It seems you fail to distinguish between spin and "spin." Forget the ordinary English word "spin". And for clarity's sake just for you in this post let's call the other spxn. Let's suppose what is actually the case, that certain people use the term that we call here spxn to represent a set of ideas that they have collectively, and that they can convey to each other by speaking and writing the word spxn. In as much as I am not one of those people, I will leave to them the choice of their own words for their own use; and I (shall) assume the the word is efficacious when used by them among themselves. So much for the word — tim wood
The three-dimensional angular momentum for a point particle is classically represented as a pseudovector r × p, the cross product of the particle's position vector r (relative to some origin) and its momentum vector; the latter is p = mv in Newtonian mechanics. Unlike linear momentum, angular momentum depends on where this origin is chosen, since the particle's position is measured from it. — Wikipedia: Angular momentum
"Validated"? I'm not sure this will be a useful discussion. It seems you want to commit the fallacy of, "Because I do not know, I know."The existence of the particle cannot be validated during the entire time between t1 and t100. It is only validated at these two time points through measurement of those properties like "spin". — Metaphysician Undercover
"Unfortunately, the analogy breaks down, and we have come to realize that it is misleading to conjure up an image of the electron as a small spinning object. Instead we have learned simply to accept the observed fact that the electron is deflected by magnetic fields. If one insists on the image of a spinning object, then real paradoxes arise; unlike a tossed softball, for instance, the spin of an electron never changes, and it has only two possible orientations. In addition, the very notion that electrons and protons are solid 'objects' that can 'rotate' in space is itself difficult to sustain, given what we know about the rules of quantum mechanics. The term 'spin,' however, still remains." — tim wood
Bell’s theorem reveals that the entanglement-based correlations predicted by quantum mechanics are strikingly different from the sort of locally explicable correlations familiar in a classical context. — flannel jesus
"Validated"? I'm not sure this will be a useful discussion. It seems you want to commit the fallacy of, "Because I do not know, I know."
And if you were honest about it, you'd have taken note of the quoted remark above that make clear that the term - and the concepts - of spin are problematic, — tim wood
Then, Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg, Schrodinger and friends introduced QM to the world. They said that there are some properties of particles that, prior to measurement, we can't actually tell a Classical story about. If we shoot a particle at t=0, through a double slit for example, and measure where that particle landed at t=100, we might be tempted to ask the question "ok, so where was that particle at t=50?" If the world worked classically, then there would be an objectively true answer to that question - even if we as human beings couldn't find an answer. If we can't find an answer, that's just our own ignorance, but there still *is* an answer. QM said, actually, there *is not* an answer. Or at least, not a *singular, definite answer* -- that's the phrasing I like to use. Prior to measurement, some of these properties of things like Photons and Electrons do not in fact have singular definite answers - not even to God. If God himself were to peer into the universe and look at that particle at t=50, he wouldn't have a singular definite answer to the question "where was that particle?" (Please note that I'm using God as a narrative tool, I'm not a theist. "God" is just a stand in for the idea of some external entity who could, in principle, know the world as it really is - could answer any question about any system without disturbing that system). — flannel jesus
The detectors reliably and consistently measure something, called in this case spin - and it is at the moment irrelevant as to what spin is - and this spin deemed to be an aspect or quality of the particle itself. — tim wood
Denial of the particle having this spin except when it is measured begs the question as to how the particle knows it's being measured and reacts, and what, exactly, triggers that knowledge and reaction, not to speak of the time that all takes. — tim wood
What's the big deal?... I'm not just some silly goober inventing new nonsensical ways of understanding experiments. I believe my understanding is in fact the intended understanding. — flannel jesus
this whole conversation lately has just been you telling me I'm misinterpreting bells theorem. — flannel jesus
In my understanding, this is not true. It is your interpretation, not mine and probably not Bell's. The inequalities are not "there to help us," they describe phenomena at very small scales.
THE paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [1] was advanced as an argument that quantum mechanics
could not be a complete theory but should be supplemented by additional variables. These additional vari-
ables were to restore to the theory causality and locality [2]. In this note that idea will be formulated
mathematically and shown to be incompatible with the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. It is
the requirement of locality, or more precisely that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected
by operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past, that creates the essential dif-
ficulty .
It seems to on any macro-scale. The "seems to" not just a throwaway phrase, but rather a pretty good clue as to what is, er, seems to be, the case. The real trick here is to not use the "I don't knows" as grounds for knowing.I've given an explanation of what I think Bells Theorem is about, and in a nutshell it's simply that the universe doesn't work on classical causality. — flannel jesus
No, I'm being honest, it's not a matter of "because I do not know..." — Metaphysician Undercover
And you know this how? (Be good enough to have a functional appreciation for the terse and concise brevity of this post, that could have been a lot longer.)If the particle has no location at t50, then there is no particle at that time. — Metaphysician Undercover
It seems to on any macro-scale. — tim wood
I would appreciate an excellent sentence or two on just what many-worlds is and entails. I understand it as a theory that says when you have to decide between apple and blueberry pie, the universe instantly divides into four separate and distinct universes where in each respectively you have either one or the other or both or neither. And this bifurcation occurring for every thing at every moment. But this is nonsense. How does it really work? — tim wood
May we also agree that the reason is in some sense real? Not the description of it, although that real in an irrelevant sense. Perhaps usually the reason is some force? But whatever, real? My point here, that you may have already adverted to, being that everything that is, is real and distinct at some level in some way. (And thus that a god might know it if s/he cared to look, a perfect God always already knowing it.) — tim wood
The wave functions themselves a function of inadequate knowledge — tim wood
What leads me to this is the notion of the electron as a cloud. I buy that as a description, but if it really is a cloud, then, to my knowledge, no one has yet given an account for how the cloud works. — tim wood
In my understanding, this is not true. It is your interpretation, not mine and probably not Bell's. The inequalities are not "there to help us," they describe phenomena at very small scales. — T Clark
In my understanding, this is not true. It is your interpretation, not mine and probably not Bell's. The inequalities are not "there to help us," they describe phenomena at very small scales. — T Clark
Not so much imagining as choosing. And just to cover this base, and as you note above, there is indeed a QM probability as to pie, as also to any thing.If you imagine some scenario about pie, there's not necessarily any sequence of quantum probabilities where you choose pumpkin pie, regardless of your ability to imagine yourself doing that. — flannel jesus
And I would call all this description of what happens, but in no sense at all an account of what happens in the sense of how, or "governing." As to the electron "cloud," how does it work? How does one part of the cloud appear to know what the other is doing? And if you do not like the notion of parts "knowing," then you still have the problem of governance over distance. My private opinion is that the electron is particle-like, and only cloudlike in the sense that it moves around really, really fast. And it would not offend my scientific sensibilities if someone were to suggest that maybe the particle-like in its motion sets up a kind of standing shock wave, though in what medium or made of what I don't know.People have given an account of that. It's called the Schrödinger equation and it's a fundamentally important equation to quantum physics. It governs how that cloud evolves over time.
Interestingly, even though the common interpretation of quantum mechanics (not many worlds) is indeterministic, this particular equation is itself deterministic. Which means that, in the common understanding, you have a deterministic function determining the probabilities, which are then selected from indeterministically. — flannel jesus
Whatever might constitute knowledge. To say that a god cannot know simply says that the thing is unknowable. Not to be confused with what you or I do not happen to know, or even cannot ourselves know, or with that that cannot be, but rather that the being is unknowable in itself.The wording here is too vague for my liking. God might know what if God cared to look? — flannel jesus
And it seems to me that to say that, "there are worlds where it's here and worlds where it's there," and to attribute that to the world and not merely to the state of predictive ability, is just wrong-headed. It is exactly as if to say that if I cast a die, each time I cast a die, six new worlds come into being. Descriptively, potentially? But certainly not actually.Many worlds is about the behaviour of fundamental particles. The wave functions in QM give a probability distribution of what properties those particles have and where they might be. The "world splitting" happens in the context of that probability distribution. If a particle has 50% of being here and 50% of being there, well there are worlds where it's here and worlds where it's there. — flannel jesus
Indeed they are. And aside from any issues of ego and personal accomplishment, what do you imagine some of those purposes are? I myself suppose they're intended to be descriptive. For example, I would never look for nor expect a learned paper on the theory and practices of shoveling to lift even one small shovelful of anything. And while we might not know if the cat is alive or dead, that speaks to us, not the cat, and I'm pretty sure that no one who is not green down to his toes believes for a moment that there is ever more than one cat.Scientific papers are absolutely published for purposes. — flannel jesus
And how not? The particle goes left or the particle goes right. My hand takes the apple pie, my hand takes the blueberry. What essentially is the difference? QM, so I gather, is about everything, just more manifestly (to our perception) with the very small. Although I do not see how MW would have any such qualification.I've indicated that in my view, quantum mechanics is not about human decisions. — flannel jesus
Many scientific papers are published for purposes. — flannel jesus
And my question was, how not? At the quantum level the only meaningful remark (it seems to me) is the description of the event wherein the particle can go left or right, no decision involved - except that seems a state more than an event: the "state" wherein the particle can go left or right (or whatever). And similarly for pie, the "state" wherein I might have the apple or the blueberry (both, neither, ala mode, etc.). Perhaps the description of the pie state might be more complex, but you appear to rule it out of court - why so?I'm not disputing that. I'm saying it isn't ABOUT human decisions. — flannel jesus
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.