Quantum myth 1. wave-particle duality

[reilly]

If the wave function collapses due to a change of information available about the system (which the classical electromagnetic field does not do), then it seems that the wave function does not represent reality, but only our information about reality. Unless, of course, you are an extreme positivist who identifies information about reality with reality itself.

Could not agree more.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[Ken G]

I await, with baited breath, your explanation of what I and Ken G do not understand. Ken, at least, is a pretty smart guy who does not miss much, so let 'er rip.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, I wouldn't claim that for myself but I'm sure I have something to learn from any exchange. Nevertheless, I am even surer that neither myself nor Reilly are "antieducation" or "hesitant to ask the deep questions". Rather, I think we are believers in education around not just what the conclusions of science are, but also, how science arrives at those conclusions and what counts as authority in science. That is often the more important form of education, both for people who will do science themselves, and for those who won't.

 

[peter0302]

Reilly, you need to chill and stop being offended because something someone says implicates you in your own mind (similar to my comment a few weeks ago). He's making very valid points about positivists and I too wonder, if you teach your students in the same fashion as you argue your points here, if they are actually doing more than memorizing equations. That's all that half of the people on this forum seem to advocate. I do not understand why we cannot find a middle ground; let the quantum cooks be cooks and let the dreamers dream.

 

[reilly]

Reilly, you need to chill and stop being offended because something someone says implicates you in your own mind (similar to my comment a few weeks ago). He's making very valid points about positivists and I too wonder, if you teach your students in the same fashion as you argue your points here, if they are actually doing more than memorizing equations. That's all that half of the people on this forum seem to advocate. I do not understand why we cannot find a middle ground; let the quantum cooks be cooks and let the dreamers dream.

This is getting funny and silly, and way off of physics -- perhaps you and manelli are telepathic, and that's how you know what I think and how I behave, with my kids and my students.

.
As in; I once knew a Peter who was a drunk; are you? After all, your name is Peter.

And, back to physics: tell me how I argue my points? I'm particularly amused by your assertion that my students may have been memory hounds; what's your basis for making your assertion?
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[peter0302]

Well, some would call me a drunk.

All I (and manelli, I think) are saying is that tunnel-vision positivism can be counterproductive and can be analogus to memorizing the equations to the exclusion of understanding them. Since you're a very vocal positivist and a teacher, I can only infer that your positivist philosophy extends to your lecutres as it does to your posts here.

Anyway, I don't think this should be personal. I just don't think anything was said here that should offend anybody (except calling me a drunk...

 

[Ken G]

All I (and manelli, I think) are saying is that tunnel-vision positivism can be counterproductive and can be analogus to memorizing the equations to the exclusion of understanding them.

I don't know what "tunnel-vision positivism" means but memorizing equations with no concept of what they mean certainly doesn't sound very good. Fortunately, no one ever gets past freshman physics by doing that, so I hardly think it could apply to anyone on this thread. I think you may be confusing the "meaning" of an equation for philosophical baggage around what is "happening in reality". What "meaning" means is, you understand how an equation culls out a successful way to analyze a problem. All philosophical baggage does is to confuse "success" for "beliefs about reality".

Physicists do need to understand, explain, and find success-- the only faith they need is that their equations will be predictive so they are not wasting their time. They certainly do not need to "believe in wave functions" to do quantum mechanics, that's ludicrous. But my question is, if I can use a wave function without "believing in it", why I am I just memorizing equations? And if I pray to the altar of MWI, why can't I just be someone who has memorized what unitarity means? Is there someone on this thread with an insight into unitariness that transcends memorizing its defining characteristics, such that you can say "I'm not memorizing any mathematical postulates or any experimental outcomes, I really see why the world has to obey the MWI?" I'm all ears.

Since you're a very vocal positivist and a teacher, I can only infer that your positivist philosophy extends to your lecutres as it does to your posts here.

What do you mean by "positivist"? Let's not have the "ontology" debacle again!