ID/Creationism challenge

[W.D.Clinger]

May not be as clear. Basically, it's not already in some state before we can measure it. It's not an independent physical reality. It exists as a probability for one thing or another. It shows a violation of local realism.

Once again, randman distorts QM.

In quantum mechanics, the state corresponds to a vector in some Hilbert space, and that state evolves over time whether we measure it or not. At some instant of time, the state may be a pure state with respect to some observable, or it may be a mixed state (also known as a superposition). Whether the state is pure or mixed depends upon the observable, which itself corresponds to some particular linear operator on the Hilbert space. A state may be pure with respect to one observable while being mixed with respect to another observable.

The state is not "a" probability, as randman would have it. The state expresses all of the probabilities for all of the outcomes that are possible for all of the observables on that particular Hilbert space. The state also expresses phase, which doesn't affect the probabilities but does participate in the description of the state's evolution over time.

Furthermore, none of the above has much to do with "locality". Locality needn't come into the discussion until we talk about entanglement, separability, measurement, or related matters.

Most importantly for this thread, none of the above has anything to do with Intelligent Design or Creationism.

 

[randman]

Once again, randman distorts QM.

In quantum mechanics, the state corresponds to a vector in some Hilbert space, and that state evolves over time whether we measure it or not. At some instant of time, the state may be a pure state with respect to some observable, or it may be a mixed state (also known as a superposition). Whether the state is pure or mixed depends upon the observable, which itself corresponds to some particular linear operator on the Hilbert space. A state may be pure with respect to one observable while being mixed with respect to another observable.

The state is not "a" probability, as randman would have it. The state expresses all of the probabilities for all of the outcomes that are possible for all of the observables on that particular Hilbert space. The state also expresses phase, which doesn't affect the probabilities but does participate in the description of the state's evolution over time.

Furthermore, none of the above has much to do with "locality". Locality needn't come into the discussion until we talk about entanglement, separability, measurement, or related matters.

Most importantly for this thread, none of the above has anything to do with Intelligent Design or Creationism.

You are just wrong, WD. Though this is from a popular, wide-ranging article, the quote below is from a quantum physicist and addresses the misconceptions in your post in one sentence.

"Most physicists are very naive; most still believe in real waves or particles."

Anton Zeilinger

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html

Zeilinger along with 2 others shares a the Wolf Prize (just showing you he's not some fringe dude).

The 2010 Wolf Prize in Physics has been awarded to Alain Aspect, John Clauser and Anton Zeilinger "for their fundamental conceptual and experimental contributions to the foundations of quantum physics, specifically an increasingly sophisticated series of tests of Bell’s inequalities, or extensions thereof, using entangled quantum states".

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41633

One of his numerous published papers though from a few years back that some might find interesting.

As peculiar as quantum measurement is known to be, its strangeness is even greater when one tries to deter- mine not merely the state of a system, but its entire history. Past events are supposed to be unchangeable, and as such the most essential aspect of reality. And yet, when a quantum measurement traces a certain history, it seems to take an active part in the very formation of that history.
.....

But what does “affecting the past” teach us about the nature of time? This question involves a deeper un- resolved issue, that of time’s apparent “passage.” Ad- herents of the “Block Universe” model [14], argue that time’s passage is only an illusion. Consequently, all quan- tum mechanical experiments that seem to involve a last minute decision involve no free choice at all. For exam- ple, in the EPR, the experimenter’s last-moment deci- sion which spin direction to measure, or, in the “delayed choice” experiment, the last-moment decision whether to insert the BS or not, are “already” determined in the four-dimensional spacetime. Within this framework, RPE is just as possible as EPR.
The second alternative is that time has an objective “flow” [15]. Then, the retroactive entangling effect would occur in some higher time once the “Now” has reached the entangling event.
Both views lie at present outside scientific investigation as both can be neither proved nor disproved. [17] Hence, a third and a much easier answer to the problem would be dismissing the entire issue by avoiding any reference to objective reality altogether, as in the Copenhagen In- terpretation.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0205182v1

He's done a lot of work since then. I would be curious to know if he still thinks abandoning objective reality is sufficient to preserve causality, and that this cannot be fully tested. A later paper states that locality and causality are likely to both be abandoned but at a minimum locality is. But just thought this might be a little bit of an intro to some ideas for some here.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You are just wrong, WD.

As usual, randman provides no evidence for his assertions.

In place of evidence, randman cites authorities whose papers he does not understand and probably has not read.

If randman had understood the paper he cited below, he'd have noticed that its sections IV and V refer to the mixed pre-measurement states whose existence randman denied in post #301 of this thread and denied again by declaring my correction of his post to be wrong (in the evidence-free sentence quoted above).

Zeilinger along with 2 others shares a the Wolf Prize (just showing you he's not some fringe dude).

I know who Zeilinger is. Ten days ago, in post #3 of the QM thread in which you tried to teach sol invictus a thing or two about quantum mechanics, I wrote:

Anton Zeilinger has a new book out: Dance of the Photons: From Einstein to Quantum Teleportation. That book is aimed at a popular audience, and I suspect that this news release had something to do with the book's PR campaign.

Returning to randman's argument by misrepresented authority:

One of his numerous published papers though from a few years back that some might find interesting.

I'm going to quote the very last sentence of your excerpt from that paper, and then I'm going to quote the sentence that follows that excerpt, which you left out. When that tiny bit of context is restored, the quotation says rather the opposite of what you were trying to make it say:

Hence, a third and a much easier answer to the problem would be dismissing the entire issue by avoiding any reference to objective reality altogether, as in the Copenhagen In- terpretation.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0205182v1

You truncated your quotation there. Here is the sentence that follows the sentence above:

While two of us (AE and SD) tend to the second interpretation and one (AZ) favors the third, we prefer to conclude by pointing out that each side can rely on one of the two giants who have so hotly debated during the first Solvay conference.

In other words, the three co-authors of that paper do not agree on the metaphysical implications of their results, and that disagreement on the metaphysical level does not greatly bother Zeilinger or his co-authors.

You, however, have been promoting the Copenhagen interpretation as though it were the only viable interpretation of quantum mechanics. When called on that misrepresentation, you quoted a passage out of context. When read in context, that passage reveals the plurality of viable interpretations you have been at pains to deny.

That comes on top of your evident inability to understand the technical sections of the paper, which involve the states whose existence you have now denied on at least two occasions.

Once again, nothing in that paper has anything to do with Intelligent Design or Creationism.

 

[randman]

W.D., if you know who Zeilinger is and have heard of the Copenhagen interpretation and accepted it, you wouldn't speak of the wave function as a physical entity in the manner you do prior to the collapse. That's my point.

I noticed you echoed Sol's comments on the evolution of the wave function but you apparently did not understand what he was saying. He's advocating the Multiverse theory and you are free to do that and insist MWI is correct to you are blue in the face.

But you are wrong to suggest the Copenhagen interpretation which has led to real world technical development in Zeilinger's and other's work as saying something it does not. This is one reason I quoted him as saying it's naive to believe in "real particles." He's of course not saying the same particles he experiments with are not a phenomenon, but he is saying that you are wrong to think of them as physically existing things apart from and before the process that gives them discrete form. The wave function may well "evolve" but it's not part of "objective reality."

In other words, the three co-authors of that paper do not agree on the metaphysical implications of their results, and that disagreement on the metaphysical level does not greatly bother Zeilinger or his co-authors.

No, not at all. You just didn't pay attention to what the 3 options are, one of them being the elimination of time passage as a real concept in the first place.

In your limited world, despite all of these being based on physical observations and cited in a science journal, they are merely mystical or metaphysics in your mind. I submit that's because you believe the wrong thing about physical reality instead of accepting what science says about it.

If you were a primitive man in an undiscovered tribe and someone told you about air-planes, maybe you would likely say they were birds or that an air-plane is a metaphysical concept.

It's kind of ridiculous on your part because these observations are based on a of experimental confirmation of a theory and interpretation of that theory that predicted the results of these experiments over 80 years ago.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The usual disclaimer: None of randman's digressions about quantum mechanics provide any evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism.

W.D., if you know who Zeilinger is and have heard of the Copenhagen interpretation and accepted it, you wouldn't speak of the wave function as a physical entity in the manner you do prior to the collapse. That's my point.

Plenty of physicists

1. know who Zeilinger is, and
2. have heard of the Copenhagen interpretation, and
3. have accepted the Copenhagen interpretation, and
4. speak of the wave function as a description of physical reality even prior to collapse.

Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen said as much in their famous EPR paper of 1935, when the original Copenhagen interpretations were near their peak of popularity:

In quantum mechanics it is usually assumed that the wave function does contain a complete description of the physical reality of the system in the state to which it corresponds.

EPR argued that the wave function is not complete. They did not try to argue that the wave function does not describe physical reality. That would be a tough argument to make even today, yet you, randman, are trying to make it.

Not that it matters, but I am not one of the physicists who accept a Copenhagen interpretation---partly because I am not a physicist, but partly because I see no good reason to accept a Copenhagen interpretation. After all, there are many possible metaphysical interpretations of quantum mechanics. I recognize some value in understanding various metaphysical interpretations of QM, just as I recognize the value of understanding various religions, but accepting some metaphysical interpretation of quantum mechanics is no more necessary than accepting the divinity of Thor.

I noticed you echoed Sol's comments on the evolution of the wave function but you apparently did not understand what he was saying. He's advocating the Multiverse theory and you are free to do that and insist MWI is correct to you are blue in the face.

I don't claim to understand everything sol invictus says, but I understood that he was talking about Everett's MWI and related interpretations, and I am quite sure I understood his comments better than you did. I too find many-world and modal interpretations more attractive than Copenhagen interpretations, but the remarks I wrote above about Copenhagen interpretations apply to the many-worlds interpretations as well.

But you are wrong to suggest the Copenhagen interpretation which has led to real world technical development in Zeilinger's and other's work as saying something it does not. This is one reason I quoted him as saying it's naive to believe in "real particles." He's of course not saying the same particles he experiments with are not a phenomenon, but he is saying that you are wrong to think of them as physically existing things apart from and before the process that gives them discrete form. The wave function may well "evolve" but it's not part of "objective reality."

I'm sorry, randman, but you have given me no reason to believe you are authorized to speak for Anton Zeilinger, while giving me several good reasons to think you do not understand his views. In particular, you have denied the quantum states that abound within the technical portions of Zeilinger's papers.

In your limited world, despite all of these being based on physical observations and cited in a science journal, they are merely mystical or metaphysics in your mind. I submit that's because you believe the wrong thing about physical reality instead of accepting what science says about it.

By writing that paragraph, you have once again demonstrated your compulsion to explain the thoughts of people you have never met.

You are wrong about me. It is therefore reasonable to consider the possibility that you are wrong about Anton Zeilinger.

It's kind of ridiculous on your part because these observations are based on a of experimental confirmation of a theory and interpretation of that theory that predicted the results of these experiments over 80 years ago.

The one proposition for which you have provided evidence in this and other threads is that your desire to sound knowledgeable vastly outstrips your knowledge.

 

[randman]

Plenty of physicists
know who Zeilinger is, and
have heard of the Copenhagen interpretation, and
have accepted the Copenhagen interpretation, and
speak of the wave function as a description of physical reality even prior to collapse.
Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen said as much in their famous EPR paper of 1935, when the original Copenhagen interpretations were near their peak of popularity:

So you go back to 1935 to lamely try to make a point about something you are in total ignorance of.

Not that it matters, but I am not one of the physicists who accept a Copenhagen interpretation---partly because I am not a physicist, but partly because I see no good reason to accept a Copenhagen interpretation.

Exactly, you don't accept what Zeilinger says in the first place, and I suspect you don't even understand it. That's why you keep saying what many-world theorists suggest and claim those things are what Zeilinger and the more dominant Copenhagen interpretation are saying.

Well, guess what? They are not saying what MWIers say. You have it totally wrong. Argue MWI if you want but quit saying Zeilinger and others are agreeing with you because they absolutely are not.

I recognize some value in understanding various metaphysical interpretations of QM, just as I recognize the value of understanding various religions, but accepting some metaphysical interpretation of quantum mechanics is no more necessary than accepting the divinity of Thor.

In other words, you consider quantum mechanics to be pseudo-science and the development of quantum computers to be akin to worshipping Thor. The fact is Zeilinger is not writing papers on metaphysics. He's writing on hard physics and using theory to actually advance applied technology. What you call metaphysics then is mainstream quantum mechanics developing applied technology.

 

[randman]

Let me put it this way. You admit the Copenhagen interpretation ( I say the simple observation) of quantum mechanics is metaphysical. On the other hand, you insist it contains no metaphysical claims.

So which is it?

I will admit if you define metaphysical as indicating particles are as Zeilinger said not "real particles" but exist outside space time in their fundamental state that it is metaphysical. I will not go along with the suggestion this idea is not based on hard, experimental science; science from over 80 years ago that has been validated by experiments, and that has specific applied functions in technology.

The theory has been developed with remarkable consistency and advancing into applied technology.

So what is it the theory? is it metaphysical and demonstrates non-physical states or not?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I recognize some value in understanding various metaphysical interpretations of QM, just as I recognize the value of understanding various religions, but accepting some metaphysical interpretation of quantum mechanics is no more necessary than accepting the divinity of Thor.

In other words, you consider quantum mechanics to be pseudo-science and the development of quantum computers to be akin to worshipping Thor.

That's a typical example of your deductive powers, randman.

The fact is Zeilinger is not writing papers on metaphysics. He's writing on hard physics and using theory to actually advance applied technology.

That's true of his scientific papers. I haven't read anything he's written for a popular audience, but the buzz surrounding his new book has emphasized the metaphysics.

What you call metaphysics then is mainstream quantum mechanics developing applied technology.

That's false.

Most people don't have the technical background needed to understand the science of quantum mechanics. Some of them become obsessed with the metaphysics, because that's the only part they can pretend to discuss. That appears to be what's going on here.

As expected, randman has failed to provide any evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism.

 

[randman]

That's a typical example of your deductive powers, randman.


That's true of his scientific papers. I haven't read anything he's written for a popular audience, but the buzz surrounding his new book has emphasized the metaphysics.


That's false.

Most people don't have the technical background needed to understand the science of quantum mechanics. Some of them become obsessed with the metaphysics, because that's the only part they can pretend to discuss. That appears to be what's going on here.

As expected, randman has failed to provide any evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism.

Wrong. Most people may not be able to understand quantum mechanics very quickly, true. But it's based on theory with experiments and so one can understand basic QM without having a Phd in math or it's equivalent. Now, quantum field theory, that may be true. Maybe you do need 30 years of math to get a handle on.

The simple reality is you don't believe what people like Zeilinger say about what QM experiments show. You admitted it yourself. You go around saying he doesn't really mean what he clearly says and show your ignorance.

MWI is a theory to try to preserve locality and realism and other things. It's a fantastic scenario but the reason some consider it is because the other option is throwing out the basic understandings sometimes called the laws of physics, saying the universe is essentially physical.

Just look at entanglement. It is by definition a non-physical connection operating without regard to distance and time and yet causing real effect in the physical world, even defining it.

You cannot get around that. I don't see how MWI gets around it. I don't think it does but I don't know if I understand MWI all that well yet. Regardless, if entanglement is real and it certainly appears to be with hard experiments moving into applied technology, your concept of the physical universe is wrong. Simple is that.

 

[Wowbagger]

In summary: randman has to get physics completely wrong, in order to justify his theory about why evoution is completely wrong. Fascinating.

The only science more fundamental, now, is Math... Randman: Could you, perhaps, provide some math to back up your claims?

Everyone else: Please don't hate me.

 

[randman]

Randman: Could you, perhaps, provide some math to back up your claims?

Wowbagger, just because you believe in outdated 19th century physics does not mean it is a correct description of physical particles and so what constitutes physical reality.

Basic QM is backed up by experiments which are more definitive proof than math. Obviously, there are equations such as the Schroedinger equation and others like Zeilinger have written new, similar equations. You can download and read them if you want, but let me put it this way. Tomorrow morning if I go out and see the sun rise, I could write a mathematic equation about it, but it is not the primary evidence for the sunrise.

There are areas of physics where the math is considered so elegant as to be evidence, such as occurred with the advent of string theory, but basic QM is not like that. You can do the 2-slit experiment with no math at all, for example.

 

[Wowbagger]

Wowbagger, just because you believe in outdated 19th century physics does not mean it is a correct description of physical particles and so what constitutes physical reality.

What makes you think I believe in any "outdated physics"?

I happen accept the scientific findings of QM (which does not include any "Logos" entity). And, I happen to be a fan of M-Theory (which, at this point, is only theoretical).

You can do the 2-slit experiment with no math at all, for example.

At a very basic level you have to count the number of slits you cut, and the number of bands of light that show up.

But, more importantly, if you want to actually develop a theory: You have to account for how one number can be different from the other. What else are you supposed to use? English Literature?

 

[tsig]

Truly laughable. Hey, how is these are original thoughts when they are just what quantum physicists have been saying for decades, and more recent research vindicates?

The only original thought is to compare these findings with biblical concepts and even there. Zeilinger references the book of John in concluding remarks in one paper talking of information being central to matter as a very old idea.

So QT is the gospel of John in scientific terms?

 

[randman]

And, I happen to be a fan of M-Theory (which, at this point, is only theoretical).

Why? Is it based on prejudice? What advantage does the fantastic scenario of MWI have over the traditional Copenhagen view?
At a very basic level you have to count the number of slits you cut, and the number of bands of light that show up.

But, more importantly, if you want to actually develop a theory: You have to account for how one number can be different from the other.

I don't think you get the point. You can write an equation concerning throwing an obect through 2 holes in a wall that says the object must go through only one hole, and it would be true if you throw a ball.

If you are talking about a particle, that equation though true for one area, is not true for another. The particle goes through both holes unless you decide to determine which hole it went through, and then it jus goes through one. You can and people have described this mathematically but it's only a description based on first understanding the nature of quantum mechanics.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Wrong. Most people may not be able to understand quantum mechanics very quickly, true. But it's based on theory with experiments and so one can understand basic QM without having a Phd in math or it's equivalent.

Quantum mechanics is taught at the undergraduate level. Several of our physics majors who have taken or are taking QM asked me to direct a reading course on quantum computation this semester, so I'm well aware of the level at which QM can be taught to undergraduates. That level is far more advanced than the level of your discussion in this thread.

The simple reality is you don't believe what people like Zeilinger say about what QM experiments show. You admitted it yourself. You go around saying he doesn't really mean what he clearly says and show your ignorance.

No, randman, you go around misrepresenting others' positions while pretending to speak for scientists whose technical papers you cannot read.

You cannot get around that. I don't see how MWI gets around it. I don't think it does but I don't know if I understand MWI all that well yet.

Not knowing that you don't understand makes things hard to learn.

Regardless, if entanglement is real and it certainly appears to be with hard experiments moving into applied technology, your concept of the physical universe is wrong. Simple is that.

randman, you have no clue concerning my concept of the physical universe. As much as you would like to pretend you know me better than I do, you don't.

The one thing you have demonstrated in this and other threads is your compulsion to pretend to knowledge you do not possess.

 

[Wowbagger]

Why? Is it based on prejudice? What advantage does the fantastic scenario of MWI have over the traditional Copenhagen view?

First of all, I wish to stress that MWI and M-Theory are theoretical. I accept that they are not empirical sciences, at least not yet, and therefore might not be as reliable as conventional QM for getting real things done.

But, at least M-Theory has a lot of math that works out very well with experimental findings. And, M-Theory even suggests some experiments we could do, in principle, to find empirical evidence of other Universes - though, we can't actually do them, yet.

(See pages 94 and 95 in the book The Hidden Reality, by Brian Greene, for a good chart summarizing ideas for experiments that can confirm parts of the theory. See also page 333, footnote #14, for some results that could disprove parts of the theory, if we were to find them. (Page numbers are from first U.S. printing, and could vary in subsequent printings.))

You have no math. You have no experimental procedure by which we can actually find empirical evidence for your "Logos" entity: It is a scientific dead end. Worse still, your ideas only "make sense" if you totally confabulate several basic aspects of QM, and the scientific method in general.

I don't think you get the point.

If you don't use math to help understand the slit experiment, what are you supposed to use? I should hope something better than pure intuition.

 

[randman]

But, at least M-Theory has a lot of math that works out very well with experimental findings. And, M-Theory even suggests some experiments we could do, in principle, to find empirical evidence of other Universes - though, we can't actually do them, yet

Ok, there are some elegant math equations but just the beginning of trying to come up with experiments to show it.

You have no math. You have no experimental procedure by which we can actually find empirical evidence for your "Logos" entity:

Not true at all but tired of trying to explain it you.

Let's go to something more simple. You read Greene's book? Didn't Greene talk about problems with MWI? Of course, he's written other books as well.

Back to my question though, exactly why besides the math do you like MWI? The math works for Copenhagen just as well. String theory seems more inspired and based on math but MWI is based on trying to overcome the apparent violation of classical laws of physics.

 

[Slimething]

No, you just have no concept what QM is. Everything physical consists of particles; hence every single point and moment.

Wow. I have a degree in chemistry, boyo. I studied QM. Took exams in it and so on. Did the math.

Until you possess like training, we'll just shelve you up here with the stuffed jackelopes.

Our conversation is over. You keep deleting the stuff in my posts you don't want to address. Troll activity at its best. Good luck with your "quest". I really don't think it's as interesting as you do but you have my well wishes. Otherwise, you're just another big bore.

 

[Wowbagger]

Ok, there are some elegant math equations but just the beginning of trying to come up with experiments to show it.

Which is better than your position: One that can not develop experiments that show us the actual "Logos", not even in principle.

Back to my question though, exactly why besides the math do you like MWI? The math works for Copenhagen just as well. String theory seems more inspired and based on math but MWI is based on trying to overcome the apparent violation of classical laws of physics.

I don't have any problem with the Copenhagen interpretation, in general. M-Theory does not contradict the findings of the Copenhagen interpretation, near as I can tell.

What String Theory/M-Theory adds is a possible manner in which to unify gravity with QM. Copenhagen, alone, can not seem to do that.

The whole Multiple-Worlds thing is just one theoretical result of work in the field of unifying physics. It's not really the basis of any of these theories: Only one of its (possible) consequences.

 

[BadBoy]

Truly laughable. Hey, how is these are original thoughts when they are just what quantum physicists have been saying for decades, and more recent research vindicates?

The only original thought is to compare these findings with biblical concepts and even there. Zeilinger references the book of John in concluding remarks in one paper talking of information being central to matter as a very old idea.

Keep trying to hammer that large square peg into the small round hole. Good luck.