All right! The wave function describes waves. What sort of waves do they describe?I'm not being facetious, you are just being unbelievably ignorant. — Metaphysician Undercover
If your aether blows itself apart for experiments with second scales over distances of a light year, how can it explain experiments on the nanosecond scale with distances of 10 feet? — InPitzotl
All right! The wave function describes waves. What sort of waves do they describe? — tim wood
Why?A light year is a LOT longer distance to maintain underlying entanglement structure. — Enrique
I'm not committed to a QM interpretation, but there's no rule I know of that says that entangled particles can't be separated by a light year. There's no upper limit for classical entanglement; why would there be one for quantum entanglement?You think a pilot wave can conjoin only a couple electrons at the scale of light years? — Enrique
I think the distance just "sounds large" to you... that's part of the point. This drags the distances from something too small to imagine (in terms of the duration used for "light x") to something on human scales specifically so you can imagine it. I could give you an example story of, say, how a local interpretation of QM works with this Bob and Alice story.Kind of farfetched. — Enrique
That's fine, but I don't think you can have a theory explaining non-locality until you have your theory explain non-locality. It sounds to me like it's just a name so far, and some fuzzy ideas of what it might be like.And anyways, I chatted up the aether and that's just how aether rolls! (Perhaps someone will figure it out someday) — Enrique
I thought Bell's inequality was about spooky action at a distance and not randomness — Gregory
Hmm, and hmm again. I know just enough about relativity to know that ordinary language is insufficient to accurately describe it. At the very least, you might refer to space-time instead of just space. Or in short, to make sense of your one sentence would require many sentences - and I'm pretty sure that space never contracts.In GR the earth accelerates in all directions while space itself contracts. — Gregory
Bell Inequalities are constraints on probabilities that you would expect given classical probability theory.I thought Bell's inequality was about spooky action at a distance and not randomness — Gregory
In the book I'm currently reading, The Single Simple Question . . ., the author Peter Carter says, "Although scientists no longer use the term, it turns out that there's something like the ether after all. Only the name has been changed to fields". But the concept of "Fields" is just as spooky as the empty-space notion of invisible intangible essential "Aether". He quotes physicist Sean Carrol, "the fields themselves aren't made of anything --- they are what the world is made of".Could aether be the factor that integrates phenomena of quantum mechanics and general relativity, the observation of which would finally provide us with a realist interpretation akin to the one Einstein sought? Can experimental designs and instrumentation ever become advanced enough to register such a medium, and what does current physics suggest about the chances of this substrate existing? — Enrique
You know all about Mickleson-Morley - it's generally accepted there is no aether. — tim wood
Which opens up the question of the independent reality of descriptors. Two pears and two pears are four pears. The pears are real, but the two, four, addition, equaling, all of that, ideas, nothing in the reality that holds the pears. Similarly with odds. — tim wood
Bottom line for me, if you insist the waves are real, then what is the nature of their reality? — tim wood
When physicists say that there is no preferred reference frame they are saying that nothing objectively moves in relation to something else. Things move relatively, which makes no sense. Physicist such a philosophy but much of what they do is just that — Gregory
I doubt this. To begin with, motion is not at all "relative." What even do you mean by saying that? The measure of motion is relative based on the observer. You cannot leave out details like that. And it is pretty clear that either you do not understand the language, or cannot yourself reproduce that understanding in English. I drop a bowling ball on the ground. Aspects of the description of the event depend on the observer, but all observers will agree that something moved.and the physicist said all motion is relative. So nothing objectively moves. It all depends on perspective. It's as if physicists don't believe in anything except the relativism of relativity — Gregory
But the concept of "Fields" is just as spooky as the empty-space notion of invisible intangible essential "Aether". He quotes physicist Sean Carrol, "the fields themselves aren't made of anything --- they are what the world is made of". — Gnomon
You might like this — Wayfarer
Can you clarify this? Let P be the proposition that tomorrow I will have turned to the left. P is today neither true nor false. What is the exception to the LEM? What reality?That we say there is no truth or falsity with respect to such future events necessitates that we allow exception to the law of excluded middle to account for this as reality. — Metaphysician Undercover
But what would be here the difference between the logical and the ontological possibility, the possibility having been arrived at as a possibility?we are unable to determine with certainty what is the case. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think this is misleading. To be sure, this true of all models. But this just a conscious setting aside of the irrelevant - not a deficiency for a model. It leaves open the question as to whether it is a good or a bad model.Through universal laws derived from induction, and the principles of causal determinism, we create models which extend the past through the present, into the future, with complete disregard for ontological possibilities which do not fit into these models. — Metaphysician Undercover
And I simply cannot find the sense in this, or the purpose. Are you suggesting that relativity or QM are materially deficient because neither distinguishes between the possibility that I might be right now enjoying a chocolate-chip cookie, and the fact of the matter? Nor do I understand "divisor." The possible remains possible notwithstanding actuality. Nor, far as I know, does anyone conflate potential with actual or actual with potential. Can you help me make sense of what you wrote?The models are deficient because they do not recognize the true nature of the present, as a divisor between what is ontologically possible, and what is ontologically actual, conflating those two senses of "potential". — Metaphysician Undercover
I was using the colloquial term "spooky" in the same sense as Einstein's "spooky action at a distance". He wasn't denying that something physical was going on, just noting that it was counter-intuitive. Likewise, a mathematical "Field" has the same physicality as an imaginary "Ghost". It's a concept in a mind, that is used to explain some mysterious features of Reality. Scientists have concluded that something invisible & intangible is affecting the propagation of light through "empty" space.Nothing spooky here: the elementary physical matter are the quanta directly; thus what is primary is physical. — PoeticUniverse
But what are quantum fields fields of? Fields of what fill, or even constitute space and time? — Goldyluck
A wavefunction is a momentary cross-section of a quantum field, propagating freely or interacting with other wavefunctions. — Goldyluck
Can you clarify this? Let P be the proposition that tomorrow I will have turned to the left. P is today neither true nor false. What is the exception to the LEM? What reality? — tim wood
But what would be here the difference between the logical and the ontological possibility, the possibility having been arrived at as a possibility? — tim wood
I think this is misleading. To be sure, this true of all models. But this just a conscious setting aside of the irrelevant - not a deficiency for a model. It leaves open the question as to whether it is a good or a bad model. — tim wood
Yes! But, unlike material stuff, mathematical "stuff" is a conventional idea, that only mathematicians can fully appreciate. The rest of us just have to take their word for it, that such invisible stuff is out there in the abstraction we call "Aether". But, that's OK. In my personal worldview, mind-stuff is "the only stuff there is". What I'm referring to is "Information". Which, like Energy, is known as a Causal Force only by its Effects on tangible matter. Otherwise, like Aether, it's un-touchable and un-seeable. But, we can imagine it in terms of material metaphors such as the "fabric of space", or as-if it's a "grid of lines" drawn on the surface of a topological warped plane in space..Stuff? They are the only stuff that there is. — PoeticUniverse
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.