Is the Perception of Objects Relative to Our Senses?

[Pythagorean]

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 "Schrodinger 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.

Ok, thank you for your response. I never really thought of the definition of 'duality' in physics, since physics terms tend to look and sound like laymen terms but have different meaning. I guess I'm not really confused on the physics (well, not anymore than other undergrads at my level who haven't studied QM)

I see though, how it is a byproduct of the development of physics and the assumptions made in classical physics. The phrase 'particle-wave duality' is leftover from a time when it was a conflicting subject, when classical skeptics found it hard to believe that matter could behave synonymously as a wave and a particle.

EDIT: I totally just remember seeing the hamiltonian used with the schroedinger equation:

 

[ZapperZ]

EDIT: I totally just remember seeing the hamiltonian used with the schroedinger equation:

Actually, that Hamiltonian is part of the time-independent schrodinger equation.

Zz.

 

[Pythagorean]

Actually, that Hamiltonian is part of the time-independent schrodinger equation.

Zz.

This brings another question to mind, regarding whether that information (time) is already implicitly present. In modern physics is it as easy to integrate time into an equation as it is with classical physics?

My line of thought being that if you have the Hamiltonian, you have momentum, which contains velocity, which can be separated and integrated as dx/dt to introduce a time-dependence.

I've seen the formula for the time-dependent equation, but I haven't followed the mathematical development of it. I've only really worked with the one-dimensional, time-independent schrodinger equation... and the math is still shaky for me.

 

[wuliheron]

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 Schrodinger equation and that would be what will be used! So no, these are NOT different interpretations of QM, thank you.

To paraphrase Einstein, "Creating a new theory is not like tearing down a barn and erecting a sky scraper in it's place. It is more like climbing a mountain, gaining new views and insights along the way. The place from which we started can still be seen, but our view has been broadened."

Actually, there are proposed simplifications of Indeterminacy and expansions of the Strong Equivalency Principle. There is even a formal equation now that expresses the HUP. For all I know one of these theories has a simplification or expansion of the Schroedinger equation as well.

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...

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!

Again, the map is not the territory, just because the standard theory is the most widely accepted theory does not make it the God given truth about quantum mechanics. Nor does this bestow some kind of legal or moral right that says only standard theory can use the term "quantum mechanics" to describe itself. It is called standard theory for a reason, to distinguish it from all the other theories, proven or not, that address what we observe in subatomic physics.

However, if you insist on seeing equations here is one example.

http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic7a.html

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).

Logic and order are fundamental to language of any sort, they are philosophical tools and philosophy forms the foundations for all practices. Hence it has been said many times that anything that can be expressed mathematically can also be expressed in words. Thus even philosophers use equations in their own idiosyncratic notation to describe relationships.

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.

Again, the particle/wave duality is a metaphysical concept based upon physical observation. Hence, you will not find it often referenced in a teaching book about physics because it is a concern of theoretical physics and philosophy. In standard theory it can be expressed as the idea that everything is pure energy, whatever the heck that might mean. Both are ways of expressing the same paradox, the central paradox of quantum mechanics, just what the heck is it that quantum mechanics describes.

You are the one who keeps arguing ad nauseum that standard theory is the alpha and omega of quantum mechanics, which is patently absurd. Furthermore your arguments are patently absurd involving little more than the splitting of semantic hairs.

quantum mechanics
A fundamental theory of matter and energy that explains facts that previous physical theories were unable to account for, in particular the fact that energy is absorbed and released in small, discrete quantities (quanta), and that all matter displays both wavelike and particlelike properties, especially when viewed at atomic and subatomic scales. Quantum mechanics suggests that the behavior of matter and energy is inherently probabilistic and that the effect of the observer on the physical system being observed must be understood as a part of that system. Also called quantum physics, quantum theory. Compare classical physics. See also probability wave, quantum, uncertainty principle, wave-particle duality.

 

[ZapperZ]

Again, the particle/wave duality is a metaphysical concept based upon physical observation. Hence, you will not find it often referenced in a teaching book about physics because it is a concern of theoretical physics and philosophy. In standard theory it can be expressed as the idea that everything is pure energy, whatever the heck that might mean. Both are ways of expressing the same paradox, the central paradox of quantum mechanics, just what the heck is it that quantum mechanics describes.

You are the one who keeps arguing ad nauseum that standard theory is the alpha and omega of quantum mechanics, which is patently absurd. Furthermore your arguments are patently absurd involving little more than the splitting of semantic hairs.

And this, I believe, is the source of the problem. You seem to have an utter lack of respect for what exactly is quantum mechanics. All you care about is the "metaphysical concept", no matter if it is accurate or not. Don't you actually care if what you are using is accurate and correct?

If you simply want to talk about the "metaphysical concept" of some generic wave-particle duality, I wouldn't have cared. But to claim that such a thing is derived from quantum mechanics, then that's a lie and a gross misinterpretation of QM.

I'm not arguing about semantics. You claim that QM has wave-particle duality. I asked you to point out where. It is a glaring fact in all your responses that you haven't been able to show me that. I believe that it is you who is playing the semantic game, not me. Asking you to show me where in standard textbooks of QM is there a formulation of wave-particle duality isn't semantics. You have been unable to do that.

Therefore, there are ample evidence here to show that you really did not know what you are using.

BTW, do you think citing some dictionary definition of QM can replace studying it for years AND testing/using it in research work?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

This brings another question to mind, regarding whether that information (time) is already implicitly present. In modern physics is it as easy to integrate time into an equation as it is with classical physics?

My line of thought being that if you have the Hamiltonian, you have momentum, which contains velocity, which can be separated and integrated as dx/dt to introduce a time-dependence.

I've seen the formula for the time-dependent equation, but I haven't followed the mathematical development of it. I've only really worked with the one-dimensional, time-independent schrodinger equation... and the math is still shaky for me.

Oh, sorry. I've only recently noticed your post.

I think this line of questioning is better suited for the QM forum. I don't think anyone reading this forum is interested in the nitty-gritty of QM (as you can already tell). So rather than derail this thread, you should ask that in the QM forum.

Zz.

 

[JoeDawg]

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.

I really value your input as far as the science goes, and I guess this is only a smaller point in a larger argument, but I think you are seriously wrong here. Math is a symbol system that uses logic, values and phrasal constructs to describe reality abstractly. In this sense it is no different from any other language. Yes, it is somewhat specialized for the content it's used to describe and communicate, but it is just as vulnerable to bias, cultural or otherwise.

I would also question the reality of this 'across the board' understanding of math. Most people have real trouble translating ideas they could otherwise express in their native language, although maybe not in the same detail, into the symbols of mathematics.

None of that is to say that mathematics doesn't have a unique value and usefulness, it does, but its a specialized language, designed for a specific purpose. In terms of saying hello to someone, it can be quite cumbersome.

 

[wuliheron]

And this, I believe, is the source of the problem. You seem to have an utter lack of respect for what exactly is quantum mechanics. All you care about is the "metaphysical concept", no matter if it is accurate or not. Don't you actually care if what you are using is accurate and correct?

If you simply want to talk about the "metaphysical concept" of some generic wave-particle duality, I wouldn't have cared. But to claim that such a thing is derived from quantum mechanics, then that's a lie and a gross misinterpretation of QM.

I'm not arguing about semantics. You claim that QM has wave-particle duality. I asked you to point out where. It is a glaring fact in all your responses that you haven't been able to show me that. I believe that it is you who is playing the semantic game, not me. Asking you to show me where in standard textbooks of QM is there a formulation of wave-particle duality isn't semantics. You have been unable to do that.

Therefore, there are ample evidence here to show that you really did not know what you are using.

BTW, do you think citing some dictionary definition of QM can replace studying it for years AND testing/using it in research work?

Zz.

No, I don't thinking citing a dictionary definition will replace a century of intense experimentation and mathematical development. For that matter, I also don't believe the absence of the wave/particle duality from an undergraduate physics book on the mathematics of quantum mechanics is proof that the paradox does not exist! Do these books also exclude CP violations, the mass of neutrinos, and other things that don't agree with standard theory but have been proven experimentally? I suppose you also deny they are part of quantum mechanics as well!

 

[ZapperZ]

No, I don't thinking citing a dictionary definition will replace a century of intense experimentation and mathematical development. For that matter, I also don't believe the absence of the wave/particle duality from an undergraduate physics book on the mathematics of quantum mechanics is proof that the paradox does not exist! Do these books also exclude CP violations, the mass of neutrinos, and other things that don't agree with standard theory but have been proven experimentally? I suppose you also deny they are part of quantum mechanics as well!

So when you recited QM as your source for the existence of wave-particle duality, you were referring to ALL that is encompassed in physics that is being studied now, even when it isn't verified yet? You cited String theory earlier, and I'm just shocked. If you think that there is a "wave-particle duality" in string theory, then you must have read about String Theory in the National Enquirer. Using string theory to support your argument is dubious, because in that theory, even the concept of "wave" and "particle" doesn't exist! Furthermore, there isn't even a "duality" since everything that we define as our elementary particles are described by one picture: STRINGS! So what duality? Is this what you mean by going beyond the QM text?

And you also have a very weird view of QM, which makes me questioned even you have even studied it enough to be able to talk about it. The standard QM has no contradiction with CP violation and neutrino mass. That's the STANDARD MODEL, not STANDARD QM! You use QM (via QFT and QED) to get at the Standard Model, the same way you use mathematics to solve your problem. But it doesn't mean that the Standard Model is QM! That's bogus. It's like saying the BCS Theory of Superconductivity was derived using QM. Since BCS fails to explain high-Tc superconductors, then QM is wrong. That is one weird sequence of logic there!

Look, I really do not care if you accept this or not. It is obvious from this "discussion" that you really have no respect, or care, about the accuracy of the source you are using to support your point, or the accuracy of your understanding of the source. Fine. That's your problem and you get the pleasure of dealing with the consequences. However, what I care about is the perpetuating of such misinformation (which, btw, is against the PF Guidelines that you have agreed to). If at least one person here realizes that the actual physics doesn't really have such 'wave-particle' duality in the first place and refrained from passing on such fallacy, I have done one of my responsibility as a citizen physicist. Even if some people reading this thread at least realizes that this isn't as certain as you make it to be, then I would have accomplished what I set out to do. Therefore, I'm done!

Zz.

 

[wuliheron]

So when you recited QM as your source for the existence of wave-particle duality, you were referring to ALL that is encompassed in physics that is being studied now, even when it isn't verified yet? You cited String theory earlier, and I'm just shocked. If you think that there is a "wave-particle duality" in string theory, then you must have read about String Theory in the National Enquirer. Using string theory to support your argument is dubious, because in that theory, even the concept of "wave" and "particle" doesn't exist! Furthermore, there isn't even a "duality" since everything that we define as our elementary particles are described by one picture: STRINGS! So what duality? Is this what you mean by going beyond the QM text?

And you also have a very weird view of QM, which makes me questioned even you have even studied it enough to be able to talk about it. The standard QM has no contradiction with CP violation and neutrino mass. That's the STANDARD MODEL, not STANDARD QM! You use QM (via QFT and QED) to get at the Standard Model, the same way you use mathematics to solve your problem. But it doesn't mean that the Standard Model is QM! That's bogus. It's like saying the BCS Theory of Superconductivity was derived using QM. Since BCS fails to explain high-Tc superconductors, then QM is wrong. That is one weird sequence of logic there!

Look, I really do not care if you accept this or not. It is obvious from this "discussion" that you really have no respect, or care, about the accuracy of the source you are using to support your point, or the accuracy of your understanding of the source. Fine. That's your problem and you get the pleasure of dealing with the consequences. However, what I care about is the perpetuating of such misinformation (which, btw, is against the PF Guidelines that you have agreed to). If at least one person here realizes that the actual physics doesn't really have such 'wave-particle' duality in the first place and refrained from passing on such fallacy, I have done one of my responsibility as a citizen physicist. Even if some people reading this thread at least realizes that this isn't as certain as you make it to be, then I would have accomplished what I set out to do. Therefore, I'm done!

Zz.

Once again with emphasis:

Wave/particle duality is a metaphysical issue derived from our observations of quanta. If modern physics had resolved this issue it would be the biggest news since Newton's Principia. In science the onus is on the person making the claim. If you believe modern physics has resolved the issue, show us the experimental evidence, otherwise I will just assume you are merely spouting your own personal metaphysical beliefs. Claiming that it is not in your undergraduate textbook is not scientific proof.

As for string theory being "merely" theoretical, standard theory is merely theoretical! THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY. However, string theory is one of the lead contending theories of standard theory and describes everything that standard theory does. In fact, standard theory can be derived en toto from string theory.

That string theory has not be experimentally verified does not concern me. I merely gave it as an example of other ways to express quantum mechanics mathematically. As everyone knows, mathematics need not have anything to do with reality.

 

[Werg22]

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


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…

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

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

I find your idea on what objects are to be incorrect. The existence of an object does depend on our senses since we wouldn't be able to detect it otherwise. We need information that let's us "know" the existence of the object; and who speaks of information speaks of senses. You may say, for example, that phenomena like gravitational pull indicates the presence of matter, but remember that what we call gravity is something that belongs to the realm of our sensory experiences. Had we lacked the senses of touch and sight, we wouldn't have any conception of gravity - nor that it would be of any relevance to us. This carries an important point; the physical laws that we attribute to our universe are dependent on our perception of it. Though, like said earlier, it is irrelevant to wonder whether or not our five senses are enough to attain an ultimate understanding of the universe; what is relevant is what we understand within the frame of our so-called reality.

 

[Rade]

...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...

With all due respect, perhaps what other folks are talking about here derives from the view of physicists such as David Bohm.

So, if you would please go to page 646 of his book titled "Quantum Theory" (1951) you will find the index for the concept "Wave-particle duality" and as a sub-heading are found the words "fundamental in quantum theory" (see page 114). Thus we see that one of the most respected physicists in history has a view that wave-particle duality is not just a passing concept to understand quantum mechanics--it is fundamental.

So, we go to page 114 to see what Bohm is trying to say--and we see Section 16 titled "The Unity of the Quantum Theory". And we find that this "unity" is derived from a philosophic combination of three concepts (1) indivisibility, (2) probability, (3) and wave-particle duality.

Thus, I think what folks in this thread are not grasping (and here I agree with all you are saying Dr. Zz) is that quantum theory is NOT some concept of only a dialectic (wave vs particle)--but on the other hand, I think it is equally incorrect to imply (which I kind of read in your post above) that QM does not "have" within its unity the concept of wave-particle duality--for it most clearly does. For without a concept of wave-particle duality there would be no concept of quantum theory--as Bohm says, it is a fundamental part required to build the internal unity.

I hope I have added some clarification to the discussion--my only aim--if not, please let me know where I error in fact.

 

[JoeDawg]

Wave/particle duality is a metaphysical issue derived from our observations of quanta. If modern physics had resolved this issue it would be the biggest news since Newton's Principia.

My understanding of QM, and its limited, is that a photon, according to QM, is neither wave, nor particle, in the classical sense. When QM describes a photon, its describing a photon as 'something' that has a wave-like property and a particle-like property. There are experiments that show this.

So in QM, there really is no separation of particles and waves as distinct 'things', therefore, no 'duality'. The error was in assuming they must be separate 'things' as opposed to simply properties of a thing. The idea of a duality comes from misapplying old concepts to our new understanding of how things work. However, since the new concepts, those of QM, are so alien to our experience and way of thinking, it is merely convenient to describe such things in terms of a that duality.

With QM we see that wave/particle is a false dichotomy, but also a useful description.

 

[ZapperZ]

With all due respect, perhaps what other folks are talking about here derives from the view of physicists such as David Bohm.

So, if you would please go to page 646 of his book titled "Quantum Theory" (1951) you will find the index for the concept "Wave-particle duality" and as a sub-heading are found the words "fundamental in quantum theory" (see page 114). Thus we see that one of the most respected physicists in history has a view that wave-particle duality is not just a passing concept to understand quantum mechanics--it is fundamental.

So, we go to page 114 to see what Bohm is trying to say--and we see Section 16 titled "The Unity of the Quantum Theory". And we find that this "unity" is derived from a philosophic combination of three concepts (1) indivisibility, (2) probability, (3) and wave-particle duality.

Thus, I think what folks in this thread are not grasping (and here I agree with all you are saying Dr. Zz) is that quantum theory is NOT some concept of only a dialectic (wave vs particle)--but on the other hand, I think it is equally incorrect to imply (which I kind of read in your post above) that QM does not "have" within its unity the concept of wave-particle duality--for it most clearly does. For without a concept of wave-particle duality there would be no concept of quantum theory--as Bohm says, it is a fundamental part required to build the internal unity.

I hope I have added some clarification to the discussion--my only aim--if not, please let me know where I error in fact.

But see, this is where you have to look carefully between the formalism of QM, and the interpretation of QM. I would bet you that Bohm's "pilot wave" formalism (that in itself has several conceptual problem that we haven't gone into such as instantaneous action at a distance) reduces to the "standard" QM that we all know and love (well, at least some of us know). When you do that, the concept of "wave" and "particle" become meaningless.

You could do the same with "many-world", etc... etc.. Pick your interpretation flavor of the month. Since there's nothing that we have observed so far that can distinguish one from the other, the acceptance of these different things so far are simply nothing more than a matter of tastes, not physics. In other words, I could counter your David Bohm with my Phil Anderson and Robert Laughlin. They may all differ in their view of how we should view things, but they ALL agree on the standard formulation of QM. For me, that is the starting point of everything - what exactly do we all agree on, and work from there. And if we base it on what we agree on, there's no "wave-particle duality".

There is only one way to show that I am wrong here. Show where QM's single formulation cannot describe two different observations of wavelike and particle behavior. Don't use "interpretation", or someone's quote, or astrology, or "metaphysics". Since the concept of wave-particle duality has been attributed to QM, it is imperative that one actually and accurately point out where it exactly came from. Don't you think it would be an astounding misinformation that people are attributing this to QM, yet QM really has no such duality? Undergraduate QM texts, graduate QM texts, contemporary physics papers in Nature, Science, Phys. Rev. Lett., etc. also have no such formulation of this "duality" based on QM. And these papers deal with some of the most exotic phenomena you can find. Particle physics papers certainly do not even make use of such silly dichotomy. Don't you find this rather strange to attribute this to something that actually doesn't have it?

Zz.

 

[Rade]

...Show where QM's single formulation cannot describe two different observations of wavelike and particle behavior...Zz.

Thank you for your comments. Could you please provide an experimental design where one could falsify your statement above--in particular what is meant by "two different observations".

 

[wuliheron]

My understanding of QM, and its limited, is that a photon, according to QM, is neither wave, nor particle, in the classical sense. When QM describes a photon, its describing a photon as 'something' that has a wave-like property and a particle-like property. There are experiments that show this.

So in QM, there really is no separation of particles and waves as distinct 'things', therefore, no 'duality'. The error was in assuming they must be separate 'things' as opposed to simply properties of a thing. The idea of a duality comes from misapplying old concepts to our new understanding of how things work. However, since the new concepts, those of QM, are so alien to our experience and way of thinking, it is merely convenient to describe such things in terms of a that duality.

With QM we see that wave/particle is a false dichotomy, but also a useful description.

Particles are somehow waves and vice versa, until the wave-function collapses. It is the equivalent of saying oranges are apples and vice versa. A wave is spread out while a particle exists in one place. Schroedinger's cat is both alive and dead at the same time, a complete oxymoron; that is the paradoxical duality.

Of course, you can claim that this is merely because it is an alien way of thinking. That is the position of Quantum Logic, but like all attempts to explain the phenomenon it has failed to be proven anymore useful than assuming no metaphysical point of view at all as standard theory does.

 

[JoeDawg]

Particles are somehow waves and vice versa,

No, we are not discussing 'particles', there are no particles as far as QM is concerned, so particles are NOT 'somehow waves and vice versa'. There are no particles, and there are no waves in QM, that's a prejudice based on non-quantum level thinking. We are discussing photons, which have particle-like properties and wave-like properties. This is not in question, it is simply an observation. Your mistake is in 'assuming' that a photon is a particle acting in some cases like a wave. It is neither. We can observe this. Clearly a photon is something different entirely, or it would not exhibit both behaviors. The 'paradox' only exists if you assume first that a photon is a classical style particle, in which case its wave-like activity is contradictory. The fact that it can be observed to have a wave-like property makes it clear it is simply NOT a particle in the classical sense. This is all strictly observation, and the math of QM addresses this.

The cat example is only paradoxical because it is using an object that is not a Quantum level object. The cat example is used to show how strange and alien things are on the quantum level. But its not a contradiction on that quantum level, it simply describes what is happening in terms most people can relate to.

 

[wuliheron]

Again, show me the experimental evidence! Put up or shut up!

I am fully aware that no one knows exactly what quanta are, but by that same standard no one knows exactly what they are not either. That is precisely why people use terms such as "particle-like" and "wave-like" instead of more accurate descriptors.

 

[JoeDawg]

Again, show me the experimental evidence! Put up or shut up!

I'd say the double slit experiment makes it clear that photons have wave-like properties, which means they are therefore, 'NOT' classical particles. They are something else.

Therefore, there is no paradox. Its only a paradox if you ASSUME that photons are classical particles. QM doesn't do this. In QM, Photons are 'things' with both wave-like (ie they are not waves) and particle-like (ie they are not particles) properties.

If you are going to continue to beat your head against this wall, you could at least be polite. Insults and exclamation points don't improve your arguments, nor apparently, your reading comprehension skills.

 

[wuliheron]

Bohmian mechanics says otherwise. It suggests that there may be both a classical particle and a holographic pilot wave.

Personally, I don't believe in any of this useless metaphysical garbage. But when someone at a physics forum starts claiming they know the answer to life, the universe, and everything and starts attacking my posts I feel compelled to speak up.

 

[JoeDawg]

Bohmian mechanics says otherwise. It suggests that there may be both a classical particle and a holographic pilot wave.

People can interpret it anyway they like. The double slit experiment shows us what occurs. And QM describes it and predicts for it. The only paradox is in how we represent it. Your indignation at being told you are wrong doesn't interest me.

 

[pervect]

Bohmian mechanics says otherwise. It suggests that there may be both a classical particle and a holographic pilot wave.

Personally, I don't believe in any of this useless metaphysical garbage.

What is the "useless metaphysical garbage" you are talking about here?

I get the impression that this ("useless metaphysical garbage") includes Bohmian mechanics as a subset, but it's not a very clear remark, so it's hard to be sure what you meant.

If we take a broad interpretation of "useless metaphysical garbage", one wonders why you are in a philosophy forum at all. Philosophy is basically about those ideas that can't be tested scientifically.

What interpretation (if any) of quantum mechanics are you suggesting? Are you just trying to say that there are multiple interpretations of QM still "active" in the scientific community, are you actively pushing for the "shut up and calculate" interpretation, or are you coming from some other position?

 

[wuliheron]

What is the "useless metaphysical garbage" you are talking about here?

I get the impression that this ("useless metaphysical garbage") includes Bohmian mechanics as a subset, but it's not a very clear remark, so it's hard to be sure what you meant.

If we take a broad interpretation of "useless metaphysical garbage", one wonders why you are in a philosophy forum at all. Philosophy is basically about those ideas that can't be tested scientifically.

What interpretation (if any) of quantum mechanics are you suggesting? Are you just trying to say that there are multiple interpretations of QM still "active" in the scientific community, are you actively pushing for the "shut up and calculate" interpretation, or are you coming from some other position?

Philosophy is the love of wisdom, not metaphysics or those things that cannot be scientifically proven. In my opinion, one of the most important steps towards wisdom and scientific progress is the acceptance of our ignorance. It was only when people accepted the idea that the world might not be the center of the universe, that they might be ignorant about our place in the universe, only then could astronomy make progress.

I do not strictly advocate the "shut up and calculate" view, I believe that it is only by trying alternative approaches that progress can be made. However, I definitely disagree with the idea that the modern standard theory supports any particular metaphysical view above all others. I also disagree with the idea that in general scientific theories prove or disprove any particular metaphysics at all.

When it comes to science I'm a pragmatist, theories are just that, theories. They are either immediately useful or they are not and if the history of scientific theories tells us anything it is that being attached to specific metaphysical views has actually hindered the progress of the sciences. Newtonian mechanics died a slow, painful death with very famous physicists making fools of themselves claiming that the end of physics was in sight at last. Acceptance of our observations, not any particular metaphysics, is the engine that drives the sciences.

 

[Pythagorean]

Philosophy is the love of wisdom, not metaphysics or those things that cannot be scientifically proven. In my opinion, one of the most important steps towards wisdom and scientific progress is the acceptance of our ignorance. It was only when people accepted the idea that the world might not be the center of the universe, that they might be ignorant about our place in the universe, only then could astronomy make progress.

philosophy can be broken into the root words "to love" and "wisdom" but it doesn't particularly mean that the modern school of philosophy follows this. The origin of that name dates back to when philosophers were scientists.

Nowadays, philosophy can be used loosely for something as menial as a method of action, or it can be used to explain and discuss endlessly about impractical, intangible, and unfalsifiable topics.

I do not strictly advocate the "shut up and calculate" view, I believe that it is only by trying alternative approaches that progress can be made. However, I definitely disagree with the idea that the modern standard theory supports any particular metaphysical view above all others. I also disagree with the idea that in general scientific theories prove or disprove any particular metaphysics at all.

I would have to disagree with the assertion that it's "only by trying alternative approaches that progress can be made" (if by alternative you mean unconventional). It's true that unconventional approaches are a healthy input to progress, but the conventional system works well (and more consistently) and often keeps the unconventional "in check"

Standard theory doesn't support any metaphysical views. Standard theory is a description of physical events, how they occur, what precedes them, and what their effects are. Metaphysical views seem to get constructed by philosophers who half understand science and make cute conclusions about the human experience based on phenomena in science. It's quite the leap.

When it comes to science I'm a pragmatist, theories are just that, theories. They are either immediately useful or they are not and if the history of scientific theories tells us anything it is that being attached to specific metaphysical views has actually hindered the progress of the sciences. Newtonian mechanics died a slow, painful death with very famous physicists making fools of themselves claiming that the end of physics was in sight at last. Acceptance of our observations, not any particular metaphysics, is the engine that drives the sciences.

Again, I'd have to disagree. Some theories aren't immediately useful, some have been developing for centuries (and continue to develop), but more importantly, what does this have to do with your main point?

Newton's mechanics aren't dead. They're still very useful and a necessary basis for learn modern physics. I've studies physics as an undergrad for three years and it's all been classical mechanics so far. I star learning quantum physics this semester.

 

[JoeDawg]

Philosophy is the love of wisdom, not metaphysics or those things that cannot be scientifically proven.

If you think wisdom is limited to empirical knowledge then you really don't understand very much about philosophy.

Empirical observation is one method of gaining wisdom, abstract reasoning, via logic, whether it is done using natural language, or mathematics, is another.

We use empirical observation in science to confirm or refute hypotheses, but we develop our hypotheses with completely non-empirical reasoning. Without philosophy, science is just organized data. Thats not wisdom, by any standard definition.

Wisdom may indeed be knowledge of what you don't know, but its not about wallowing in it.

 

[wuliheron]

If you think wisdom is limited to empirical knowledge then you really don't understand very much about philosophy.

Empirical observation is one method of gaining wisdom, abstract reasoning, via logic, whether it is done using natural language, or mathematics, is another.

We use empirical observation in science to confirm or refute hypotheses, but we develop our hypotheses with completely non-empirical reasoning. Without philosophy, science is just organized data. Thats not wisdom, by any standard definition.

Wisdom may indeed be knowledge of what you don't know, but its not about wallowing in it.

No, I do not think wisdom is limited to empirical knowledge or science. I merely said philosophy is the love of wisdom, and that this is not limited to metaphysics or those things which cannot be proven scientifically. For that matter, it does not exclude scientific facts either.

philosophy can be broken into the root words "to love" and "wisdom" but it doesn't particularly mean that the modern school of philosophy follows this. The origin of that name dates back to when philosophers were scientists.

Nowadays, philosophy can be used loosely for something as menial as a method of action, or it can be used to explain and discuss endlessly about impractical, intangible, and unfalsifiable topics.

Our beliefs and feelings can fall into these categories of impractical, intangible, and unfalsifiable. Wisdom comes from within, not from without. It is not merely a collection of facts, but a kind of awareness that comes from acceptance.

I would have to disagree with the assertion that it's "only by trying alternative approaches that progress can be made" (if by alternative you mean unconventional). It's true that unconventional approaches are a healthy input to progress, but the conventional system works well (and more consistently) and often keeps the unconventional "in check"

Standard theory doesn't support any metaphysical views. Standard theory is a description of physical events, how they occur, what precedes them, and what their effects are. Metaphysical views seem to get constructed by philosophers who half understand science and make cute conclusions about the human experience based on phenomena in science. It's quite the leap.

LOL. Einstein, Heisenberg, and other great physicists were famous for their metaphysical ramblings. In addition, all I meant by alternative was something different from the accepted theory of the day. Whether that be a conventional or unconventional approach to the subject.

Again, I'd have to disagree. Some theories aren't immediately useful, some have been developing for centuries (and continue to develop), but more importantly, what does this have to do with your main point?

Newton's mechanics aren't dead. They're still very useful and a necessary basis for learn modern physics. I've studies physics as an undergrad for three years and it's all been classical mechanics so far. I star learning quantum physics this semester.

Being a pragmatist I know full well that some theories are not immediately useful. However, in such cases I put them on the back burner as interesting curiosities whenever I focus on more immediately useful things.

My point was that it was people's attachment to the underlying metaphysics of Newtonian mechanics that hindered the development of quantum mechanics. It's understandable really, people want and expect things to make sense. However, science is not in the business of making sense of things. Science is in the business of collecting facts and putting them to use.

 

[Pythagorean]

LOL. Einstein, Heisenberg, and other great physicists were famous for their metaphysical ramblings. In addition, all I meant by alternative was something different from the accepted theory of the day. Whether that be a conventional or unconventional approach to the subject.

That's not the point. Their scientific work doesn't involve metaphysics, and that's what we're talking about: the idea of science, not the scientists themselves. I actually enjoy Einstein's metaphysical views, but they're not science... they're the 'wisdom' you speak of. (I agree with your definition of wisdom actually, and wisdom is useful in science, but it's not science)

Being a pragmatist I know full well that some theories are not immediately useful. However, in such cases I put them on the back burner as interesting curiosities whenever I focus on more immediately useful things.

My point was that it was people's attachment to the underlying metaphysics of Newtonian mechanics that hindered the development of quantum mechanics. It's understandable really, people want and expect things to make sense. However, science is not in the business of making sense of things. Science is in the business of collecting facts and putting them to use.

yeah, it took a while to accept quantum, but you can't deny something that's "true".

I would think Science is in the business of collecting facts and making predictions. Engineers, salesmen, politicians, and con-artists put them to "use". Engineers are the most likely to retain respect for the original idea, whereas the rest use them as a bit of 'informative' in their 'persuasive'.

Of course, the intelligent laymen takes advantage of science too, but I was talking professionally.

 

[wuliheron]

That's not the point. Their scientific work doesn't involve metaphysics, and that's what we're talking about: the idea of science, not the scientists themselves. I actually enjoy Einstein's metaphysical views, but they're not science... they're the 'wisdom' you speak of. (I agree with your definition of wisdom actually, and wisdom is useful in science, but it's not science)

You wrote, "Metaphysical views seem to get constructed by philosophers who half understand science and make cute conclusions about the human experience..." Obviously this is not always true.

yeah, it took a while to accept quantum, but you can't deny something that's "true".

I would think Science is in the business of collecting facts and making predictions. Engineers, salesmen, politicians, and con-artists put them to "use". Engineers are the most likely to retain respect for the original idea, whereas the rest use them as a bit of 'informative' in their 'persuasive'.

Of course, the intelligent laymen takes advantage of science too, but I was talking professionally.

Science is interested in the essentially new, while engineering is involved in applying the already known. Thus a political scientist might be interested in finding new ways to apply things, while a social engineer would be interested in how to apply what scientists have already discovered.

 

[pervect]

Philosophy is the love of wisdom, not metaphysics or those things that cannot be scientifically proven.

I don't think I agree. Philosophy can involve things other than metaphysics, for example, looking it up in the current wikipedia I find:

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).

With the possible exception of logic (but can you use logic to prove logic?) none of the elements of philosophy are testable - can you prove that a given action was ethical or not ethical, for instance? I don't think so - but I suppose someone, somewhere, could and would be willing to argue about this at great length :-(.

In my opinion, one of the most important steps towards wisdom and scientific progress is the acceptance of our ignorance. It was only when people accepted the idea that the world might not be the center of the universe, that they might be ignorant about our place in the universe, only then could astronomy make progress.

I do not strictly advocate the "shut up and calculate" view, I believe that it is only by trying alternative approaches that progress can be made. However, I definitely disagree with the idea that the modern standard theory supports any particular metaphysical view above all others. I also disagree with the idea that in general scientific theories prove or disprove any particular metaphysics at all.

I generally agree here. While some metaphysical views are clearly wrong because they are inconsistent, it's generally impossible to prove or disprove any given metaphysical view by experiment. This is what I meant when I said that philsophical questions were not testable.

Newtonian mechanics died a slow, painful death with very famous physicists making fools of themselves claiming that the end of physics was in sight at last.

I personally think this is a bit over-dramatic. Some examples may or may not help, but we probably don't want to hijack the thread in this direction anyway.

 

[wuliheron]

I don't think I agree. Philosophy can involve things other than metaphysics, for example, looking it up in the current wikipedia I find:

With the possible exception of logic (but can you use logic to prove logic?) none of the elements of philosophy are testable - can you prove that a given action was ethical or not ethical, for instance? I don't think so - but I suppose someone, somewhere, could and would be willing to argue about this at great length :-(.

The field of philosophy includes metaphysics, but that does not mean every philosopher values metaphysics.

In addition, if you had bothered to read the entire article it states quite clearly that a number of sciences including psychology and linguistics used to be considered purely philosophical pursuits. The minute a purely philosophical pursuit becomes scientifically proven it no longer is a purely philosophical pursuit.

FYI logic is a tool of philosophy, not a philosophy in and of itself.

I generally agree here. While some metaphysical views are clearly wrong because they are inconsistent, it's generally impossible to prove or disprove any given metaphysical view by experiment. This is what I meant when I said that philosophical questions were not testable.

Whether a particular metaphysics is consistent or not does not constitute proof that it is wrong. No one has ever proven that life has to make sense. About the best we can say is that it apparently does make a great deal of sense when we look at it rationally, but then, how could it look otherwise?