The Fundamental Nature of Reality

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

There can’t be a formula for calculating them both at the same time because a particle literally doesn’t have a fixed position and momentum. That’s the problem.[/quote]

Yes of course that’s the problem now. I know it hasn’t been done, not so sure it cannot. It cannot be done with the tools we have currently, but we may only have a hammer where we may need a wrench.[/quote]

This is just a quote from Wikipedia on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:

“…the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.”

And that fundamental property is the more accurately we can determine one value of a “complimentary variable” the less precisely the other can be known. Now that in itself is profoundly weird and counterintuitive but it gets even more weird with the Copenhagen Interpretation which states that actually knowing something about a particle changes it, even instantaneously at arbitrarily long distances(spooky action at a distance). It is not the effects of measurement that change the system, it’s knowing them that makes the change.

Now this last pasty is particularly interesting because it shatters the notion of an “indifferent universe”. How can the universe be “indifferent” to us when physical reality is contingent upon being observed by a sentient being? And I’m also very interested in a little known theory in relation to this of a “primordial observer” - ie, God. Things exist because God observes them. He is “creating” the universe and reality by “knowing” and “observing” it.

42

Just to clarify, Einstein famously asked Bohr, do you mean to tell me that the moon is not there when we are not looking at it? This is precisely what the Copenhagen Interpretation suggests. And an interesting solution to this would be, the moon is there when we’re not looking at it because it is being observed by the ultimate observer. Anyway, this is what I was talking about in this thread.

43

Matter exists but we cannot have any certainty about its quantum state because we must disturb the system to measure it.

44

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Matter exists but we cannot have any certainty about its quantum state because we must disturb the system to measure it.[/quote]

You are confusing the “Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle” with the “Observer Effect”. I’m not talking about the Observer Effect.

45

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I was hoping to get some feedback from a physicist on this but my understanding is the latest experiments indicate pilot wave theory is useful for calculating certain things but it’s not an accurate theory. But unfortunately it’s beyond my ken. I’m just going on a few things I’ve read but I am not in a position to say if what I’ve been reading is accurate nor if I’ve understood it completely. I’m also under the impression that the most recent experiments have given more credence to the Copenhagen Interpretation which is profoundly weird to say the least.[/quote]

Dr. Matt is a Theoretical Physicist. If he’s around you can ask him. I haven’t seen him in quite a while though. He moved to Finland and hasn’t been around much since.
He’s who I ask. He has helped me a lot.

The Copenhagen Interpretation is making a resurgence, but to what degree I don’t know. Recent experiments, such as:

are why.

This macro-version of the dual slit demonstrates something we cannot see in at the photon level. It shows a wave pattern in the medium on which the particle, in this case a drop of silicon oil travels on. Further, when put in conjunction with a dual slit barrier, it behaves exactly the same as the observed behavior demonstrated, by a photon or electron or proton, whatever particle they hurl at a dual slit barrier. Of course, we cannot see the wave pattern at the particle level. We can only see what position it’s in when we observe it.
This Bohmian mechanics /Copenhagen Interpretation /particle-wave duality, particularly after seeing the experiment does seem to be the best explanation at the time, though it was discarded for a long time. It makes way more sense than the currently popular Many Worlds Theory. At least for the time, we have evidence for the particle-wave duality where we don’t have any for the Many Worlds hypothesis.

However, if you see this experiment in action, it makes total sense. I will see if I can find a video of it. If this truly is an accurate interpretation, it may unlock the mystery of observation and the multiple states problem.

The problem for us lay people, is what I described, though. You have one group favoring say the Copenhagen Theory, another favoring Multi worlds, all of them qualified, all of them have their observation and calculations to back them up and the only determinant for who is currently right is the popularity of of one over another.

46

Yes the many worlds theory seems ridiculous to me. It completely goes against Occam’s Razor for one thing. But I’m not that impressed by Bohm’s Pilot Wave Theory either, but what would I know?

47

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

There can’t be a formula for calculating them both at the same time because a particle literally doesn’t have a fixed position and momentum. That’s the problem.[/quote]

Yes of course that’s the problem now. I know it hasn’t been done, not so sure it cannot. It cannot be done with the tools we have currently, but we may only have a hammer where we may need a wrench.[/quote]

This is just a quote from Wikipedia on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:

“…the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.”

And that fundamental property is the more accurately we can determine one value of a “complimentary variable” the less precisely the other can be known. Now that in itself is profoundly weird and counterintuitive but it gets even more weird with the Copenhagen Interpretation which states that actually knowing something about a particle changes it, even instantaneously at arbitrarily long distances(spooky action at a distance). It is not the effects of measurement that change the system, it’s knowing them that makes the change.

Now this last pasty is particularly interesting because it shatters the notion of an “indifferent universe”. How can the universe be “indifferent” to us when physical reality is contingent upon being observed by a sentient being? And I’m also very interested in a little known theory in relation to this of a “primordial observer” - ie, God. Things exist because God observes them. He is “creating” the universe and reality by “knowing” and “observing” it.

[/quote]

I know. I am just saying simply that this science is in it’s infancy. Saying we cannot do it and saying it cannot be done are two different things.

The implication of observation is something we would have to ask Dr. Matt about.

I found a video of the experiment. What we are able to see, is the relation to particles and waves. It’s a model of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Now of course, these oil droplets are riding on a medium, water. Perhaps it’s the same for photons or electrons or protons? I don’t know, but nobody does. But if it is, it would answer a lot of questions, including why observation seems to impact the outcome, it may not be, it may only seem that way because of how we observe it.

I don’t see non-locality as a problem. It’s only a problem for space-time. Logically, it works. If the state of x is dependent on the state of y, and y changes states, then x should also change states. It shouldn’t matter how far apart they are and it should be instantaneous. The nature of their dependency should be sufficient cause. That doesn’t explain their dependency, only that there is one.

If reality is dependent on an observer, in other words all things exist in all states until they are observed, you are right, it would take a grand observer to keep it in state. So if observation is required to keep things in a state, and things are in a state, then an observer is necessary.

48

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yes the many worlds theory seems ridiculous to me. It completely goes against Occam’s Razor for one thing. But I’m not that impressed by Bohm’s Pilot Wave Theory either, but what would I know?[/quote]

Check out this video, I forgot to post it…

49

Thanks I’ll have a look. And “riding on something” sounds very much like a revival of the concept of the “aether”.

50

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Matter exists but we cannot have any certainty about its quantum state because we must disturb the system to measure it.[/quote]

You are confusing the “Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle” with the “Observer Effect”. I’m not talking about the Observer Effect. [/quote]

I’m just commenting on “the fundamental nature of reality”. The material world is real and can be observed and objectively measured but 100% certainty cannot be guaranteed.

HUP makes no sense in any other context than observation. What can we be “uncertain” about if not for observation in the first place?

51

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yes the many worlds theory seems ridiculous to me. It completely goes against Occam’s Razor for one thing. But I’m not that impressed by Bohm’s Pilot Wave Theory either, but what would I know?[/quote]

Check out this video, I forgot to post it…

[/quote]

That’s pretty cool. If you look at the double slit experiment at the end, the droplets go through one or the other slits whereas the waves go through both replicating the “interference pattern”.

52

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Thanks I’ll have a look. And “riding on something” sounds very much like a revival of the concept of the “aether”.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories[/quote]

Yes it does. That was my claim, to be clear. The physicists haven’t said that. Though I have heard of postulations of a ‘fabric’ woven through the quantum world. Anyway, I this would be more fun if we can dispose of the rigor and theorize what this stuff all could mean.

53

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yes the many worlds theory seems ridiculous to me. It completely goes against Occam’s Razor for one thing. But I’m not that impressed by Bohm’s Pilot Wave Theory either, but what would I know?[/quote]

Well, yes. On the surface the many world’s theory sounds ridiculous, but consensus has many believing in it’s potentiality, albeit without a shred of evidence. Top scientists, Hawking, Krauss, Guth, Vilenkin, etc. all support the theory. Their models based on inflation theory indicate it’s possible. What’s not clear, is if it’s a finite or infinite multiverse. Finite would be more plausible. Infinite is what many believe. Of course, I believe many of them support the infinite version for theological reasons, not scientific.
I think it’s a highfalutin fad… It’s what the cool kids believe. Partially cause it’s the latest and greatest math and on the cutting edge.
Their theories about the mutliverse have a fatal flaw, though. It has to do with the ‘self’. In short, the ‘self’ cannot exist, in infinite numbers, independently unaware, all be conscious and yet be singularly ‘you’ all at the same time. Copies of you aren’t you. Plus there is the problem if infinity minus 1. There would also have to be infinite copies of this universe, as well as every other type of universe but the type cannot be finite, neither can be the copies of this and every other universe. Does not compute.
I don’t know. There seems to be an awful lot of problems with the multiverse. Yet a lot of top scientists believe in it. Many of those who believe in it though, are also top atheists. Further this theory is used to try and replace God in the cosmological argument by many atheists. So it’s hard to tell if the fuel for this theory is truly a scientific endeavor, or if it’s religiously motivated.

Also, I would like to circle around to discuss what ‘observe’ means with relation to the particle-wave theory. We tend to automatically assume ‘vision’, but that’s not the case. Your thoughts?

54

With the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle “observe” means “know”. People commonly misunderstand this and think that the uncertainty arises due to measuring instruments altering the states. But it actually means when one value is “known” the other is altered, instantaneously and across arbitrarily large distances.

In relation to the many worlds theory, you seem to be describing a philosophical concept called the “philosophical zombie”

And I didn’t know Hawking subscribed to the multiverse theory.

55

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
With the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle “observe” means “know”. People commonly misunderstand this and think that the uncertainty arises due to measuring instruments altering the states. But it actually means when one value is “known” the other is altered, instantaneously and across arbitrarily large distances.

In relation to the many worlds theory, you seem to be describing a philosophical concept called the “philosophical zombie”

And I didn’t know Hawking subscribed to the multiverse theory. [/quote]

My point is, is that observation is data that is being interpreted. You have data, you apply mathematical formulas which renders a result. That result is then interpreted and and extrapolated for meaning. The data doesn’t alone tell us much, the calculation tells us more and the interpretation gives us either the position or the motion. It doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but it does introduce points of failure. What I don’t know is if there is a better way of doing that. There’s not a 1:1 correlation between observation and interpreted result. The uncertainty principle works because it tells us, at least, a little something say about what a photon is doing. And as you said, there’s no real way to improve that. But I am wondering if there is another way to look at it. It may be by ways yet undiscovered, or ways we have and have not applied.
The problem with the whole quantum randomness thing, other than it’s widely misunderstood is that it also functions on certain assumptions. In other words, there is wiggle room here. Most models are mathematical models and their results are interpreted. Who’s to say they are being interpreted 100 percent correctly?
I really do look forward to a day when discoveries are made that can eliminate the many models out there and narrow the scope. I know the physicists are working hard and I hope they can move the science forward without bias. Just because a model works doesn’t mean it’s the right model.