is currently the most widely accepted interpretation, but nonetheless has well known limitations and problems. If you wish to study theoretical physics there are any number of distinct mathematical interpretations, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

For example, "metric" theories such as the string theories describe quantum mechanics in terms of geometry, supersymmetry describes qm in terms of symmetry, Bohmian mechanics in terms of particles and waves, wave mechanics in terms of waves, etc. What all of these theories have in common is the central enigma of quantum mechanics: Just what the heck does it describe anyway?

You seem to be forgetting that ALL of what you describe all converged to the SAME, IDENTICAL formulation of standard QM. In other words, if I ask all of these people to solve the hydrogen atom, all of them converge back to the standard Schrödinger equation and that would be what will be used! So no, these are NOT different interpretations of QM, thank you.

Furthermore, since when do we use unverified and still unconfirmed ideas as evidence for something else? This may be a common practice for philosophy, or even for you, but it isn't for physics. Thus, if you are using speculative, unverified theories to try to support your argument, then you truly are scrapping the very bottom of the barrel. All I asked is something that has been highly verified. Find me an alternative "mathematics" that describes and solves the hydrogen atom, superconductivity, etc...

Yes and no. Einstein used logic (the foundation of mathematics) to assert that quantum mechanics is incomplete. This included not only the philosophical interpretations but the mathematical formulations as well.

I did ask for a citation, didn't I? I've read the EPR paper and several others by him. Nowhere did he say that (i) QM is wrong and (ii) there is an alternative mathematics of QM. He did say it is incomplete via the EPR paper, which, thanks to it, has only strengthen QM's validity!

LOLOLOLOL...

Study the history of mathematics and you will understand my laughter. For example, the Pythagorean Theorem which is so central to physics was invented by mystics who claimed it described just about everything including what is perfect and beautiful. Aristotle banned the use of infinities claiming they couldn't be real. And when the Asians first learned of quantum mechanics they immediately made several fundamental contributions that had escaped their western counterparts because their languages are so much more holistic than western ones.

In the case of ordinary languages, in general, the more holistic they are the more capable they are of understanding foreign languages. This reminds me of a story of a famous Chinese general who attended west point and graduated first in his class. Supposedly some other cadets asked him how he did so well when English wasn't even his native language. He replied, "English is nothing, try learning a language with 250,000 letters in the alphabet!"

By definition holistic viewpoints describe more than reductionist ones.

Again, you simply are pointing out the human reaction to it. You have not pointed out where exactly in mathematics is it like a typical human language. You had just stated above that Einstein argued QM based on logic (the foundation of mathematics).

This is the metaphysics and epistemology forum, if you don't wish to discuss such things you are in the wrong place. Furthermore, standard theory is not the Alpha and Omega of quantum mechanics despite its wonderful successes. And, last but not least, words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context.

The idea that you can separate metaphysics from physics is an oxymoron. Especially when you keep pushing the mathematics of physics. Because of their logical foundations all mathematics have metaphysical and epistomological foundations.

You seem to be forgetting (or trying to confuse the argument) on why I came into this thread in the first place. You made erroneous statements about quantum mechanics. I was correcting that. Somehow, you never addressed that. Instead, you put out a bunch of red herrings. You have not been able to show me where there is "wave-particle duality" in standard QM. Open a QM textbook and show me. Or better yet, pick up a copy of a physics journal such as Phys. Rev. Lett. and show me where we use this "wave-particle duality" in the workings of physics.

I have zero interest in chatting about "metaphysics". I do, however, have plenty of interest in making sure physics isn't being bastardized, and that misconception like this is being perpetuated ad nauseum. You were using something out of physics based on some misunderstanding. Unless you are willing to show clear evidence that you are correct, I strongly suggest you stop perpetuating that false information.

Zz.