The problem is that by asking what 'caused' something you are moving from physics to philosophy - metaphysics, and there's quite a bit of sensitivity on physicsforums about discussions veering off into philosophy. They try - not always successfully - to maintain a clear boundary between physics and philosophy and it looks like you inadvertently crossed it. I thought the reaction was a bit harsh, especially as you, not being a regular there, would have no reason to be aware of that sensitivity.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
I thought the reaction was a bit harsh, especially as you, not being a regular there, would have no reason to be aware of that sensitivity. — andrewk
I can observe that increasing the time between photon emissions also increases the average distance between photons, which reduces the frequencies of interactions and hence the extent to which interaction effects distort the pure proportionality discussed in the A to the second Q. And that maybe sounds something like what you were saying. — andrewk
As for the actual flow of time, real time, the duration of life, everyone who is alive has experienced it every day of their life. — Rich
If we do not need any concept of time to explain and make predictions about the physical world, why does this "flow of time" matter?
Occam's Razor seems to apply here — WISDOMfromPO-MO
But I then introduced the argument that this shows that the 'wave equation' is independent of time (and therefore space, as I had understood these two to be related as 'space-time' in relativistic physics). I said, in particular, that 'what is causing the interference pattern is outside, or not a function of, space-time'.
I hope to have been of help :-# — boundless
physicists get exasperated with homespun philosophers using their discipline — Wayfarer
The idea of particle passing from two slits and interfere with itself is nonsense. Please read this article for further information.
The Bohmian mechanics is the way to go. — bahman
To me it is a very interesting "perspective" on QM, even if however I am more drawn to something along the lines of Rovelli and (especially) Bohr (of which I like his emphasis on the epistemological, rather than the ontological...). — boundless
I would like to see philosophers to gear up and get up with modern ideas and problems and stop playing around with proofs of God's existence. I consider that lazy philosophy. — Rich
Simply stated, if God is proven to be real, then the space-time perspective of time is proven to be false, because the two are incompatible. — Metaphysician Undercover
But if it's a wave, how can the rate NOT matter? — Wayfarer
And frankly - for me at least - there is just a basic metaphysical inelegance with a deterministic/substantialist ontology. QM really ought to be much more of a challenge to materialism and locality. So why try to make a Bohmian uber-materialism be the one that comes out right? — apokrisis
I mean I find it weird that the folk like Rich who seem happy with the whackiest kinds of idealism are also the first to commit to the most materialist versions of QM they can find. Well I guess maybe that if you treat the divine, or mind, as some kind of pseudo-substance, then perhaps there is some kind of consistency there. — apokrisis
The problem is that physicists in general never study Bohmian Mechanics a little, much less thoroughly, thus they never passed through these phases and therefore they don't understand anything that Bohm's physics and metaphysics is offering. — Rich
So again, your issue seems to be to wanting to think of it as an actual wave - some kind of substantial force - rather than as a description of observables. — apokrisis
It applies to the individual event and does not describe some collective weight of particles as you seem to imagine. — apokrisis
why try to make a Bohmian uber-materialism be the one that comes out right? — apokrisis
But IMO in fact there are a lot of scientists that are actually "open". The problem however is that there is an awful number of (often "self-described") "gurus", "spiritual teachers" etc that insist that science either "proves" nonsense or that science is useless***. This behaviour causes a lot of skepticism among scientists. Also science is very empirical and therefore when one makes a lot of claims about "reality" which is not "in line" with the accepted theories (even after being corrected more than once...), scientists are (rightly IMO) adamant in dismissing him/her. The problem is that somewhat unconsciously this "aversion" sometimes is also "extended" to honest "inquirers", simply because sometimes the language is different. There is too much "suspiciousness" which is partly justified by the real presence of "crackpots" but I agree it is excessive (for example I find Krauss argument against the existence of God quite "shallow", since he does not really understand that "nothing" cannot be compared to either the "vacuum state" in physics or "the phyisical laws"). — boundless
There are many ways to approach the nature of duration (time) and if God is the preferred approach, that is fine. — Rich
That is why I mentioned the article co-authored by Stuart Kaufman (who, perhaps mistakenly, I thought was one of the theorists in your general orbit.) The key sentence in that paper is '“This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’ to include an extra-spatio-temporal domain of quantum possibility" - which is pretty well exactly what I think is the implication of my argument. — Wayfarer
such that time becomes the 0th dimension rather than the 4th — Metaphysician Undercover
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.