Both can be measured at the same time. All properties can be measured at the same time. — TenderBar

Yes, if all parties are ok with it, have a threesome.. I reckon it's at this point the analogy breaks down. :grin:

How you wanna measure velocity at one time? — Newkomer

Sorry, couldn't parse that.

Yes, if all parties are ok with it, have a threesome.. I reckon it's at this point the analogy breaks down. :grin: — TheMadFool

The linked article says: This article needs additional citations for verification....

:lol:

How fast is the banana ripening at any one time? At any one time a drop of rain is a deluge. At any one time any occurrence is not even a phenomenon, it is merely "anecdote". There is simply no time that is "one time". There is simply no sense in which time is "one". There is no quantity "one" that time ever is. How many "any one time" is time "one"? Neither one nor many, time is the qualifier, not the quantifier space is. The calculus of change is the reduction to the infinitesimal of that difference (between space and time). The result we call "ideas".

How fast is the banana ripening at any one time? — Gary M Washburn

You have to take the limit between two times for that. But there are limits.

The limit is the idea. But time is explicitly unreal within that limit.

Apparently they do. — Caldwell

Ok but it is totally unclear how or why. I have no idea why complimentarity says something about the death of science. I can conjecture a Marxist 'death of science scenario', or an ecological one, but that does not seem to be your point. So right now I am at a loss :)

Here's an example. If you go to somewhere like sciforums or any other 'place' where people, including scientists, belief (current) scientific practice is the only route to knowledge, you may well (and I have) encountered people saying things like if (some form of Alternative Medicine) worked, it would be part of regular medicine. Which, implicitly, assumes the independence of the FDA, the objectivity and openness of research, the inablity of corporations to create the conclusions they want, how the incredibly high price of meeting FDA protocols requires patentability, the lack of current paradigmantic biases,.....So, what, yes, is a subset of current scientific research is actually not based on objectively carried out and objectively evaluated (by regulartory bodies or by scientist peers)
the future of any science is threatened, since humans are. I think there is a practical outcome threat. — Bylaw

Okay thank you. This is actually good! That is a critique of scientific methodology, which really is at the heart of the debate. I understand your point.

I found a Marxist defense of complementarity by him when I googled his name and Bohr. — Bylaw

I have a physical copy of his remark. I will type it here. Unfortunately, I think, online we won't find publications for free.

Here's the excerpt:

"The daring (not to say scandalous) character of Bohr's quantum postulate cannot be stressed too strongly: that the frequency of a radiation emitted or absorbed by an atom did not coincide with any frequency of its internal motion must have appeared to most contemporary physicists well-nigh unthinkable. Bohr was fully conscious of this most heretical feature of his considerations: he mentions it with due emphasis in his paper.....[Bohr's remark]"In the necessity of the new assumptions I think that we agree; but do you think such horrid assumptions, as I have used necessary? For the moment I am inclined to most radical ideas and do consider the application of the mechanics as of only formal validity.""

Ok but it is totally unclear how or why. I have no idea why complimentarity says something about the death of science. I can conjecture a Marxist 'death of science scenario', or an ecological one, but that does not seem to be your point. So right now I am at a loss :) — Tobias

Yeah, someone has to digest for us this idea of complementarity -- with an e, not i.
But don't dwell on this one example. We are trying to make a point here.

Could someone please break this down for us? @Newkomer? or @TenderBar?

@Gary M Washburn, could you help us out?

Thanks.

"The daring (not to say scandalous) character of Bohr's quantum postulate cannot be stressed too strongly: that the frequency of a radiation emitted or absorbed by an atom did not coincide with any frequency of its internal motion must have appeared to most contemporary physicists well-nigh unthinkable. Bohr was fully conscious of this most heretical feature of his considerations: he mentions it with due emphasis in his paper.....[Bohr's remark]"In the necessity of the new assumptions I think that we agree; but do you think such horrid assumptions, as I have used necessary? For the moment I am inclined to most radical ideas and do consider the application of the mechanics as of only formal validity."" — Caldwell

I don't think it is a scathing remark against Bohr actually. He rather applauds Bohr for being daring, scandalous and ... revolutionary. What he seems to be hinting at is the existence of a scientific orthodoxy, not unike Kuhn described. As such the scientists and the Ulema have things in common, both form epistemic communities. That is well accepted in the philosophy of science now. That would make the death of science the death of sceintific orthodoxy. That happens frequentily in science itself though with 'science' actually dying.

So, how does this lead to the decay of science?
Also it seems from what I have seen Rosenfeld is not scathing in relation to Bohr's ideas. He seems supportive. Though I haven't really found a great source. He was his assistant wasn't he?

Probably can't help. You see, when faced with ideologues progress is alienating. The ideology, that is, that answers must be mechanistic and dehumanizing. However, the logic of contrariety, up to a point, is exactly the same as the logic of the "law" of contradiction. but if that "law" is only effective to a point, then the final term of the reductive process begun from a premise we have become convicted of and the extension, always reductive, in accordance with that "law" is a contrariety. That is, a term contrary to the premise. But if that "law" has its limits, then that contrariety is not a contradiction of which each pole is opposite to the other, one of which must be, even if indeterminate for some reason, contradicting the premise, but two contrary terms as contrary to each other as, together, to the premise. Forming a community in contrariety to the premise and to the "law". This polar pair complement each other in finding the limit of the "law" and the lexical coherence of the term premised to it.

Help?... Or "Help!"

Well, we yammer at each other, grudgingly holding off threats to our convictions and possibilities of bewilderment (which we should welcome, if well posed to us), but the community in contrariety looms. And though we may never recognize it, the drama of that alienating moment engages us in an enriching of our terms. And since we each bring as much to that community as the other, the result is a lexical body more naturalized to us than the supposed laws of reason ever could be, and even though our contribution to it is always contrary to the law and to our convictions. And, because contrary, what we owe to each other can never become an entanglement, as our convictions and the commitments to convention always are. Which is to say, if I read your concern correctly, neither individualism nor communism can detract from it, because our part is contrary and yet complementary. Individualism and communism is an artificial polarity with an extension between as void and empty as each pole is. That is, no complement to each other. Looking for answers there is futile.

True.


Too many things to put together for the sake of decline theory. So, I'll leave this issue open for now.
I think the fact that Rosenfeld supported Bohr shouldn't muddle what those words say about his atomic postulates.

"Indeed Léon Rosenfeld recounts Bohr's frustration at the continued misunderstanding of his principle. When Rosenfeld off-handedly suggested to Bohr that the correspondence principle was about the asymptotic agreement of quantum and classical predictions, Bohr emphatically protested and replied, "It is not the correspondence argument." from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bohr-correspondence/

Is this what this thread is about? What if the asymptote doss not tend toward a numerical value, or even a mathematical principle, but to a re-characterization of all values? Calculus is a reduction to infinitesimal of values not definable mathematically. But it requires regarding those values (deviating from law) as "negligible". It also requires using them as a positive value for part of the rationalization of that neglect, but then as zero to complete it. (see "The Analyst", by George Berkeley) - The final term of the reduction, then, alters the meaning of the premise. Bohr, by the quote above, rejected this consequence, as a convicted analyst would. But his thesis about electron orbits raises the question, What becomes of the material properties of the electron when phase shifting erases it from the otherwise expected presence of those properties? Is ignorance bliss [before] after all? Isn't science premised by an assumed right to ignore?

I thought we were talking about science deniers, not the limits of science.

I thought we were talking about science deniers, not the limits of science. — Gary M Washburn

Neither. We are talking about decline theorists' estimate of..well..implosion of science.

What if the asymptote doss not tend toward a numerical value, or even a mathematical principle, but to a re-characterization of all values? Calculus is a reduction to infinitesimal of values not definable mathematically. But it requires regarding those values (deviating from law) as "negligible". It also requires using them as a positive value for part of the rationalization of that neglect, but then as zero to complete it. — Gary M Washburn

This is a strange statement.

This is a strange statement. — jgill

It has something to do with the infinitesimal, or maybe the differential. And the neglecting of the limit maybe, that is never reached. And zero enters the story too. What is meant by "a recharachterization of all values"? Instead of 1, 2, 3, pi, vu, e, we should call them by other names? @+$=÷?
Is not an asymptote a mathematical thing (a principal?)?

It seemed like he supported him on those, though I have trouble finding clear info.

Your quote

"The daring (not to say scandalous) character of Bohr's quantum postulate cannot be stressed too strongly: that the frequency of a radiation emitted or absorbed by an atom did not coincide with any frequency of its internal motion must have appeared to most contemporary physicists well-nigh unthinkable. Bohr was fully conscious of this most heretical feature of his considerations: he mentions it with due emphasis in his paper.....[Bohr's remark]"In the necessity of the new assumptions I think that we agree; but do you think such horrid assumptions, as I have used necessary? For the moment I am inclined to most radical ideas and do consider the application of the mechanics as of only formal validity.""

Is not clearly taking a stand. That is was heretical, that it was scandalous could very much have to do with assmptions of the time.

We are talking about decline theorists' estimate of..well..implosion of science. — Caldwell

Implosion? Science rules suppreme in the modern day. Look in what state it has brought the world! Its arrogance of understanding Nature and its positioning in front, vis a vis, Nature, is the cause. And it's even mandatory to learn at school. Colorfull children are turned in its obedient slaves. And kook at the so-calles objective and intelligent language spoken by the modern adult! Yakki!

"Bohr was fully conscious of this most heretical feature of his considerations: he mentions it with due emphasis in his paper.....[Bohr's remark]"In the necessity of the new assumptions I think that we agree; but do you think such horrid assumptions, as I have used necessary? For the moment I am inclined to most radical ideas and do consider the application of the mechanics as of only formal validity"

↪Caldwell
It seemed like he supported him on those, though I have trouble finding clear info. — Bylaw

Let's use logic here. He supported Bohr's remark that the quantum postulate is a horrid assumption. Not that Rosenfeld supported the postulate itself. Tell me if you get this vibe. You can correct me.

Ok, I see where you are coming from.

Let's skip the hard to nail down middleman Rosenfeld.

What did Bohr do, in abstract terms, that is part of the decay of science?

IOW what is the general mispractice he engaged in and what are some other examples of this?

So the first part is his mispractice at an abstract level, then the second part is

'and over here in biology with the specific case of __________ we can see who scientist _________________also engaged in the same type of mispractice and it is this that leads to decay'

Obviously the examples don't ahve to be biology.

And perhaps, now that I have laid this out, you can see that I have misunderstood you. Hopefully not, but that's more or less, how I have been taking the Rosenfeld Bohr issue.

the decay of science? — Bylaw

What decay? Bohr stood at the cradle of QM. That's not a decadent theory. In what sense is the word 'decay' used?

Just thinking, would it be better to say that there is a decay in the understanding of science?

No idea what you're talking about so next time don't write in a rush.

I recommend editing the OP :)

that the frequency of a radiation emitted or absorbed by an atom did not coincide with any frequency of its internal motion — Caldwell

What internal motion is meant here? That of an electron?

Thanks for that.

Read Berkeley's "The Analyst" and it may not seem so strange. If we are convinced a value is being reached that is necessary to our principles, but that value never is reached, then the character of our conviction in the effort is the real story, and not some objective reality at all. And if recognition of this is the final term of a rigorous analysis, then the [emotional?] character of that recognition cannot be impertinent to whatever truth there is in it.

How can there be an asymptotic convergence between quantum and "classical" physics if the whole thrust of quanta is to hide some portion of its phenomena from mathematical formulation? "Classical physics" is mechanics. What mechanism emphatically and explicitly hides its mechanism from science? And what kind of logic "passes over in silence" where its terms fail its anticipated conclusion? And doesn't the task of understanding the silence and the hidden start its talking there? And, once again, if the best rigor we can bring to this is that point of departure, how can it be untruth? Isn't emotion the beginning of reason, not the end of it? If rigor is humanizing, then maybe reality is too. If science is failing, it is its commitment to dehumanizing reason.

I mean, I don't see anything replacing it anytime soon. We might be over-run by some primitive teachings, but that's a low probability. Science is as valuable and useful as its ever been. If we could measure such a thing, we'd see that the value of the sciences has increased over time.

How can there be an asymptotic convergence between quantum and "classical" physics if the whole thrust of quanta is to hide some portion of its phenomena from mathematical formulation? "Classical physics" is mechanics. What mechanism emphatically and explicitly hides its mechanism from science? And what kind of logic "passes over in silence" where its terms fail its anticipated conclusion? And doesn't the task of understanding the silence and the hidden start its talking there? And, once again, if the best rigor we can bring to this is that point of departure, how can it be untruth? Isn't emotion the beginning of reason, not the end of it? If rigor is humanizing, then maybe reality is too. If science is failing, it is its commitment to dehumanizing reason. — Gary M Washburn

I had to read it over carefully a couple of times. To suddenly realize it's beautiful! In particular the last sentence! :up:

And perhaps, now that I have laid this out, you can see that I have misunderstood you. Hopefully not, but that's more or less, how I have been taking the Rosenfeld Bohr issue. — Bylaw

:up: