Usign postulates to prove validity of a theorem

[matt grime]

Ever heard of the uncertainty principle? QM is not a deterministic study but rather an indeterministic study of possibilites.

Can you philosophically defend that QM is not deterministic? The particle is where the particle is. We just can't measure it, which is not the same thing at all.

 

[Hurkyl]

Ever heard of the uncertainty principle?

Sure. It says:

The (infinitely precise) standard deviation of an observable, multiplied by the (infinitely precise) standard deviation of another observable must be at least half the (infinitely precise) expected value of their commutator.

(And, of course, the factor of "one half" is also infinitely precise)

QM is not a deterministic study but rather an indeterministic study of possibilites.

If you think it's that obvious, then you don't understand QM.

 

[haki]

Can you philosophically defend that QM is not deterministic? The particle is where the particle is. We just can't measure it, which is not the same thing at all.

Can you prove that the particle has a definite position!? You assume that a particle ought to have a determined position since that is what our human experience would have believed us to be. Aha! If QM would be deterministic then you would be able to explain us the infamous double slit experiment. Please explain it to us. If a particle has a definite position why does the interference pattern emerge and not what our human experience would have assumed? You seam to have all the answers try to answer this one.

 

[Hurkyl]

Can you prove that the particle has a definite position!? You assume that a particle ought to have a determined position since that is what our human experience would have believed us to be. Aha! If QM would be deterministic then you would be able to explain us the infamous double slit experiment. Please explain it to us. If a particle has a definite position why does the interference pattern emerge and not what our human experience would have assumed? You seam to have all the answers try to answer this one.

The Bohm interpretation is a counterexample to your position.



I hope nobody minds, but I'm going to lock this thread -- it seems that the original discussion has been exhausted, and now people are just trying to "score points". If you really want to discuss philosophy of QM, feel free to start a thread in the QM section, or in the philosophy of science section. (The former is better, methinks)

 

[HallsofIvy]

Then clearly, what you should do is go to your teachers, chair of the department, and perhaps the president of the college, and explain clearly exactly what they are to teach you and how! Since they will immediately, if they haven't already, recognize that you already know far more than they do, they certainly would lose no time in complying.