Don’t diss NATURE’S HARMONIC SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE (you might of realize that my location is time cube based), ignorance of “Time Cube” indicts you stupid and evil. Explain the “Time Cube”. Do you like being Stupid?
I’m glad to see somebody out there is making an effort to explain “quantum” phenomena. This “Durrrr…I dunno…maybe it’s random” stuff has gone on too long! So I thank you for sharing, and hope to learn something from the thread.
However, I do want to warn you that it is not allowed on this board to advertise for other forums. Your username is a web address for a set of forums, and is therefore in violation of board rules, as I understand them. You may wish to visit the About This Message Board forum and request to have your name changed to simply sqwark, dropping the .com extension.
The oft-repeated claim that the experiments of Apsect, et. al., of Bell’s Inequalities have settled the EPR question is simply not accurate. Fully sufficient experiments are even now still waiting to be performed. This needs to be more widely known to deflate the over-stated certainty that appears to be endemic among physicists and those who write on such issues.
See The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Gedankenexperiment
However TEW fares (and the alleged “rebuttal” articles from that Randian Worship site are fairly ludicrous), there is little question but that the Copenhagen Interpretation is one of – if not the – most intellectually vacant interpretations around, worse even than all the fairly silly multiple-worlds interpretations that have become so popular as of late. Few quantum physicists take CI very seriously these days, fortunately, although for some reason – probably tradition and/or academic inertia – it is the interpretation most often taught to beginners and hence is most widely known.
Why do I get the feeling you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. The Copehagen interpretation is still the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics, it is flawed in some ways as it does not exactly define measurement appartus, but it is still the number one interpretation. Physicist are obviously still holding looking for a TOE theory but do not mistake that for not taking the CI seriously.
The Copenhagen Interpretation is intellectually vacant in that it does not provide a description of reality; it only provides a prediction of experimental results. Furthermore, it cannot be applied unambiguously when there is a genuine question as to wether a particular interaction qualifies as a “measurement.”
The Copenhagen Interpretation is fine for everyday use, and is sufficient to predict and explain, at least formally, the results of all experiments that we are presently capable of carrying out. However, it is not taken seriously by many physicists who have a genuine philosophical interest in the nature of reality and of physical law.
Yes, JasonFin I don’t think anyone is willing to accept it as the final explanation but the problem is there really isn’t anything else that can de-throne it and it does still have it’s supporters. If your looking for the truth you have to be objective and stay away from the realms of metaphysics and despite it’s inabilty to properly describe a measurement the Copenhagen Interpretation is the one with the least unnecesary additions.
Hmmm…my admittedly layman’s understanding is that waves cannot be detected directly. Don’t waves travel through a medium? I thought that we knew waves exist by observing the medium. For example, we know ocean waves exist because they cause the water to swell, but we don’t “see” the wave itself. Is it not similar to other fundamental forces? We don’t “see” gravity, but we know it exists by observing its effects.
We already know that waves exist via the double-slit experiment. The evidence is the interference pattern on the screen. TEW is just positing a different origin for the waves, right? Obviously it’s something that requires some sort of evidence other than pure speculation, but I don’t see that Sentient’s argument necessarily disproves it. One does not have to directly “see” something to have evidence that it exists.
Electrons have their existence in probabilities.
There is a nonzero chance of the chair I’m sitting in vanishing.
Heisenbergian Uncertainty.
Einstein’s Train.
Follow the HitchHiker’s Guide and rid yourself of common sense. When it comes to quantum mechanics, common sense just gets in the way.
I don’t know why you hold such a manifestly unjustified and fallacious opinion, but I do know that you’re much farther out of your depth on this issue than I am! Furthermore, tossing around pop-sci blather such as your reference to “TOE theory” doesn’t speak well for your understanding of these issues but instead makes it abundantly clear that you “don’t have a clue what you’re talking about”.
The “conventional” – and manifestly authoritarian, decidedly irrational, vacantly anti-realist, and shamefully intolerant of questioning – Copenhagen “interpretation” was forced down early quantum physicists’ throats largely by dint of brute force of Bohr’s personality, and such interpretational unthinking was subsequently abetted by the profound distaste and ignorance so many physicists feel when it comes to evaluating the CI intelligently and philosophically.
Allow me to quote the esteemed science writer Martin Gardner from his “Notes of a Fringe-Watcher” column of September 2001 entitled: Multiverses and Blackberries
Thus, while it may possibly be true that a bare majority of the philosophically inept and self-blindedly “practical” quantum “mechanics” still favor the closed-minded and anti-rational vacuity of CI, recent decades and years have seen the rapid rise to prominence of more philosophically adept quantum physicists who have elected not to live with the vapidity of Copenhagen. Instead, these enlightened scientists (Feynman perhaps most notably among them, but the list also includes such luminaries as Gell-Mann, Hawking, Weinberg, and others) have taken up the important philosophical challenges presented by quantum theory and, having faced up to them honestly, have then dropped CI into the historical refuse bin of ill-conceived and intellectually sloppy ideas where it belongs. The one-time hegemony and subsequent predominance of the hopelessly obsolete Copenhagen Interpretation is happily now rapidly dying a much-deserved death and will one day soon be considered just another of the embarrassing scientific errors of the past.
The TEW paper in the OP makes a solid prediction.
A Double Delayed choice with half integral separation will not produce expected quantum effects. It’s very plain about that and it seems the TEW can be falsified that way.
Has that experiment been done?
What was the result?
*ambushed do you have any undergraduate physics education? As I have said before I completed the first year of a 4-year Mphys degree, so though my knowledge is not complete I have formal training in this field.
Quatum Mechanics, Alastair I M Rae, Fourth Edition 2002:
What the paper is saying is that the experiment that arrived at these results is flawed.
At the end of the day ambused the CI fits best with experimental evidence and the mathematics if you find it vacous then there’s nothing I can do about thta.
Sort of. The paper says that the test has been carried out with a whole integral separation which results in the appearance of quantum effects. This would be the flaw you mentioned.
It then says that these effects would not be observed with a half integral separation.
That’s a positive prediction which should be very easy to actually test. I’m asking if that test has in fact been carried out.
If it has, and the half-integral separation setup exhibited so-called “weirdness” then TEW is dead, dead, deadski and we can all go on with our day.
Yes, and I’ve clearly had far more of it than you. Not only that, I’ve actually independently researched many QM issues – particularly in the area of interpretations – far beyond the realm of your introductory courses and first-year textbooks.
As for your quotation from Rae’s “Quatum [sic] Mechanics”, calling the CI “conventional” should certainly not lead you or anyone else to the unjustified belief it represents the thinking of the most respected quantum physicists!
Let me quote from a site that further explores some of the recent surveys which demonstrate the low regard CI is held in among the most respected physicists in the world. From The Everett FAQ:
**
Now, don’t interpret the fact that I’ve documented the predominance of MWI over CI and many other interpretations as a statement that I personally endorse MWI. I’m documenting these facts simply to demonstrate the truth of my posts in accurately reporting that Copenhagen is no longer considered viable by the most respected experts in the field.
That statement demonstrates your striking lack of knowledge of the subject! May I suggest that, in the future, you ask rather than assert? As the saying goes, it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt…
I’m sorry that you’re so determined, and in such a stubborn public manner, to remain so badly mistaken and under-informed even of freshman physics. Your glaring misunderstanding of these issues indicates clearly that you are much in need of additional education. You see, ALL established interpretations of QM, from the obsolete Copenhagen to the most exciting new interpretations, ALL “fit” the “experimental evidence” and “mathematics” TO EXACTLY THE SAME DEGREE!
How is it that you are so regrettably uninformed and confused as to not know even this? Don’t you even understand what the word “interpretation” means?? ALL interpretations of QM are derived from EXACTLY the same experimental results and data! There is no such thing as an interpretation of QM which fits the data “best”, my friend. That’s not the basis on which the various interpretations compete at all.
My goodness, are you ever in desperate need of a proper physics education! But you should begin by looking up the word “interpretation” in any good English dictionary.
I wish we were in another universe where this thread didn’t melt down.:rolleyes:
Bolocks to you ambushed, I was accepted into the top university at the time, in the UK for physics (Nottingham).
It is very clear that you have had NO formal physics education in the area of quatum mechanics:
orginally posted by ambushed:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1736272#post1736272
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1796985#post1796985
You said it yourself in one of your posts MWI don’t sit well with Occam’s razor. To suggest that MWI is the main inteprtation is laughable, I remember one of my physics professor laughing at David Deutsch’s (one of the leading proponents of MWI) ideas and accusing him of reading too much science fiction (I thought this was unfair though).
The MWI sufferes from the exact same problem as the CI in that it fails to define a quantum measurement. Some physicists may prefer the MWI conceptually (and here I am in agreement with them, it has always been my favoured conceptualization), but the Copenhagen Intpretation is still going strong.
You have embarassed yourself yet again, MC Master of Ceremonies! You clearly didn’t even quite comprehend my posts, let alone the basics of quantum physics. Your pomposity and arrogance are quite laughable also, I assure you; especially given your embarassing neophyte status.
You may have been accepted to study phyics, my young hubristic son, but I’ve actually already graduated years ago, and even then my professors were complaining and making jokes about all the ignorant frosh and sophomore neophytes who understood so little due to the stupid historical accident that the hopelessly obsolete CI with all that “collapse” gibberish were still being taught in so many high schools and college Physics 101 courses.
I’ve already proved my points, boy. Grow up and accept the fact that you’re mistaken.