We can also have an option that's realist but that admits ignorance: Namely, particles are something real, but we don't really know their nature very well. The model we have of particles being something like a "chunk of stuff" is wrong--or at least what we're taking to be single particles isn't actually a single particle. — Terrapin Station
I would say that a non-realist account would revolve around the assertion that there are actually no particles as such, and that what manifests as 'particles' are not actually particles. Realism wants to believe that there are particles which exist whether or not the measurement is taken; this is what is thrown into doubt by the double-slit experiment, which is the godfather of all quantum weirdness. — Wayfarer
The Bohm model simplifies everything. — Rich
We can also have an option that's realist but that admits ignorance: Namely, particles are something real, but we don't really know their nature very well. The model we have of particles being something like a "chunk of stuff" is wrong--or at least what we're taking to be single particles isn't actually a single particle. — Terrapin Station
A realist account need not require that particles are fundamental entities.
....
But, whether fundamental or emergent, the particles are real and behave in a consistent way independent of observation. — Andrew M
The transcendental realist therefore represents outer appearances (if their reality is conceded) as things in themselves, which would exist independently of us and our sensibility and thus would also be outside us according to pure concepts of the understanding. (CPR, A369)
particles are something real, but we don't really know their nature very well. — Terrapin Station
When I was a young physics student I once asked a professor: ‘What’s an electron?’ His answer stunned me. ‘An electron,’ he said, ‘is that to which we attribute the properties of the electron.’
A realist account need not require that particles are fundamental entities. A particle can be an emergent feature of an underlying field. — Andrew M
I think those two points are in conflict. If the particle is said to be 'real and to behave in a consistent way independent of observation', then it's said to be 'a fundamental entity'. — Wayfarer
A field is a mathematical construct. So what type of realism are you talking about, Platonic realism? — Metaphysician Undercover
They are nonetheless real and exist independently of observation and measurement (per realism, anyway). — Andrew M
The concept of the atom had proved exceptionally fruitful in the explanation of chemical bonding and the physical behavior of gases. It was found, however, that the particles called 'atoms' by the chemist were composed of still smaller units. But these smaller units, the electrons, followed by the atomic nuclei and finally the elementary particles, protons and neutrons, also still seemed to be atoms from the standpoint of the materialist philosophy. The fact that, at least indirectly, one can actually see a single elementary particle—in a cloud chamber, say, or a bubble chamber—supports the view that the smallest units of matter are real physical objects, existing in the same sense that stones or flowers do.
But the inherent difficulties of the materialist theory of the atom, which had become apparent even in the ancient discussions about smallest particles, have also appeared very clearly in the development of physics during the present century.
This difficulty relates to the question whether the smallest units are ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as stones or flowers [or tables, trees or tigers]. Here, the development of quantum theory some forty years ago has created a complete change in the situation. The mathematically formulated laws of quantum theory show clearly that our ordinary intuitive concepts cannot be unambiguously applied to the smallest particles. All the words or concepts we use to describe ordinary physical objects, such as position, velocity, color, size, and so on, become indefinite and problematic if we try to use then of elementary particles. I cannot enter here into the details of this problem, which has been discussed so frequently in recent years. But it is important to realize that, while the behavior of the smallest particles cannot be unambiguously described in ordinary language, the language of mathematics is still adequate for a clear-cut account of what is going on. — Werner Heisenberg
I would say the same of the Everett model except more so. As I see it, the Bohm model modifies the quantum picture and tries to provide a picture that conforms more with a classical view (using non-local hidden variables). Whereas the Everettian view interprets quantum mechanics on its own terms without needing to modify the equations, introduce non-locality or posit a quantum potential field. — Andrew M
The Debate between Plato and Democritus. Emphasis added. — Wayfarer
. It's a way of describing physical phenomena, just as we might describe a car wheel as a circle. — Andrew M
A "field" is not attributed to anything. It is not the property of anything, nor is it itself a thing. — Metaphysician Undercover
For me, it's just wild and I never seriously considered it, especially since the Bohm model is so tight and was the model that encouraged Bell to develop his theorem on non-locality that has been repeatedly verified in experiments at the macro and micro level. (Bell himself was an advocate for the Bohm model). — Rich
The "field" functions as a mathematical equation which is applied to the described phenomena. — Metaphysician Undercover
What Bell proved was that hidden variables and locality were incompatible. The Bohm model accepts hidden variables and rejects locality. Whereas the Everett model accepts locality and rejects hidden variables. Which makes it a more natural fit with Einstein's special theory of relativity. — Andrew M
The mathematically formulated laws of quantum theory show clearly that our ordinary intuitive concepts cannot be unambiguously applied to the smallest particles. — Werner Heisenberg
But it is important to realize that, while the behavior of the smallest particles cannot be unambiguously described in ordinary language, the language of mathematics is still adequate for a clear-cut account of what is going on. — Werner Heisenberg
Yes, but not-locality has been experimentally observed which is why Bell preferred Bohm's model. Plus it gets around the awkwardness of a never-ending multitudes of universes interacting with each other in a presumably super-non-local manner. — Rich
— Rich
Non-locality hasn't been experimentally observed. That is an interpretational claim. The Everett model explains EPR-style experiments in a local manner. — Andrew M
Let's put it this way, the experiments that have been designed to test noon-locality gave confirmed non-locality, in the same manner any scientific experiment is interpreted. — Rich
Are there equations for inter-universe frame of references? — Rich
What the experiments have tested for and confirmed is that the measurements of two entangled particles separated by large distances conform to the predictions of quantum mechanics. That is, if Alice measures spin-up then Bob measures spin-down regardless of the distance separating them. The Copenhagen, Bohm and Everett interpretations all agree about the results of the experiment. What they don't agree on is whether they entail non-locality (action at a distance). — Andrew M
It's really one universe with quantum states in superposition as described by the wave function. The relativistic wave equation is the Dirac equation. — Andrew M
When we say that a car wheel is circular, we are describing the car wheel in mathematical terms. — Andrew M
Ok. It's 'many-worlds" or never-ending branches (multi-verses?) that are interacting with each other (manifestation in one world creates another) non-locally totally entangled (one depended he upon the outcome of the other?). Now, how does Einstein's theory apply to all of these branches whatever they may be? — Rich
The wheel is what is circular, it is described by "circular", so the wheel is what we claim to be real. Now what is it which is described by the "field"? What is the real thing which "field" is attributed to, as the property of? — Metaphysician Undercover
Entangled particle pairs do not act or communicate at a distance, their measurement correlation is instead an artifact of being in the same relative quantum state (or branch). The quantum states are all there evolving according to quantum and relativistic laws (e.g., the Dirac equation). However we observe just the relative quantum state (or branch) we are entangled with. — Andrew M
Ok. A violation of Bell's Inequalities which is designed to test .....?? — Rich
How does that obviate the apparent fact of 'action at a distance'? If the measurement of this particle here, fixes the spin of that particle over there, isn't that still 'action at a distance'? — Wayfarer
If 2 is false (as is asserted by the Everett model), then the violation of Bell's inequalities do not demonstrate non-locality. — Andrew M
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.