Pythagorean said: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.
ZapperZ said: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.
ZapperZ said: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.
wuliheron said: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 said: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.
JonF said: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.
With all due respect, perhaps what other folks are talking about here derives from the view of physicists such as David Bohm.ZapperZ said:...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...
wuliheron said: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.
Rade said: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.
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".ZapperZ said:...Show where QM's single formulation cannot describe two different observations of wavelike and particle behavior...Zz.
JoeDawg said: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.
wuliheron said:Particles are somehow waves and vice versa,
wuliheron said:Again, show me the experimental evidence! Put up or shut up!
wuliheron said:Bohmian mechanics says otherwise. It suggests that there may be both a classical particle and a holographic pilot wave.
wuliheron said: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.
pervect said: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 said: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.
wuliheron said:Philosophy is the love of wisdom, not metaphysics or those things that cannot be scientifically proven.
JoeDawg said: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.
Pythagorean said: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.
Pythagorean said: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.
Pythagorean said: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.
wuliheron said: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.
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 said: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)
Pythagorean said: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 said:Philosophy is the love of wisdom, not metaphysics or those things that cannot be scientifically proven.
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).
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.
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.
pervect said: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 :-(.
pervect said: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.
wuliheron said:... a number of sciences including psychology and linguistics used to be considered purely philosophical pursuits.
FYI logic is a tool of philosophy, not a philosophy in and of itself.
JoeDawg said:All forms of inquiry used to be considered philosophy and many people still consider scientific method merely an extension or tool of philosophy.
JoeDawg said:FYI, Actually, one can choose to look at the world through logic, or not... in this way, it very much is a philosophy.
Religion, for instance, relies on revealed truth, and sometimes embraces logical contradictions, which obviously doesn't demand or even require a logical structure, merely belief. And it is still considered wisdom.
I think you are talking outside your expertise.
wuliheron said:Actually, the Chinese have traditionally not distinguished between philosophy and religion,
In addition, the vast majority of philosophers do consider the scientific method to be a philosophical tool.
If you say so.In fact, philosophy forms the foundations of all practices, hence, everything we do is ultimately an expression of our philosophy.
Philosophy is not looking at the world through logic, philosophy is the reason you choose to look at the world through logic.
JoeDawg said:If you have studied the history of philosophy you know that the 'western' philosophical tradition, which began with the pre-socratics, dealt very much with religion. Philosophers love arguing about god. Its not a Chinese thing.
wuliheron said:This is not true in Taoism, for example. Part of the Taoist tradition is to never argue about anything.
JoeDawg said:Pity you're not a taoist.
You're wasting my time.