QM and GOD - and also what is

  • #26
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,226
34
Originally posted by agnostictheist
but it starts from an intail (oberved) wavefunction right?
Sure, it could be. You observe the particle at time t=0. Later on, you observe it again at time t=10. What happens to the wavefunction between times 0 and 10 is described by the time dependent Schrodinger equation. What observations you're likely to make at time t=10 is determined by what has happened to the wavefunction in those ten units of time.
what sort of "particles" would do this?
All.
- and how can we distigush these from simply most prossible.
I don't know what this means.
does this wavefunction (can it) contain many eigenstates?
If the two observables do not commute, no. For example, the particle cannot be in an eigenstate of position and an eigenstate of momentum at the same time.
rather I need a some source that validates what you say
I've told you to go read a book about ten times now. Would you like recommandations of specific books, or what?
but what I am saying is that the wavefuntion yes collapse, but to say its "random" is also an interpretation?
No. Bell's inequality (verified many times, including the Aspect experiments) show than only probabilistic theories or non-local hidden variable theories can explain quantum mechanical experiments. Most people feel non-local hidden variable theories don't make any sense. The universe appears to be fundamentally probabilistic, and there are no deterministic theories possible which can explain it.
IF the wavefunction collapse, WHY does it?...due to obervation right?
but were do the other states Go?
The collapse is a postulate of quantum mechanics. I don't know if there's a deeper answer to "WHY?"
if they are loss, then i am going to ask, why do they have to be loss, and saying they are lossed could be simply throwing arms into the air and saying i give up!
If you say so. It sure doesn't seem to be that way, though. Experiments don't "give up."

- Warren
 
  • #27
Sure, it could be. You observe the particle at time t=0. Later on, you observe it again at time t=10. What happens to the wavefunction between times 0 and 10 is described by the time dependent Schrodinger equation. What observations you're likely to make at time t=10 is determined by what has happened to the wavefunction in those ten units of time.

So for a methpour...I Know probably very very bad to use.

its like an object that changes shape all the "time" and what we see at specfic times, is likely to be the most commanly occuring shape at a secfic "phase"? WOULD THAT be a fair represtation?

so wouldnt this be in this sense rather determinstic, in between 0 and ten, but ten (or 0 ) would be probablities?


I've told you to go read a book about ten times now. Would you like recommandations of specific books, or what?
that would be nice, one with lesser maths contents - like thats really possible!

No. Bell's inequality (verified many times, including the Aspect experiments) show than only probabilistic theories or non-local hidden variable theories can explain quantum mechanical experiments
but doesnt Bells inequality, show that a given object can not have "specfic" qunaties..or varibles until measured, and that systems are always in some way inter-conected?

how does this mean the universe is random, while its like a ball that is red/blue...and when I see it becomes red, but a QM explination IF I AM right would say its neither red/blue until i see it then it is (becomes) red.???


but is this not a result of the collapse? so the issue is all about the collapse.
 
  • #28
also...

can you read this and tell me what you think:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~foskey/bell.html [Broken]

is it worth considering or is it writen with major errors?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,226
34
Originally posted by agnostictheist
its like an object that changes shape all the "time" and what we see at specfic times, is likely to be the most commanly occuring shape at a secfic "phase"? WOULD THAT be a fair represtation?
How about this?

You measure a particle's position. The measurement collapses the particle's wavefunction, leaving it in an eigenstate of the position operator -- i.e. it is now localized in space. A subsequent measurement a (short) time later would return (nearly) the same position.

Then you don't look at it for a while. The particle's wavefunction spreads out until it is no longer likely to be in a small region. This time evolution is as described by the time-dependent Schrodinger equation.

Some time later, you measure the position again. The particle chooses a NEW eigenstate of the position operator, perhaps different than the last one, probabilistically. The probabilily of any particular position being measured is "encoded" in the wavefunction. The wavefunction, which had spread out, is now collapses and sharply localized again.
so wouldnt this be in this sense rather determinstic, in between 0 and ten, but ten (or 0 ) would be probablities?
I guess you could say that, sure. What happens to the wavefunctions between measurements is, obviously, not measurable -- so it's just a philosophical question. All measurements are probabilistic.
that would be nice, one with lesser maths contents - like thats really possible!
You'll never really understand the theory without the math. Bite the bullet and learn it.
but doesnt Bells inequality, show that a given object can not have "specfic" qunaties..or varibles until measured, and that systems are always in some way inter-conected?
I'm afraid I don't know what this means. Bell's inequality just means the particles don't have little internal mechanisms that deterministically cause their measurements to obtain deterministic results.
how does this mean the universe is random, while its like a ball that is red/blue...and when I see it becomes red, but a QM explination IF I AM right would say its neither red/blue until i see it then it is (becomes) red.???
As I've said, the result of a measurement can only be predicted probabilistically. No one can say what the value you'll actually get will be, only what the probability is that you'll get it.

- Warren
 
  • #30
Ok lets see if I am on the right page:

....
Some time later, you measure the position again. The particle chooses a NEW eigenstate of the position operator, perhaps different than the last one, probabilistically. The probabilily of any particular position being measured is "encoded" in the wavefunction. The wavefunction, which had spread out, is now collapses and sharply localized again.
....

and thus there is a chance, that the particle has moved?, yet there maybe a greater chance of it, doing so!! depending on the current components of the wavefunction being measured??

can we consider these eigenstates as little blocks of information?

where does this NEW eigenstates come from, or are they in some way like vitual particle, in that they came from "nowhere"? or maybe from the particle? or do we simply dont know??


You'll never really understand the theory without the math. Bite the bullet and learn it.
yes i know that annyoing i am not a fan of maths and its not my best subject, my dyslexia doesnt help (those i have in the passed give some things a try)

I'm afraid I don't know what this means. Bell's inequality just means the particles don't have little internal mechanisms that deterministically cause their measurements to obtain deterministic results.
interconected..has in non-local, they are not really seperated, onces say atomic systems are put together.


As I've said, the result of a measurement can only be predicted probabilistically. No one can say what the value you'll actually get will be, only what the probability is that you'll get it.
so my example is correct? in that it might be red... but next time the ball could be blue? a 50/50 near abouts odds?(when extending this example a bit)

but this all boils down to the collapse still doesnt it? - so this can still be accounted for in the many-world inte...yes its a interpration, but then it will for example explain why we say its random, when this is only so, throw our peace of the puzzle, so its unfair to say the universe is random until we find an experiment to fava one?

even those this is a dive in philosophy, its still not incomp with the science, thats not to say it has to be correct those?
 
  • #31
warren, slightly off topic, in anther thread I mentioned you in that I would like you too read something I wrote to give your input.. I made it clear that these is a philosophical/theological spin to it,, and to a cosomological concept, those I beleive non-boundary proposals now seem by some claims to have possible testable results????


can you veiw it, and tell me if its at last reasonible?

its in:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7347&perpage=12&pagenumber=13
 
  • #32
237
0
I don't think it argues against the existence of a god at all. If there is any interaction between a nonphysical god and the physical world it has to occur through some element of random- why couldn't god choose the outcomes of events that are utterly random? Seems logical...
 

Related Threads on QM and GOD - and also what is

  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
65
Views
6K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
61
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
60
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
93
Views
8K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
175
Views
17K
Top