Holes in Big Bang

[Singularitarian]

So i have been talking about the absolute sqaure of the wave function:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

Indeed, if it has anything to do with the collapse itself, then one would find obvious relations. Oh, look, the wiki page page has a related article on it... Damnations batman!

All the shorthand says is finding the probability of a particle in location x or /and a time. You cannot have that probability unless there is a deflation in the wave function. I know these things. I have studied them for a long time.

 

[Molinaro]

The point that you seem eager to ignore is that the equation as you wrote it is wrong. Trying to call it mathematical shorthand is just a cop out. That running theme in your posts is getting old. If you can't write an equation correctly you cannot at the same time claim that you are right.

We only have what you post here to go by, and when that's shown to be wrong could you not just once accept that you were wrong?

 

[Singularitarian]

The point that you seem eager to ignore is that the equation as you wrote it is wrong. Trying to call it mathematical shorthand is just a cop out. That running theme in your posts is getting old. If you can't write an equation correctly you cannot at the same time claim that you are right.

We only have what you post here to go by, and when that's shown to be wrong could you not just once accept that you were wrong?

Its not cop out at all, not within the context it was used in at the time.

I was going to post this:
,............................................

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for Rule 12

you can argue that it requires to be observer-dependant:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m26577k447513844/

''Abstract Probability distributions are seen to be observer dependent. The probability function

can be put into an observer-dependent form. This eliminates the acausal behavior of the collapse of the wave function.''

 

[Raze]

So i have been talking about the absolute sqaure of the wave function:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

Indeed, if it has anything to do with the collapse itself, then one would find obvious relations. Oh, look, the wiki page page has a related article on it... Damnations batman!

All the shorthand says is finding the probability of a particle in location x or /and a time. You cannot have that probability unless there is a deflation in the wave function. I know these things. I have studied them for a long time.

So does anyone who has had three semesters of university physics. What's your point?



The hard part is to actually work with the mathematics of a wave function, rather than to just state the very very basics. I mean, reciting that the square of the absolute value of a wave function is the probability density, and that the integral over some distance of the probability density gives the probability of a measurement of the particle's position giving a value within the interval require nothing but the reading of a wikipedia article.

Explaining the math requires a bit more. Actually solving partial differential equations or actually doing calculations with these things is what would impress me. Not reciting definitions that can be found on any generic internet article.


So again, what's your point?

 

[Singularitarian]

Read back, i'm not going over it again.

 

[Raze]

Read back, i'm not going over it again.

Maybe I'm confusing threads, but in this one were you saying that the people debating you didn't know anything about the wave function, etc?

 

[ben m]

When i said the collapse is defined by the square of the absolute wave function i am 100% correct.

We have a term for the square of the absolute wavefunction (not integrated) This term is the "probability density". It is not "the definition of collapse".

We have a term for the all-space integral of the absolute square; this word is "set to 1 by normalization".

We do not have a term for the time-integral (which you specified---remember?) of the all-space integral, because nobody does that.

Collapse onto a position eigenstate does, indeed, involve a drawing from the probability density that you stated (or rather, that you claim you were trying to state). Collapse onto a momentum eigenstate, or an energy eigenstate, or a squeezing eigenstate, or whatever, does not draw from |phi|^2---it's not somehow fundamental to collapse, it's one of many equally-interesting probability distributions sampled by QM.

Let me give an example. If I measure the energy level of an atom, I collapse its wavefunction onto an energy eigenstate. Have I drawn a probability from your |psi|^2? Do I know where the particle is?

 

[edd]

Excuse me.

Truth be told, i had people flouting their education to me. It was their general attitudes to me originally in which i retaliated. This feeble attempt you make is nothing but dillusional lies.

Truth be told?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4905836&postcount=10 - you are first to raise the matter of your qualifications. The previous poster said that they themselves had no qualifications - not something one would consider 'flaunting'.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4906231&postcount=50 - I suggest that it's not wise for you to flaunt your education to us
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4906336&postcount=55 - I clarify that I mean specifically that it's better all round if noone waves qualifications about as it's better to just look at the arguments
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4919883&postcount=182 - you finally invite us to flaunt our education:

It appears quite a few people here don't actually know the quantum laws of physics very well - what age are you, and what levels of degrees do you have in the mechanics of physics, i.e any crudentials you could boast and put me to shame about?

By the way, while skeptic and sceptic are the same word spelt differently, flout and flaunt are not.

 

[Singularitarian]

Truth be told?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4905836&postcount=10 - you are first to raise the matter of your qualifications. The previous poster said that they themselves had no qualifications - not something one would consider 'flaunting'.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4906231&postcount=50 - I suggest that it's not wise for you to flaunt your education to us
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4906336&postcount=55 - I clarify that I mean specifically that it's better all round if noone waves qualifications about as it's better to just look at the arguments
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4919883&postcount=182 - you finally invite us to flaunt our education:


By the way, while skeptic and sceptic are the same word spelt differently, flout and flaunt are not.

I never came here saying ''and here is my qualifications.''

Other people assisted me in that area.

 

[Singularitarian]

And the posts you have given mischaracterizes how those qoutes came into play.

By the way, i did once say i had a Diploma, but i can assure you, someone else already had the pleasure of tellling everyone this anyway.

 

[edd]

I thought this would be interesting to recite. I was just reading this article by Doctor Cramer

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw141.html

Incidentally I think the indicated position for the cold spot is about 180 degrees out in galactic latitude. The cold spot is on the bottom right - it's that blue/black region.

 

[Singularitarian]

We have a term for the square of the absolute wavefunction (not integrated) This term is the "probability density". It is not "the definition of collapse".

We have a term for the all-space integral of the absolute square; this word is "set to 1 by normalization".

We do not have a term for the time-integral (which you specified---remember?) of the all-space integral, because nobody does that.

Collapse onto a position eigenstate does, indeed, involve a drawing from the probability density that you stated (or rather, that you claim you were trying to state). Collapse onto a momentum eigenstate, or an energy eigenstate, or a squeezing eigenstate, or whatever, does not draw from |phi|^2---it's not somehow fundamental to collapse, it's one of many equally-interesting probability distributions sampled by QM.

Indeed, the

to find any state, even a collapse in the wave function, the equations use probability statistical analysis. The normalization is defined as the real ''thing'' which remains, not a smear of probability.

This has been dragging long enough. Back to topic.

 

[edd]

And the posts you have given mischaracterizes how those qoutes came into play.

I'll happily be corrected on that, I didn't reread threads entirely, just those parts I recalled of them.

 

[Singularitarian]

I'll happily be corrected on that, I didn't reread threads entirely, just those parts I recalled of them.

You might be interested to know, that when i first came here and posted a few essays, someone had given up my identity as being the same user on another forum called ''student forum'', which by the way had all the information about me, such as my education.

 

[edd]

You might be interested to know, that when i first came here and posted a few essays, someone had given up my identity as being the same user on another forum called ''student forum'', which by the way had all the information about me, such as my education.

Very well. As I said I don't think the discussions of qualifications are useful, although it seemed from what I'd read before that the above was rather backwards. If there were posts referencing things elsewhere I'd have missed them and can understand that it might have led where it has, in which case apologies.

 

[Singularitarian]

I agree, hence my earlier anger when i first came here, when people where saying i was ''arguing'' with physicists. This is how the debates above really came into play, and i was challenging exactly where these physicists where.

I too, do not like people who flaunt their knowledges.

 

[Gaspode]

Back on topic please. Discuss the subject of the thread, not each other.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[Michael Mozina]

Back on topic please. Discuss the subject of the thread, not each other.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

Will do.

 

[ben m]

Indeed, the

to find any state, even a collapse in the wave function, the equations use probability statistical analysis.

There are probabilities involved, but the specific probability you claim you to have been writing, |phi|^2, is specifically a position probability density. It us not "used to find any state", it's not used in all cases of "collapse", it's something narrowly specific to position measurements. I gave an example of a quantum measurement and collapse which has nothing to do with |phi|^2.

The normalization is defined as the real ''thing'' which remains, not a smear of probability.

I cannot parse this statement. The probability density is indeed normalized; the probability of the particle being *somewhere* is exactly 1. Therefore, the *sum* of the probability of being at each individual position is also 1. "probability of being at x" = |phi(x)|^2. "sum of probability at x for all values of x" = integral |phi(x)|^2 dx = 1. That's normalization.

This has been dragging long enough. Back to topic.

You brought it up. You're welcome to bump the old threads---the "relativity quiz" would be a good place to start IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Inflation - Dark Energy

Sol...

Unless you have some other references I'm going to stick to my statement that to my knowledge all inflation 'predictions' are actually "postdicted' from earlier observations. That certainly seems to be the case with both of the early papers you cited.

As it relates to the DE/EM issue, I'm still doing some background reading and I have not reached a final conclusions just yet. You may be interested in noting that this is one of 11 different papers on this topic written by these authors. It's unclear to me at the moment how many (if any) of these papers has actually been peer reviewed.

http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Jimenez_J/0/1/0/all/0/1