News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Bell's Theorum.

Started by Solitary, May 02, 2014, 12:27:10 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

josephpalazzo

It's no wonder that philosophy has become a dead subject: a bunch of self-proclaimed philosophers, who are non-physicists and have never done calculations in deriving certain concepts from some basic assumptions,  are clueless about how physics works, yet arguing about the interpretations of these derivations.

josephpalazzo



Quote“One reason why it’s confusing is because there is sort of two levels of waviness. Alright?

“So, if the world were really made out of particles, but quantum mechanics were true, there would still be a certain waviness about the world because quantum mechanics says that even if there are particles, the way you describe those particles is through a wave function; through a field that fills space and tells you what the probability is of observing that particle. So the world is made of particles, but the observations of the particles are governed by the rules of quantum mechanics, which involves some wave.

“But the quantum field theory philosophy says that there is not even a particle. What you start with is a field - something that looks waving, something that fills all of space, like the electromagnetic field or the gravitational field - then you apply the rules of quantum mechanics to that, and miraculously what comes out when we look at it are particles.

“So quantum mechanics says that what you see when you observe the universe comes to us - in very frequent circumstances - in discrete packets, discrete lumps. Even if the underlying reality is smooth, we see it in individual discrete bits, and it’s the particles that make up you and me that are the discrete bits we see when we look at fields.

“Fields vibrating and interacting with each other is just the most poetic language that I can think of. The math is perfectly straight forward. You’re young enough to study the math. Go for it.”

-- Sean Carroll

stromboli

Outstanding video. Berati deserves 100 internets for this. If I can understand it, anyone should be able to. And i survived with only a nosebleed.  :biggrin:

stromboli

Can't wait to see Casparov's reply to this one. I'm thinking about 8 pages of indecipherable garble. Waiting on pins and needles here.

Berati

#49
Quote from: stromboli on May 06, 2014, 10:02:23 AM
OK Berati. Simply because of my great respect for your posting I will sit through an hour of explanations about materialism. The combined weight of philosophy and science and (shudder) math will probably make my head explode. But I'm doing this for the cause. Remember me fondly.

Oh, I wouldn't recommend it. It's pretty boring and I posted it to drive Ghosthead crazy as he obsessively tries to deconstruct it to support the conclusion he had already arrived at.
The end result with QM is that it is currently subject to interpretations and there are quite a few.
The major point in all these videos as that there are NO HUMAN OBSERVERS. Because the particles are so small they cannot be observed by us directly, they are all detected by machinery that we then read. The waveform collapse occurs whether we look at the machines results or just leave the machines on.

As per Werner Heisenburg
"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being"
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Jason78

Quote from: Berati on May 06, 2014, 01:12:11 PM
Oh, I wouldn't recommend it.

2 Hours!  2 sodding hours of dry documentaries about quantum fucking physics! :(

I sat through all of that :(
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

Berati

Quote from: Jason78 on May 06, 2014, 01:14:59 PM
2 Hours!  2 sodding hours of dry documentaries about quantum fucking physics! :(

I sat through all of that :(

LOL, Sorry dude.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Casparov

Quote from: stromboli on May 06, 2014, 05:53:04 AM
The point being how can YOU call her a liar? If she disagrees with others who publish different results and can back her results, what does that say? Ever heard of the parable of the blind men and the elephant? This is similar to what you are doing. You can disagree with one set of theorems and agree with another, but that DOES NOT MAKE YOUR CASE. You are arguing one set of beliefs against another, nothing more.

No silly, I'm presenting to you the results of a peer reviewed experiment that contradict some youtube video with absolutely no sources to back it up.

The sourceless youtube video claims: "when the experiment is done, both cases lead to no interference."

The peer reviewed scientific paper states:  "To be sure the interference pattern disappears when the which-path information is obtained. But it reappears when we erase the which-path information." http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047v1.pdf

She gives commentary about the Quantum Eraser Experiment and claims that both cases lead to no interference, but the original paper of the Quantum Eraser Experiment states that one case leads to no interference, and the other case lead to the reappearance of the interference. This is not one set of beliefs versus another, this is EVIDENCE verses sourceless commentary!

If you are willing to outright reject the conclusions of peer reviewed scientific experiment this is absolutely ridiculous. If you are willing to outright reject the ACTUAL EXPERIMENT and the ORIGINAL PAPER which describes it, what are we doing???? This is absolutely amazing. My mind is blown at the extent you guys go to deny the science. I thought science was what Atheists were all about???

When the original paper states outright that the detector does it's "measurement" and when a conscious observer obtained the which-path information they get no interference and when they erase it the interference reappears, what the hell is there to argue about? What is your argument? This is pretty damn straight forward.

Obviously if the measuring device itself could be considered an "observer" it would not matter if the information was erased or not after it performed the measurement, because the measurement itself would cause the collapse every time and in both cases they would get no interference pattern like the australian girl said. But that's not the conclusion of the experiment! "To be sure the interference pattern disappears when the which-path information is obtained. But it reappears when we erase the which-path information." - A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser by Yoon-Ho Kim and Marlan O. Scully

You are not arguing against just me, you arguing against SCIENCE in order to preserve your beliefs about the world! If you are going to reject peer reviewed hard scientific evidence there is no use talking to you. You do not even address the evidence, you revert instantly to apologetics and arguments from ignorance and complexity, logical fallacies to refute hard evidence. There is no difference between arguing with you and arguing with fundamentalist creationists. In both cases you cherish belief over evidence.
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures whoâ€"in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"â€"cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Casparov

Quote from: Icarus on May 06, 2014, 08:18:30 AM
If this is really the case any paper or citation you've provided is now invalid regarding your argument because your citations rely on experiments bound by the measurable and quantifiable universe. You're saying this is not how we should be looking at what is real, so any experiment or paper you provide can be dismissed. You can really only attack this argument as a purely philosophical experiment designed to make you feel smart without having to actually come to a conclusion. Bravo, do you feel special? You should, your entire purpose on this forum is so you can make yourself feel special. Here's a lollipop.

Science is a method of asking questions, not a set of reality assumptions. Scientists are entitled to ask if what could be actually is so. The only constraint is that the question be decided by feedback gathered from the world by an accepted research method. Science does not require an objective world, only information to test theories against, which a Virtual Reality can easily provide. Not only can science accommodate the virtual world concept, a virtual world could also sustain science.
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures whoâ€"in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"â€"cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Casparov

Quote from: Berati on May 06, 2014, 01:12:11 PM
The major point in all these videos as that there are NO HUMAN OBSERVERS. Because the particles are so small they cannot be observed by us directly, they are all detected by machinery that we then read. The waveform collapse occurs whether we look at the machines results or just leave the machines on.

You wrote, "they are all detected by machinery that we read." Exactly! And the Quantum Eraser experiments prove that if the machinery detects and then erases so that "we do not read" then we get an interference pattern just as if no measurement ever took place! This is the whole point of the Quantum Eraser Experiment!

You then say "the waveform collapse occurs whether we look at the machines results or just leave the machines on." Sources please? I've read the results of every main Quantum Eraser Experiment that has ever been conducted and published in a peer reviewed journal and not one agrees with you. "To be sure the interference pattern disappears when the which-path information is obtained. But it reappears when we erase the which-path information." - A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser by Yoon-Ho Kim and Marlan O. Scully http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047v1.pdf

The only instance I can think of that is similar to what you are describing is if the measuring device measures and records the which-path information but does not erase it, it actually saves the information so that it is available and able to be accessed by a "conscious observer" at any time. If the which-path information is saved and available to be accessed, even if no one "reads" it, we still get no interference just as if we had. When the which-path information is accessible to us in any way, the wave function collapses, when it is erased and made entirely unavailable, the interference patter reappears.

The important thing to note is that the measuring device measuring is not the cause of collapse alone, otherwise they would get no interference pattern no matter if they erased the which-path information or not because the measurement from the device alone would cause the collapse every single time. Instead they see that if the which-path information is erased the interference pattern reappears. It is only when a conscious observer has access to the which-path information that they get no interference pattern.

QuoteAs per Werner Heisenburg
"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being"

Werner Heisenberg died in 1976 and the first Quantum Eraser Experiment (which disproves this quote) was not successfully completed until 1999. Up until then, his statements were in line with all experimental evidence. But now that we have the results of Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiments, we know that this quote is incorrect. An apparatus that does not relay it's recorded information to any human being does not cause the collapse just by the act of measuring alone. The collapse only takes place when that apparatus relays it's recorded information to a human being.

If you disagree, show me evidence. Sources please.

Now I have a long video to watch....
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures whoâ€"in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"â€"cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Shol'va

Casparov, since I'm moderating the debate between you and Mr Obvious, I've voluntarily barred myself from interacting with you outside of that. However I am breaking that, at least for the moment, to point out that you are misinterpreting the data, and this only goes to show why laymen (in regards to QM anyway) like you and I are bound to make mistakes when reading into experiments done in not only fields that we have no expertise in, but also fields that are very complex.

I have a very simple question for you. If the whole point of the quantum eraser experiment is, as you say, prove that if the machinery detects and then erases so that "we do not read" then we get an interference pattern just as if no measurement ever took place, then how can this quantum erasure technology actually increase the resolution of advanced microscopes?
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.110.2955&rep=rep1&type=pdf

I quote
"The quantum eraser effect of Scully and Drühl dramatically underscores the difference between our classical conceptions of time and how quantum processes can unfold in time. Such eyebrow-raising features of time in quantum mechanics have been labeled ‘‘the fallacy of delayed choice and quantum eraser’’ on the one hand and described ‘‘as one of the most intriguing effects in quantum mechanics’’ on
the other. In the present paper, we discuss how the availability or erasure of information generated in the past can affect how we interpret data in the present.
The quantum eraser concept has been studied and extended in many different experiments and scenarios, for example, the entanglement quantum eraser, the kaon quantum eraser, and the use of quantum eraser entanglement to improve microscopic resolution"

The issue here is whether or not you genuinely have a good grasp of what is being discussed.
What is both bewildering and alarming is your hostility in the face of contradicting data.
If you are genuinely in search to better yourself and your own understanding as well as your own world view, then introspection is in order.

josephpalazzo

Casparov and introspection are oxymoron.

Casparov

#57
Quote from: Solitary on May 06, 2014, 03:15:22 PM
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So said Albert Einstein, and his famous aphorism has been the source of endless debate between believers and non-believers wanting to claim the greatest scientist of the 20th century as their own.

A little known letter written by him, however, may help to settle the argument - or at least provoke further controversy about his views.

Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish superstitions".
Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.
In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Casparov, you may be the most disingenuous person we have ever had at this forum. Your quote is from many religious organization that want to give support for their dogma by using a scientific genius's supposed quote while giving science a back hand compliment, with no certification.  Einstein was not a religious person in the normal use of the word, he used the word God as a metaphor for the fact that the world can be understood, not for an actual God, or god. It's like saying spirit of the times, not talking about a real spirit.  Solitary

I'm not religious either silly. I agree with Einstein that organized religion is a poison upon the earth. I agree that religious belief is nothing more that "childish superstitions". Who you tellin'? Who do you think you are talking to? A fundy Xtian??

I also agree with Einstein that Atheists are so concerned and butt-hurt about religion that all they can think about and focus on is the incorrectness of the religion that was forced upon them so much so that they are blind to anything else. It consumes their intellectual capacity to the point that they don't even realize that they cling to beliefs just as religiously as any organized religion does. (Realism and Materialism)

Quote"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the Professional Atheist whose ferver is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." - Albert Einstein (as quoted in Einstein: His Life and Universe)

Keep on beating up on that straw man of yours though. You are doing good.
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures whoâ€"in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"â€"cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Shol'va

Actually,
Quote from: Casparov on May 06, 2014, 03:30:48 PM
I also agree with Einstein that Atheists are [...]
Here is a good example of how you tend to read into what was actually said.
Einstein never talked about atheists as a whole. He only spoke to fanaticism, and likewise called out the fanatical atheists, not atheism in general.

stromboli

The point of you being here is to prove the existence of god. Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

the proof has to be something that can in no wise be refuted to be accepted. Anything that can be debated against and shown as not infallible or by other evidence called in to question, is not proof.

Anything that shows an outcome that is not agreed upon or shown as universally accepted is not proof.

Anything not shown as valid through a rigorous system of scrutiny and agreed upon by the majority is not proof, or if any argument calls into question the validity of the outcome, it is not proof.

Until any theory or the data derived therefrom passes the rigorous test of scientific method and review, it is HYPOTHETICAL.
Hypothesis is not proof.

God is supernatural. Supernature assumes an existence outside of human knowledge and therefore not quantifiable in human terms. A god that creates a universe has to first exist. For that god to then exist inside a universe is a dichotomy, and also not explainable or comprehendible in human terms.

Any "proof" that seeks to quantify a (by definition) nonquantifiable god has to be subject to knowable, quantifiable scrutiny; i.e. science. This in itself renders any attempt to quantify a god moot, because by quantifying anything in human terms and labeling it as such, it is no longer supernatural and is no longer can be viewed as such.

Any paradigm (model) constructed that can by scientific method postulate or hypothesize a universe that does not need a god to create it, has to be taken into account, because to prove that a god can create a universe, you also have to prove that no other method or model is possible.

You have not provided insurmountable evidence.
You have not given irrefutable proof that subsumes all other arguments.
You have not proven that a universe cannot come into existence without the requirement of a supernatural deity.

You also have not provided any new evidence that has not been previously seen and used and called into question by other peple.

No one has successfully proven the existence of god. You can't and you won't.