Brennus

07-18-2015, 07:37 PM

What do members of this forum think of this article?

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-physics-what-is-really-real-1.17585

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-physics-what-is-really-real-1.17585

View Full Version : Quantum Physics: What is Really Real?

Brennus

07-18-2015, 07:37 PM

What do members of this forum think of this article?

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-physics-what-is-really-real-1.17585

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-physics-what-is-really-real-1.17585

Brennus

07-18-2015, 07:39 PM

I forgot to post this article!

http://www.livescience.com/48806-parallel-worlds-quantum-mechanics-theory.html

http://www.livescience.com/48806-parallel-worlds-quantum-mechanics-theory.html

Ghislain

07-19-2015, 08:48 AM

Schrödinger's Cat Thought Experiment

A cat is enclosed in a steel box. And imagine that the box also contains a sample of radioactive material that has a 50% probability of emitting a decay product in one hour, along with an apparatus that will poison the cat if it detects such a decay. Because radioactive decay is a quantum event, wrote Schrödinger, the rules of quantum theory state that, at the end of the hour, the wavefunction for the box's interior must be an equal mixture of live cat and dead cat.

I am no physicist but Schrödinger's cat is either dead or it is alive...I do not understand the duel theory where the cat could be alive and dead at the same time.

Perhaps I am ignorant and can't see what these physicists see, but this is how I see it:

1. Obviously the cat is alive when put in the box.

2. At some given time in the course of one hour the radioactive material may emit a decay particle that is detected and the cat is poisoned.

Where is the mystery?

If we know that in the course of an hour there will be a 50% chance of a decay particle emitted then in the course of an hour the cat may be dead. Just because we cannot see it, it happens anyway. Is this not the same as asking, "if a tree fall in a forest and there is no one there to witness it does it make a noise?"...easily proved, as noise has energy so put something there that can detect it. You could easily argue the same for Schrödinger's Cat. If there is a detector for the decay particle that releases the poison then make that same piece of equipment turn on a light outside of the box, we now know the cat has been poisoned and when.

Am I missing something?

I have a similar theory about the Two Slit Experiment, but I want to read your second article so I'll come back to that while you write me an explanation of what I am missing :)

Ghislain

A cat is enclosed in a steel box. And imagine that the box also contains a sample of radioactive material that has a 50% probability of emitting a decay product in one hour, along with an apparatus that will poison the cat if it detects such a decay. Because radioactive decay is a quantum event, wrote Schrödinger, the rules of quantum theory state that, at the end of the hour, the wavefunction for the box's interior must be an equal mixture of live cat and dead cat.

I am no physicist but Schrödinger's cat is either dead or it is alive...I do not understand the duel theory where the cat could be alive and dead at the same time.

Perhaps I am ignorant and can't see what these physicists see, but this is how I see it:

1. Obviously the cat is alive when put in the box.

2. At some given time in the course of one hour the radioactive material may emit a decay particle that is detected and the cat is poisoned.

Where is the mystery?

If we know that in the course of an hour there will be a 50% chance of a decay particle emitted then in the course of an hour the cat may be dead. Just because we cannot see it, it happens anyway. Is this not the same as asking, "if a tree fall in a forest and there is no one there to witness it does it make a noise?"...easily proved, as noise has energy so put something there that can detect it. You could easily argue the same for Schrödinger's Cat. If there is a detector for the decay particle that releases the poison then make that same piece of equipment turn on a light outside of the box, we now know the cat has been poisoned and when.

Am I missing something?

I have a similar theory about the Two Slit Experiment, but I want to read your second article so I'll come back to that while you write me an explanation of what I am missing :)

Ghislain

Ghislain

07-19-2015, 08:59 AM

While I read the next article check out Bownian Motion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion) and let me pose a question.

If I place a tiny ball bearing on a pin suspended in a liquid full of moving particles is there a possibility the ball will never be touched by one of the particles?

This seems just the same hypothesis as the cat or the tree.

Ghislain

If I place a tiny ball bearing on a pin suspended in a liquid full of moving particles is there a possibility the ball will never be touched by one of the particles?

This seems just the same hypothesis as the cat or the tree.

Ghislain

Ghislain

07-19-2015, 09:09 AM

After reading the second article I found the only information there that made any sense was a statement by Richard Feynman.

Richard Feynman, a physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project, once said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics," but Poirier and his colleagues argue that physicists have much to gain from trying.

Could it be that the wave function is wrong, misleading or incomplete?

http://forum.alchemyforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=907

Ghislain

Edit: Ponder This...

http://forum.alchemyforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=908

Richard Feynman, a physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project, once said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics," but Poirier and his colleagues argue that physicists have much to gain from trying.

Could it be that the wave function is wrong, misleading or incomplete?

http://forum.alchemyforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=907

Ghislain

Edit: Ponder This...

http://forum.alchemyforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=908

Andro

07-19-2015, 11:45 AM

No.

It gives 0=0

Both 1 (one the left side) and 2 (on the right side) are multiplied by (a x a minus a x b), and since a=b, the multiplier is ZERO on both sides of the equation.

Anything multiplied by zero equals zero, so it's 0=0 at the bottom line, NOT 1=2.

It gives 0=0

Both 1 (one the left side) and 2 (on the right side) are multiplied by (a x a minus a x b), and since a=b, the multiplier is ZERO on both sides of the equation.

Anything multiplied by zero equals zero, so it's 0=0 at the bottom line, NOT 1=2.

Kiorionis

07-19-2015, 04:12 PM

It gives 0=0

Which also gives an oxygen molecule double-bonded with another oxygen molecule: O=O

:eek:

Not that it's relevant to the conversation though.. But if we take from wiki's understanding of quantum physics, "the proportionality constant between the energy, E, of a charged atomic oscillator in the wall of a black body, and the frequency, ν, of its associated electromagnetic wave. Its relevance is now integral to the field of quantum mechanics, describing the relationship between energy and frequency, known as the Planck–Einstein relation."

Then the interaction of a frequency with itself, in this case the energy created between the relationship of Zero to Zero or of Oxygen bonded to Oxygen, an relative electromagnetic field is produced.

At least that's my understanding of quantum mechanics...

Which also gives an oxygen molecule double-bonded with another oxygen molecule: O=O

:eek:

Not that it's relevant to the conversation though.. But if we take from wiki's understanding of quantum physics, "the proportionality constant between the energy, E, of a charged atomic oscillator in the wall of a black body, and the frequency, ν, of its associated electromagnetic wave. Its relevance is now integral to the field of quantum mechanics, describing the relationship between energy and frequency, known as the Planck–Einstein relation."

Then the interaction of a frequency with itself, in this case the energy created between the relationship of Zero to Zero or of Oxygen bonded to Oxygen, an relative electromagnetic field is produced.

At least that's my understanding of quantum mechanics...

Dendritic Xylem

07-19-2015, 11:43 PM

From Joseph Cater...

Quantum mechanics is considered the most monumental achievement of twentieth century physics. In view of the principles presented above, it is not surprising that mathematical juggling with Planck’s constant would account for many experimental results (in a quantative sense). Quantum mechanics experts have enjoyed considerable success in this respect, especially in the realm of atomic spectra, without knowing why. In reality, quantum mechanics does not even qualify as a theory or a concept. It is merely an attempt to give mathematical descriptions of certain phenomena with Planck’s constant and his valid assumption as a starting point. Modern “theoretical” physicists have absolutely no conception of why their mathematics agrees with certain experimental results. Yet, they have led themselves to believe that by giving mathematical descriptions of such phenomena, they have actually explained them.

Quantum mechanics is considered the most monumental achievement of twentieth century physics. In view of the principles presented above, it is not surprising that mathematical juggling with Planck’s constant would account for many experimental results (in a quantative sense). Quantum mechanics experts have enjoyed considerable success in this respect, especially in the realm of atomic spectra, without knowing why. In reality, quantum mechanics does not even qualify as a theory or a concept. It is merely an attempt to give mathematical descriptions of certain phenomena with Planck’s constant and his valid assumption as a starting point. Modern “theoretical” physicists have absolutely no conception of why their mathematics agrees with certain experimental results. Yet, they have led themselves to believe that by giving mathematical descriptions of such phenomena, they have actually explained them.

Awani

07-20-2015, 11:14 AM

"Quantum" is only science explaining in complicated terms what those in the astral/psychedelic/shamanic/alchemical state can see clearly.

Also some things cannot be understood. They can only be beheld. This is why science will never find the truth 100% because they fail to understand that magic, and the mystery, is real.

God invented science and science will - if it pays attention - discover God.

Imagine a computer investigating its components, and 1s and 0s, in order to understand Bill Gates that built the computer. It would be very difficult for the computer and its programs to fully grasp the builder/user. At least the computers we have today.

Only a true AI will unify us with the eternal. No fear, embrace it... ;)

The builder... Yes like in the Masonic tradition: The Great Architect!

:cool:

Also some things cannot be understood. They can only be beheld. This is why science will never find the truth 100% because they fail to understand that magic, and the mystery, is real.

God invented science and science will - if it pays attention - discover God.

Imagine a computer investigating its components, and 1s and 0s, in order to understand Bill Gates that built the computer. It would be very difficult for the computer and its programs to fully grasp the builder/user. At least the computers we have today.

Only a true AI will unify us with the eternal. No fear, embrace it... ;)

The builder... Yes like in the Masonic tradition: The Great Architect!

:cool:

Ghislain

07-20-2015, 11:37 AM

No.

It gives 0=0

Both 1 (one the left side) and 2 (on the right side) are multiplied by (a x a minus a x b), and since a=b, the multiplier is ZERO on both sides of the equation.

Anything multiplied by zero equals zero, so it's 0=0 at the bottom line, NOT 1=2.

Pointing out the zero was a good point Androgynus, but my point here was that the algebraic rules were followed and still mistakes were made. The actual mistake in the equation is at the point when you have to divide by (a x a - a x b) on both sides to eliminate them from the equation as the brackets result to zero and there can be no division by zero, hence the error when you try to enter any such equation into a calculator.

The reason for pointing this out is that much of the work done in quantum theory is mathematical and sometimes we miss some minor detail, which in maths is catastrophic and if left unchecked leads to spurious results.

On a side note...In the case of a/b, where b → 0 then the answer → ∞. Can we assume from this that a divide by zero is infinite?

Ghislain

It gives 0=0

Both 1 (one the left side) and 2 (on the right side) are multiplied by (a x a minus a x b), and since a=b, the multiplier is ZERO on both sides of the equation.

Anything multiplied by zero equals zero, so it's 0=0 at the bottom line, NOT 1=2.

Pointing out the zero was a good point Androgynus, but my point here was that the algebraic rules were followed and still mistakes were made. The actual mistake in the equation is at the point when you have to divide by (a x a - a x b) on both sides to eliminate them from the equation as the brackets result to zero and there can be no division by zero, hence the error when you try to enter any such equation into a calculator.

The reason for pointing this out is that much of the work done in quantum theory is mathematical and sometimes we miss some minor detail, which in maths is catastrophic and if left unchecked leads to spurious results.

On a side note...In the case of a/b, where b → 0 then the answer → ∞. Can we assume from this that a divide by zero is infinite?

Ghislain

Ghislain

07-21-2015, 07:27 AM

God invented science and science will - if it pays attention - discover God.

I was only thinking this the other day :)

It would be very difficult for the computer and its programs to fully grasp the builder/user.

I'm sure mine has done this...it knows how to crash at the most inappropriate times :(

Ghislain

I was only thinking this the other day :)

It would be very difficult for the computer and its programs to fully grasp the builder/user.

I'm sure mine has done this...it knows how to crash at the most inappropriate times :(

Ghislain

Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.8 Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.