|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 8, 2010 9:02:32 GMT 1
Except if you knew any physics, you'd know tha the emergence of the arrow of time is already a non-trivial question. Take newtonian classical mechanics -- basic equations look the same whether time runs forwards or backwards. So why an 'arrow of time'. Same goes for quantum theory. Hence there are deep questions over an arrow of time (is there just one, does arrow of cosmic time have to correspond to the arrow of time given by the second law of thermodynamics?). And doesn't alter the fact that the issue of an arrow of time is a different question at to what happens to spave and time on the smallest scales. Because so far, you seem to want to stick to a definite concept of time at even the smallest scales, despite the fact that this leads to the very problems that you so bitterly complained about elsewhere (the big bang singularity if nothing else). You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that commonsense and simplistic statements about 'logic' should be sufficient to handle the complexioties of the physical universe, and that is just plain wrong. With your usual autistic bluster and waffle you fail to answer the question I asked - 'which observation of physics infringes the concept of the 'arrow of time'? Except I refer you again to the delayed choice quantum eraser, where things get very weird! Many aspects of QM are As in the spooky action at a distance stuff, we still have causality, but we have to do some gymnastics, such as limiting it to the transmission of information, in that we cannot use these instantaneous channels to transmit information at greater than lightspeed. None of which is the SAME as saying that there can't be uncaused events, as you seem to keep pretending. I did not say there cannot be, that would be the reverse of your irrational position that there are uncaused events. I said that there are not in our experience any uncaused events. If there are then you haven't listed any, and if you did list any that would raise the question of why do YOU (or anyone else) know that the event does not have a cause? As the statement 'there are events without cuses' cannot be experimentally verified, then it is not a scientific statement and moreover, can never in principle, be a scientific statement. Hence none of this has any relevance to the legitimacy of the idea of uncaused events in quantum theory, hence the idea of an uncaused origin to the universe....................... The legitimacy of uncaused events must always be questioned by scientists because if they accept it as a truth (rather than a premise for logical statements) then they are not being scientific, just as you are not being scientific by insisting that there are uncaused events. You are reciting a Catechism as if it is the truth. Now what other human organisation also does that? Indeed your autistic fervour for your tenets of science are not rational and certainly do not show the questioning mind that is essential to science. |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Dec 8, 2010 13:30:49 GMT 1
Which part of 'newtonian mechanics is invariant under time reversal' did you fail to understand? I suggest you go lok at Wikipedia, then maybe you'll get my point that the issue of the arrow of time is far from simple or straightforward: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time Wrong. Particle decays, and more familiar things such as radioactive decay, are according to standard quantum theory, truely random and uncaused. Saying they arev NOT is hidden variables, and as I keep saying, Bells theorem has ruled out local hidden variables. So, as regards our basic experience, there are plenty of events that, as far as we have been able to measure, fit perfectly well with a truely random and uncaused scenario. Look at radioactive decay -- to get observed pattern of radioactive decay (half-life and all that), we just have to model it as a truely random process, we cannot say when any particular atom will decay, just the probability that it will decay in any given interval of time. The uncaused side of it is strengthened by the fact that we cannot alter the half-life by doing anything with the radioactive atom, like altering external conditions (chemical or physical state of the substance). Bells theorem, I repeat ad infinitum.Because whether or not quantum ecvents were truely random and uncaused was part of the whole POINT of the matter, it is precisely the 'god does not play dice' aspect that einstein so disliked, and that Bell hoped could be explained away by hidden variables. Except experiments ruled out simple hidden variables. You seem to be acting as if this is some surprising statement, whereas in actual fact it is right at the centre of the many discussions about quantum theory that have been going on on these boards, many of which you particpated in. So, rather suspicious now that you suddenly seem to be pretending that statements about uncaused events are somehow contentious........................ Bells theorem, Bells theorem, Bells theorem, which was a precise EXPERIMENTAL test of precisely this point. Hence totally scientific, and just shows yet again that you really don't have the first idea as regards the actual science, and just keep parroting 'commonsense' notions with some mistaken belief that 'commonsense' and 'logic' will give you the right answer, when experiment has already clearly shown you to be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 8, 2010 14:20:06 GMT 1
Which part of 'newtonian mechanics is invariant under time reversal' did you fail to understand? I suggest you go lok at Wikipedia, then maybe you'll get my point that the issue of the arrow of time is far from simple or straightforward I am aware of that invariance. However time 'reversal' has never been observed under either Newtonian or Einsteinian or QM physics. You have evaded the question because you know there are no examples of time 'reversal' , that is effect preceding cause. Wrong. Particle decays, and more familiar things such as radioactive decay, are according to standard quantum theory, truely random and uncaused. Saying they arev NOT is hidden variables, and as I keep saying, Bells theorem has ruled out local hidden variables. Perhaps you could guide me to a respected physicist that maintains these are effects without cause. I will then guide you to a physicist that maintains the opposite I repeat, it cannot be know scientifically whether an event does not have a causation - it is possibleof course to be of that opinion - but that is entirely different. Perhaps in your wisdom you can describe the experimental data that shows beyond doubt that the decays that you speak of have no cause? So, as regards our basic experience, there are plenty of events that, as far as we have been able to measure, fit perfectly well with a truely random and uncaused scenario. Look at radioactive decay -- to get observed pattern of radioactive decay (half-life and all that), we just have to model it as a truely random process, we cannot say when any particular atom will decay, just the probability that it will decay in any given interval of time. of events? You have already mentioned this one without any evidence that there is no cause. The uncaused side of it is strengthened by the fact that we cannot alter the half-life by doing anything with the radioactive atom, like altering external conditions (chemical or physical state of the substance). What nonsense - because we cannot alter a process it indicates the process does not have a cause! This is so nonsensical that I cannot believe that you have written it! Bells theorem, I repeat ad infinitum.Because whether or not quantum ecvents were truely random and uncaused was part of the whole POINT of the matter, it is precisely the 'god does not play dice' aspect that einstein so disliked, and that Bell hoped could be explained away by hidden variables. Except experiments ruled out simple hidden variables. You keep invoking Bell yet he had nothing to say about cause and effect - stop waffling! You seem to be acting as if this is some surprising statement, whereas in actual fact it is right at the centre of the many discussions about quantum theory that have been going on on these boards, many of which you particpated in. So, rather suspicious now that you suddenly seem to be pretending that statements about uncaused events are somehow contentious........................ Pretending indeed! As I say - show me the physicist that has evidence that we have events without cause and I will show you a physicist that disagrees Bells theorem, Bells theorem, Bells theorem, which was a precise EXPERIMENTAL test of precisely this point. Hence totally scientific, and just shows yet again that you really don't have the first idea as regards the actual science, and just keep parroting 'commonsense' notions with some mistaken belief that 'commonsense' and 'logic' will give you the right answer, when experiment has already clearly shown you to be wrong. Hmm... In autistic mode once again Bell's theorem was not an experimental test. The inequalities /equalities of his theorem were shown to be contradicted by experimnts with entangled pairs. And all that we can say from that is that there is something very strange happening that we do not understand |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Dec 8, 2010 14:55:22 GMT 1
I didn't say it HAD, just that our basic physical laws don't themselves give an explanation as to WHY there is an arrow of time -- as I said before, the question of the arrow(s) of time is non-trivial. As well as being a different question as to the existence of uncaused events...............
Bells theorem, which part of that did you miss? ANd lets not get into silly voting games, that just further hightlights your inability to discuss the actual physics..........
Actually it is quite an important point. IF radioactive decay had a cause, then it is perfectly logical to reason that if we can interact with what causes it, then we should be able to alter the decay somewhat. Conversely, if we cannot, then it adds support to the idea that there is no cause.
None of which has anything to do with 'the stability of a decayed material', which makes it obvious that you lack the basic vocabulary to talk about even simple things such as radioactive decay.
You idiot! The whole, point of Bells theorem was hidden variables, which as Bell said himself in the first lines of his paper:
Hence causality at the root of hidden variables, so stop talking bilge!
Stop insulting autistics. Better autistic that a plain ignorant idiot like yourself..............I refer you to the words of john Bell above.
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 8, 2010 15:06:21 GMT 1
I didn't say it HAD, just that our basic physical laws don't themselves give an explanation as to WHY there is an arrow of time -- as I said before, the question of the arrow(s) of time is non-trivial. As well as being a different question as to the existence of uncaused events............... Because there is no explanation for the arrow of time does not invalidate the arrow of time Bells theorem, which part of that did you miss? ANd lets not get into silly voting games, that just further hightlights your inability to discuss the actual physics.......... I repeat , ther ei sno way of experimentally verifying that some events have no cause. The statement itself is not scientific Actually it is quite an important point. IF radioactive decay had a cause, then it is perfectly logical to reason that if we can interact with what causes it, then we should be able to alter the decay somewhat. Conversely, if we cannot, then it adds support to the idea that there is no cause. No it does not. It adds support to the notion that we do not know the cause. An aspergers moment - once more! More Apergers Stop insulting autistics. Better autistic that a plain ignorant idiot like yourself......... You really do have a medical problem - you give all the appearance of being half-mad - someone that just cannot have a discussion without hurling insult - someone that has no idea of how to commune with people. That medical condition is often called Autism or Aspergers syndrome |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Dec 8, 2010 17:07:10 GMT 1
I refer you AGAIN to what John Bell said, and what tests of Bells theorem show -- that we CANNOT explain the results of quantum theory by invoking some hidden variables theory, the hidden variables theory then being the 'CAUSE' of the quantum events.
Hidden means we do not know the exact cause (go look up hidden). But the results of the tests say that there can be no such theory, there is no hidden underlying cause, which is totally different to saying we just don't know what it is.
Hence it just shows, yet again, that you have absolutely no idea of the basics of what you are trying to object to.
And just shows you don't know what autism or aspergers syndrome is either, if you really want to describe such people as 'half-mad'. My nephew has aspergers, he certainly isn't half-mad, and your comments are frankly extremely insulting and typical of ignoraqnt prejudice against people on the autism spectrum. Plus I think you'll find that the use of frequent insults and expletives is actually a symptom of something like Tourettes syndrome, not aspergers or autism.
Although I think you have now shown us enough of your ignorance and prejudice that no one is going to take anything you have to say seriously (if they ever did!).
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 8, 2010 18:15:34 GMT 1
I refer you AGAIN to what John Bell said, and what tests of Bells theorem show -- that we CANNOT explain the results of quantum theory by invoking some hidden variables theory, the hidden variables theory then being the 'CAUSE' of the quantum events. Bells Theorem is this: A. B + A. C =>B. CThis inequality is violated theough experimental tests of 'entangled' pairs Bell tells us that because his inequality is violated then: 1. Our Logic Is wrong OR 2. There is no reality separate from its observation (no hidden variables) OR 3. There is nn Locality - (information passes at > c, the speed of light). There is no general agreement on which of these is true, and at the present state of our knowledge, no way of knowing. The CAUSE of hidden variables that you refer to simply assumes that there is no reality except when we observe. If that is TRUE then the observation is the cause of the reality, the reality being an observed event. There is no reality without the cause of observation. Note that that is a philosphical point, NOT a scientific point, because in our current state of knowledge, there is no way we can test the validity of the proposal that there is no reality outside observation Your Cause and Effect in other words may or may not be true, we simply cannot know. That is my point Your assertion that in QM there is effect without cause is a statement of dogma, not experimentally verifiable Hidden means we do not know the exact cause (go look up hidden). But the results of the tests say that there can be no such theory, there is no hidden underlying cause, which is totally different to saying we just don't know what it is. Your logic is at fault. See my reasoning above. Hence it just shows, yet again, that you have absolutely no idea of the basics of what you are trying to object to. Is that the Asperger puppet speaking (again)? Although I think you have now shown us enough of your ignorance and prejudice that no one is going to take anything you have to say seriously (if they ever did!). And again! Why the hell must you resort to personal attack all the time? Apergers is a possible answer Listen. Speak to people reasonably about science without personal attacks and they will be reasonable back. It is called social intercourse |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Dec 8, 2010 19:10:37 GMT 1
My, my, why do you see every suggestion or demonstration that your knowledge is incorrect as a personal attack? Your ideas about Aspergers are incorrect, as are (most) of your ideas about physics, or quantum theory. Seems a little paranoid, why do you seem unable to accept being wrong? Doesn't seem that healthy to me?
As regards causality, I refer you AGAIN to the original paper by John Bell that I already quoted. You don't understand the physics, that's a simple demonstrable fact, just one that you seem unable to accept. If you had/have the same attitude at school or college, no wonder you never learnt any physics, and I think you'll find it very hard to ever learn anything else.
Get used to it -- when you are talking bollocks, I'll say so, no matter how uncomfortable you seem to find that.......................Because whatever your personal comfort zone is, and however fragile your ego seems to be, that still doesn't mean that for your sake, I'm willing to let gross errors and distortions go without comment, because there are possibly others on here who do actually want to learn, and they won't be helped if your ignorance goes unchallenged. Hence I'm afraid your personal comfort will have to be sacrified for the greater good. I presume your constant attempts at insulting me give you some sort of release, so perhaps I should be a little more indulgent, and allow your bluster without comment......................
|
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Dec 10, 2010 19:13:59 GMT 1
StA - What exactly is your understanding of "causality" that you seem to believe Bell's paper discusses with such mathematical exactitude? Where specifically does this principle occur in the mathematics, or indeed in "the physics"?
Try to answer without sinking to your usual level of personal abuse, please.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Dec 13, 2010 13:31:46 GMT 1
Go read the paper! www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/bell_physics_1_195_64.pdfI would cut and paste, except as an old pdf, you can't copy the text. It is the assumption that is magnets are distance from each other, measurements made with one don't effect the measurements made with the other -- and reference [2], which is to Einstein and the use of the term spatially-separated makes what is meant clear and explicit. Which is, I presume, why Bell didn't elaborate further, because it was obvious what we meant, in being common parlance in the physics community as to what spatially-separated events were. |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Dec 13, 2010 16:23:26 GMT 1
If I was trying for personal abuse, I'd be much worse!
I'm just totally puzzled by the claims you seem to be making. In particular, as regards Bells theorem, where the matter really is terribly straightforward!
So, what EXACTLY do you dispute? In my understanding:
1) Based on classical hidden variables (ie usual assumptions about locality and causality, and in particular that you can always make sure that the measuring apparatus and choice of alignment is spatially-separated), then settings chosen by A should have no effect on measurements made by B. This is not exactly a contentious point!
2) This gives you a prediction -- various ways to do this, but we get an inequality. If above assumptions are correct, we always get values on one side of the limit we derived.
3) In actual measurements, can (with suitable choice of source, ie using our entangled-pairs balck box) -- you can get measurements which disagree with the limit we derived above.
4) Logically, we can then state that not all of our initial, classical assumptions are correct. They cannot be, that's that.
Okay, so you can quibble about whether what is wrong in terms of hidden variables is either the locality bit or the causality bit -- but for most, the idea of non-local but causal hidden variables is a bit hard to try and get your head round! But that is just icing on the cake, the simple take-home message is that the results clearly show that local and causal hidden variable have been ruled out.
Now where exactly would your philsophy undergrad have a problem with that..............
|
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Dec 14, 2010 4:31:07 GMT 1
Well, try trying not for personal abuse, then you might be a lot better!
Beware of what seems terribly straightforward in science.
I've made this perfectly clear. I've disputed Abacus's and latterly your over-confident and erroneous claims that the test of Bell's Theorem demonstrate that the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is correct - to be precise, that "hidden variables" have been demonstrated to not be "possible".
Well, this is the point I was hinting at. The notion of causality is very far from being uncontentious, I'm afraid. It's been a major bone of contention for roughly 300 years, since Hume first pointed out that apparently we have no experience of such a relation. This is in fact one of the principle conceptual foundations of the Copenhagen Interpretation - the locus of the dispute between Bohr and Einstein.
The "usual assumptions" about "locality" is exactly the issue I've been drawing your attention to - this is not at all uncontentious either, or "non-trivial" as you like to say. In particular, it means two distinctly different things in this particular dispute. For the standard Copenhagen Interpretation it means something quite specific, deriving from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and it is part of an overall philosophical theory that equates epistemological observations with ontological existence. This was the notion that Einstein was objecting to, and specifically in the EPR paradox he opposes it with a naive classical understanding of "locality" - your "spacelike and timelike separations". This may well have been shown to be inapplicable by the Bell tests - but not the notions of "locality" opposed to Copenhagen's "non-locality" put forward by Schrodinger or Bohm, for just two examples.
Yes. I am not disputing the empirical results of the experiment! Merely the excessive claims made here - and to be fair, generally, as Abacus' Wiki citation indicates - about what they mean.
Incidentally, it might well turn out to be the case that we always get our observed values if the above assumptions are false. The history of science is full of such demonstrations that reality is far more complicated than our theories about it.
No, it's not that at all - certainly not logically, it isn't. Our initial, classical assumptions may well turn out to have been correct, seen from a broader theory that encapsulates both these results and those assumptions. The detailed understanding of what those "assumptions" might be will no doubt have changed somewhat - but they're extremely vague and unanalysed in the first place, don't forget. Again, this happens very frequently in the history of science.
Why so? This is a standard feature of both Schrodinger's and Bohm's theories. And, as I tried to point out when you accused me of "muddying the waters", it was apparently quite easy for Newton and Mach to "get their heads around". That's almost four centuries of the world's physicists implicitly getting their heads around this idea, in fact.
No, they do not! All that have been "ruled out" are the very vague and ill-defined notions of "local" that the EPR paradox used, in an unanalysed unspecified commonsensical manner. That's all. More sophisticated notions of "local" and, if you insist, "causal" (though it's mysterious where this comes into the experimental results at all) can easily predict these results. Again, this is the standard process in the history of science.
The Michelson-Morley experiment, as an example of similar iconic status as Aspect's et al, was declared by all self-interested parties as having "ruled out" the possibility of there being an "aether". This despite the fact that the expected results if there had been an "aether" were for anyone who had seriously hypothesised such an entity precisely the results that Michelson-Morley found. The "aether" that they believed they'd "ruled out" by the results of their experiment was an imaginative construct, a Straw Man, entirely of the making of the opponents of the aether theory in the first place. Logically, scientifically, the results of MM should have been declared a corroboration of the standard aether theory, not a refutation of it. Or could have been, rather than should, I should say, logically speaking. Just as in this case the results of the Bell tests could have been used to corroborate Bohm's Implicate Order theory, or Schrodinger's interpretation of his wavefunction. So - why weren;t they? No logical reason; still less a scientific one. It's simply the weight of consensual pressure, determining which interpretation of data is expected and acceptable - as simple and, to someone who hasn't studied the history of science, as rather shocking as that. Thus is the overwhelming power of the scientific Establishment's PR machine, once a paradigm has been "officially" adopted.
He or she wouldn't. All that I've said above is standard fare for any first-year course in logic, epistemology or philosophy of science; nothing complicated or contentious about any of it. I'm afraid it seems to be you that has the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Dec 14, 2010 14:15:52 GMT 1
Uh, why are you conflating two different things? I may prefer the Copenhagne interpretation to others, but I do recognise that hidden variable not being possible is NOt the same as quantum theory (ANY quantum theory) being correct, just that classical theories are wrong.
Nope, not a clue what you're waffling on about!
Point is VERY simple in Bells theorem -- either the settings of A's device effect the measurements made by B, or they do not.
Why do you view spacelike and timelike as naive? Seems a perfectly sensible distinction, given experimental backing of relativity.
And seems to miss the point that we aren't talking quantum theory AT ALL, hence all this stuff about Heisenberg is totally irrelevant!
Diitto totally irrelevant in this case.
ONLY point is as above, can we rule out a theory that is both local and deterministic, or can we not. Turns out we can.
WHAT to replace it with is a different question.
This is just plain rubbish, and I liked to see how you could replicate actual measurements whilst keeping those assumptions!
Which was the whole damn point, yet you seem to want to claim that Bell got it wrong? And they are far from vague!
Again, you seem to think it is vague and il-defined -- which is just plain RUBBISH! Utter tosh.
What definition of local would you prefer? You don't need to that precise, in the sense that I can move A apparatus as far from B's as I like, that I can choose how to set A's whilst photons are in flight, that we can quite easily do that such there no signal can be transmitted from A to reach B before the photons do -- so that for all practical purposes, there is no possibility of communication between the two.
What is VAGUE about that? Perfectly straightforward! And either the settings used by A effects B's measurements, or they do not.
You keep saying what you're saying is SIMPLE, yet so far al I see is claims of simplicity, muddying the waters and introducing irrelevancies, a misunderstanding of basic science terms, and a total lack of actual REASONS why the straightforward, simple reasoning is wrong.
Just stating that it is is not the SAME as showing that it is, and if its so damn SIMPLE, why don't you EXPLAIN?
WHy? Because I don't think you can, because you sincerely believe that your little philosophy undergrad can trounce the physics establishment and all that physicists are taught -- a not uncommon stance, and one that I have NEVER found anybody able to actually deliver on when pushed.
So, come on, rather than just saying it is simple, obvious etc etc, lets assume we are all very, very stupid, and surely someone of your great intellect should be able to explain to us all why our simple notions about locality are vague and il-defined...........................
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 14, 2010 16:09:42 GMT 1
Hume was a philosopher, not a scientist!
What excessive claims?? The claims made are based of firm mathematical data. Why should we question the use of maths in this particular context when we don't in such fields as engineering or astrophysics, for example?
Such as?
Sorry, but science moves on and you have to address the issues based on the latest data.
Gobbledygook.
More gobbledygook!
|
|
