- #106
forcefield
- 141
- 3
I can only guess what he means by the "quantum laws" and even then only vaguely. Could you please elaborate on my question then ?Michael Price said:He doesn't mean what you think he means.
I can only guess what he means by the "quantum laws" and even then only vaguely. Could you please elaborate on my question then ?Michael Price said:He doesn't mean what you think he means.
vanhees71 said:It's not bizarre, it's simply a misleading formulation you read quite often. I've never understood what the intention of the authors making it may be. It's said "a quantum state can be in a superposition". That's just a meaningless intellectual-sounding phrase.
Michael Price said:The laws don't change with the scale.
Yes, absolutely.bhobba said:True - but their approximation valid at the larger scale can be different.
Thanks
Bill
That's for sure not true. Not a single piece of physics is scale invariant according to the Standard Model of HEP!Michael Price said:The laws don't change with the scale.
That is a different issue, and has nothing to do with the universality of quantum physics.vanhees71 said:That's for sure not true. Not a single piece of physics is scale invariant according to the Standard Model of HEP!
timmdeeg said:Summary: Provided it's correct that the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics can be neither proved nor disproved why then do researchers invest so much time and talent in this field?
How valid is the statement "It means physics is ultimately concerned with descriptions of the real world" in the realm of QM? Heretic question, what is "real" besides the outcome of the measurement?
Wouldn't this imply a proof that e.g. Many Worlds really exist or that the wave function really collapses?Sophrosyne said:Who knows, maybe once we figure out the mechanism of why quantum mechanics works the way it does, it will open up very interesting new worlds and possibilities, and a whole bunch more questions.
timmdeeg said:Wouldn't this imply a proof that e.g. Many Worlds really exist or that the wave function really collapses?
RUTA said:I think an experiment like this one would have implications
I’m thinking Kim et al delayed choice quantum eraser where the decision to erase or not is made by a human. That would have implications either wayPeterDonis said:It would certainly have implications if (admitted to be highly unlikely by the author) results were obtained that obeyed the Bell inequalities and disagreed with the predictions of QM.
I don't see what implications (other than "oh, well, QM is confirmed again") it would have if the results were that the Bell inequalities were violated and everything was just the same as in previous experiments.
I don’t know of any theory predicting thatDarMM said:What would be the implications if it went the other way? As in over Tsirelson's bound.
RUTA said:I’m thinking Kim et al delayed choice quantum eraser where the decision to erase or not is made by a human. That would have implications either way
Do you know what that experiment is?PeterDonis said:Why would it have implications either way? If all that happens is that the predictions of QM are confirmed, what implications does that have?
RUTA said:Do you know what that experiment is?
Yes it should be obvious that’s why I asked. I’m typing with my phone so I can’t give a detailed description here. I didn’t think it would be necessary that’s why I used that examplePeterDonis said:I'm reasonably familiar with it. Why do you ask? If you think it should be obvious to me why your statement is true given a description of the experiment, it's not; that's why I asked the question.
RUTA said:Read section VI here https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.10825
RUTA said:Read section VI here https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.10825
experiments have been done where the ‘lens is inserted’ after the particles have hit the detector. This is called a “delayed choice quantum eraser experiment"
RUTA said:Read section VI here https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.10825
I didn't really expect so. It was just idly curious if we were allowing humans to alter the results of a Bell test in one direction had somebody came up with an idea if it was altered in the other direction. Of course it would be very difficult to make sense of such a thing.RUTA said:I don’t know of any theory predicting that
RUTA said:what would you experience as you switched the lens in and out? Some force moving your hand in accord with the previous outcome? Hypnotic? Or would you make choices like you do everyday and violate the QM predictions (which are not qualified for non conscious agents only)? Or would your freely made choices just happen to satisfy QM? Any and all options have profound implications for the way most physicists think.
PeterDonis said:Your freely made choices would not "just happen" to satisfy QM. They would satisfy QM (assuming QM gives the correct laws of physics for this scenario) because you are a physical thing, and your freely made choices are physical events, and the laws of physics are the laws that describe physical events. As I said, this is basic physicalism.
Your experience as you switched the lens in and out would be the same as your experience of participating in any other kind of experiment where you had to try to just do things "at random", without any external trigger--or, for that matter, your experience of, say, just sitting in your chair and deciding to lift your hand without any external trigger. Can you violate QM by deciding to lift your hand at a "random" time without an external trigger?
If considering the above would really have "profound implications for the way most physicists think", then that just indicates to me that most physicists have not thought through the implications of physicalism. Which I actually doubt is the case; I suspect most physicists would not consider anything that I wrote above (or, for that matter, anything I've written in this thread) surprising.
RUTA said:What you are describing is superdeterminism
RUTA said:The majority belief is that the scientist is free to make settings independently of the laws being tested.
I never said we can violate the laws of physics. That’s ridiculous. Answering delayed choice with physicalism is superdeterminism. You’re saying the choice of settings could not have been otherwise because of some physical force or cause.PeterDonis said:No, it isn't, it's physicalism. Saying that human "free choices" have to obey the laws of physics is not superdeterminism. See below.
No, the majority belief is that the scientist is free to make settings that are uncorrelated with the physical system being tested. That's a much weaker claim.
Your claim is that a majority of scientists believe that scientists can violate the laws of physics when setting up their experiments. I would need to see extremely strong documentation of that claim; it seems to me to be obviously false.
RUTA said:I never said we can violate the laws of physics. That’s ridiculous.
RUTA said:The majority belief is that the scientist is free to make settings independently of the laws being tested.
RUTA said:Answering delayed choice with physicalism is superdeterminism.
RUTA said:You’re saying the choice of settings could not have been otherwise because of some physical force or cause.
RUTA said:You’re saying the choice of settings could not have been otherwise because of some physical force or cause.
But the choice of settings in delayed choice is correlated perfectly with a previous outcome, that’s what “delayed choice” means. If you still don’t understand it, I can’t help you.PeterDonis said:Even if the laws of physics require this (which, as I said in my previous post, I have not taken a position on either way), that still does not imply superdeterminism. As I said several posts ago, the important thing is that the choice of settings is uncorrelated with the physical system being tested. If the process of choosing the settings is deterministic but chaotic, that would be sufficient to make the choice of settings uncorrelated with the physical system being tested.
RUTA said:the choice of settings in delayed choice is correlated perfectly with a previous outcome
RUTA said:If you still don’t understand it
Apparently nothing is erased and nothing is delayed. I like this paper by Ruth Kastner.RUTA said:But the choice of settings in delayed choice is correlated perfectly with a previous outcome, that’s what “delayed choice” means. If you still don’t understand it, I can’t help you.
RUTA said:But the choice of settings in delayed choice is correlated perfectly with a previous outcome, that’s what “delayed choice” means. If you still don’t understand it, I can’t help you.