“This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’ to include an extraspatiotemporal domain of quantum possibility,” write Ruth Kastner, Stuart Kauffman and Michael Epperson.
I agree with you. I don't find the phrase 'interferes with itself' meaningful or helpful.'The independence of an interference pattern produced by a given number of photons from the time required for those photons to be registered is simply further confirmation of the assertion that each "interferes with itself" ' - which personally I find an absurd explanation, even though it is one of the expressions that is commonly used.
Indeed. I approach this by regarding 'laws of nature' as descriptive rather than prescriptive. That way they do not need ontological classification. They are a just a tool we use to visualise what is going on and to make predictions. I accept that many, possibly most, people find that unsatisfying.What seems to be the challenging philosophical issue is, however, the ontological status of the probability field — Wayfarer
It's the fact that it is not time-dependent which is of interest. I don't think you could replicate this outcome using a physical medium like water waves in a tank, because in that situation, 'time' would be a boundary condition. That is the sense in which 'waves' and 'interference' might actually be only a metaphor for the effect; the effect is not the consequence of actual waves, but of the interaction of probabilities only. The interpretive challenge is then that it appears to demonstrate 'real possibilities' i.e. possibilities that have physical consequences. – Wayfarer Dec 5 '16 at 2:29
It is not time-dependent because the boundary conditions, which in the end define the probabilities, are not time dependent is what I am saying. It is the particular use of wave equations. with operators on psi, that makes the difference between material waves or energy waves and probability waves. – anna v Dec 5 '16 at 4:49
Are there many other types of waves for which time is not a boundary condition, or is this the only example? – Wayfarer Dec 5 '16 at 10:15
f one wanted to attribute an ontological status to the probability field, what do you think of regarding it as some sort of Kantian noumenon? — andrewk
What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects – the particles, electrons, quarks etc. – cannot be thought of as "self-existent". The reality that they, and hence all objects, are components of is merely "empirical reality".
This reality is something that, while not a purely mind-made construct as radical idealism would have it, can be but the picture our mind forces us to form of ... Of what ? The only answer I am able to provide is that underlying this empirical reality is a mysterious, non-conceptualisable "ultimate reality", not embedded in space and (presumably) not in time either
1. — Bernard D'Espagnat
It's the paths that "interfere". — apokrisis
...what I am interested in is the nature of the so-called 'probability wave'. — Wayfarer
However calling the evolution of a set of observables a "probability wave" is misleading as there is no actual wave in a material sense — apokrisis
Yes, it's a bit like if we snap-froze the ocean while it was wavy. Then we'd have a physical wave shape, but one that was constant across time.What struck me about the fact of 'rate independence' is that it shows the idea of 'the wave' is actually a metaphor - it's not as if the probability wave is an actual wave, because it is not defined by time.
What seems to be the challenging philosophical issue is, however, the ontological status of the probability field. — Wayfarer
So we can interpret the formalism in all sorts of metaphysical ways, the majority of which are then "bad" metaphysics. — apokrisis
it's a bit like if we snap-froze the ocean while it was wavy. Then we'd have a physical wave shape, but one that was constant across time. — andrewk
So my question to you is: do you think my inference that 'what is causing the interference pattern is outside, or not a function of, space-time' is indeed 'gobbledygook'? Or do you think it's a valid inference? — Wayfarer
what is causing the interference pattern is outside, or not a function of, space-time' is indeed 'gobbledygook'? Or do you think it's a valid inference? — Wayfarer
Post that on Physics Forum I dare you — apokrisis
Your approach is confusing as you start off suggesting that rate ought to matter. — apokrisis
So - I don't see my approach as 'confusing'. As far as I'm concerned, I have asked a novel question. — Wayfarer
The girl on the Physics Stack exchange explicitly said, well, time is not a boundary factor in this experiment. And I asked, this means, it's a timeless wave. Where else in physics would you see something analogous? I didn't get an answer, but for all I know, there might be a quotidian answer. — Wayfarer
But memory comes from a stable structure of neurons in your brain now. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
And you know this how? Had anyone ever seen your memory? — Rich
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.