Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 3,796 - 3,807 of 6,170
Oh yes, nearly forgot to mention - this week's New Scientist has a very interesting interview with Marvin Minsky on AI and emotions (he's got a new book out apparently.)
Cool. I recently read some BBC news blurb on funding for more research on robots, learning and emotion (they will learn responses to sensory inpute that in some way correlates with emotions). The robot pics I saw look more like a Roomba than a porn star, so that looks promising to me. :-) Though, come to think of it, if my Roomba starts complaining that I don't appreciate him and I need to help out more, I don't know if I'd be so happy.
Excellent! I want one[quantum 'puter]
Great. How are you set for air conditioners? I hear those model run a bit hot.
I: Look, a wave!
P: No, it's a particle!
Except that I don't say it's a particle, I have repeatedly said it is a thing with both wave-like and particle-like properties, ie: a wavicle. But you do claim it's a wave, not a particle, and apply a classical model of wave diffraction that can't be made to consistently fit the observed results.
Again, you make all kinds of claims without relating them to the postulates of QM.
I totally accept the six postulates you have referenced. They are absolutely 100% relevant to the behaviour of the quantum, and the mechanics of quantum interaction. But they are not, I think, actually very relevant to its nature. This whole argument began, as I recall, because we started discussing (rather speculatively,) the behaviour of the quantum, without first ensuring that we agreed on its nature. And it doesn't look as if we're going to make much progress on what a quantum does until we can agree on what a quantum is. I think it wise to learn to walk in step, before we attempt to run a Schroedinger marathon!
What I would say is relevant to the nature of the quantum is the fundamental notion of wave-particle duality. If you don't accept that, then I'm far from surprised that you find thewhole industry consisting of finding the most bizarre possible interpretations of Quantum Mechanics [Message: 3745] an affront to common sense. In fact I still can't figure out how any interpretation could make sense without WPD.
If the probability that a coin will come up heads is 60%, this does not mean that we can expect it to come up 60% heads and 40% tails, whatever that might mean, on a single throw. It means that in the long run, it will come up heads 60% of the time.
Yes. Because the probability is not part of the coin, but merely governs its behaviour. That is my point precisely.
Likewise, if the probability that a scintillum will appear in a certain region is 60%, this doesn't mean that we will get only 60% of a scintillum there, it means that we will get a scintillum 60% of the time, in the long run.
Precisely. Because the probability affects the location of the scintilla, and not any degree of their 'apparition'.
And that's precisely the 'indivisible nature of the quantum' in this case - you either get a scintillum or you don't.
That appears to be a complete non sequitur. The location of impact on the detector can surely have no special relevance to the composition of the impacting object, be it wave, particle, wavicle, snark or boojum!
You have said yourself that psi is a continuous function. It may be defined by the wave-like properties of the quantum, but it cannot be bound up compositionally in the quantum. It is a comprehensive wave function, not merely the wave-like properties of a wavicle.
I have decided to learn more about quantum computing, and have ordered a book for this purpose.
If you want to read up on it while you're waiting for the book to arrive, you might find
http://www.quantiki.org/wiki/index.php/Basic_concepts_in_quantum_computation
worth a look (I'd be fascinated to know how you would explain the workings of an entirely wave-based quantum computer!
)
In fact the wholehttp://www.quantiki.org/wiki/ site is pretty good.
Posts 3,796 - 3,807 of 6,170
Cool. I recently read some BBC news blurb on funding for more research on robots, learning and emotion (they will learn responses to sensory inpute that in some way correlates with emotions). The robot pics I saw look more like a Roomba than a porn star, so that looks promising to me. :-) Though, come to think of it, if my Roomba starts complaining that I don't appreciate him and I need to help out more, I don't know if I'd be so happy.
Great. How are you set for air conditioners? I hear those model run a bit hot.
They would sell great here in my part of Canada, six months of winter gets on your nerves and the heating systems.
Psimagus:
Again, you make all kinds of claims without relating them to the postulates of QM.
If the probability that a coin will come up heads is 60%, this does not mean that we can expect it to come up 60% heads and 40% tails, whatever that might mean, on a single throw. It means that in the long run, it will come up heads 60% of the time.
Likewise, if the probability that a scintillum will appear in a certain region is 60%, this doesn't mean that we will get only 60% of a scintillum there, it means that we will get a scintillum 60% of the time, in the long run.
And that's precisely the 'indivisible nature of the quantum' in this case - you either get a scintillum or you don't.
Again, you make all kinds of claims without relating them to the postulates of QM.
If the probability that a coin will come up heads is 60%, this does not mean that we can expect it to come up 60% heads and 40% tails, whatever that might mean, on a single throw. It means that in the long run, it will come up heads 60% of the time.
Likewise, if the probability that a scintillum will appear in a certain region is 60%, this doesn't mean that we will get only 60% of a scintillum there, it means that we will get a scintillum 60% of the time, in the long run.
And that's precisely the 'indivisible nature of the quantum' in this case - you either get a scintillum or you don't.
A: Look, a giraffe!
B: no, that's a lion.
A: but look, it has a long neck!
B: Well, it's a quantum lion. They have long necks.
A: But it looks like a giraffe in every way.
B: That's what quantum lions look like!
A: but look, it's eating leaves!
B: Quantum lions eat leaves.
A: looks, it has all the internal organs of a giraffe, and the DNA of a giraffe!
B: Yes, quantum lions are like that!
A: Look, these records show that it was conceived by two giraffes in the usual way, gestated and given birth by the female in the usual way, and matured in the usual way for giraffes.
B: It must be a quantum lion, then, because that is exactly the way they are!
A: Is there any difference at all between a giraffe and a quantum lion?
B: Of course! A quantum lion is a lion, not a giraffe!
...
I: Look, a wave!
P: No, it's a particle!
I: But look, it's going through two slits at once!
P: Well, it's a quantum particle. They do that.
I: But look, it has a period, an amplitude, and a wavelength!
I: It satisfies the wave equation!
P: As all quantum particles do!
P: Quantum particles have those.
I: Look, it's spreading out in all directions!
P: Just as expected of a quantum particle.
I: Look, it's diffracting and interfering!
P: That clinches it! It must be a quantum particle!
I: is there any difference between a wave and a quantum particle?
B: no, that's a lion.
A: but look, it has a long neck!
B: Well, it's a quantum lion. They have long necks.
A: But it looks like a giraffe in every way.
B: That's what quantum lions look like!
A: but look, it's eating leaves!
B: Quantum lions eat leaves.
A: looks, it has all the internal organs of a giraffe, and the DNA of a giraffe!
B: Yes, quantum lions are like that!
A: Look, these records show that it was conceived by two giraffes in the usual way, gestated and given birth by the female in the usual way, and matured in the usual way for giraffes.
B: It must be a quantum lion, then, because that is exactly the way they are!
A: Is there any difference at all between a giraffe and a quantum lion?
B: Of course! A quantum lion is a lion, not a giraffe!
...
I: Look, a wave!
P: No, it's a particle!
I: But look, it's going through two slits at once!
P: Well, it's a quantum particle. They do that.
I: But look, it has a period, an amplitude, and a wavelength!
I: It satisfies the wave equation!
P: As all quantum particles do!
P: Quantum particles have those.
I: Look, it's spreading out in all directions!
P: Just as expected of a quantum particle.
I: Look, it's diffracting and interfering!
P: That clinches it! It must be a quantum particle!
I: is there any difference between a wave and a quantum particle?
Dear Bev (3793):
Thanks for the tip! It looks interesting.
I have decided to learn more about quantum computing, and have ordered a book for this purpose.
Thanks for the tip! It looks interesting.
I have decided to learn more about quantum computing, and have ordered a book for this purpose.
Irinia, You made me go dig out my copy of Philosophy of Natural Science by Carl Hempel. Unfortunately, I can't find an ebook or text on line, but since I haven't taken many science classes I only remember the experiment you describe from philosophy. Correct me if I am wrong, because I may be confused.
Is the experiment you describe the one used by Foucault when trying to find a "crucial test" to determine if light was a particle or a wave? If not, it seems similar to the brief description I read. As Hempel explained it, at the time those experiments were performed, it seemed to support the theory of a "light wave" over that of a "light particle", however Hempel argued that the main hypothesis contained may auxiliary hypotheses, so that we do not know exactly which of the "light as a particle" theories assumptions can or should be rejected by an experiment showing light acting like a wave. Hempel said the experiment left open the possibility of particle like projectiles playing a role in the propagation of light and continued to explain the in 1905 Einstein came up with the photon theory which radically revised the older corpuscular conception. If I understand the second crucial experiment (which may be doubtful), it involves shining a light onto a perpendicular screen. Under classical wave theory, the energy should decrease towards zero as the screen is mover farther away, but if the energy is carried in a photon, the energy would not decrease. Since the results of this second "crucial" experiment supported the photon hypothesis, Hempel concludes that some modification was needed to the original theories, but that such experiments do not eliminate rival theories.
I probably missed the point of your argument with Psimagus, but it seems to me that it can not be proven to be a giraffe or a lion. It would seem that there is a call for some modification of theories, and that you have a creature with characteristics of a giraffe and a lion who may have many other characteristics we don't know about. Let's not even wonder what the animal looks like in another dimension or whether it's spooky or it only collapses int lion of giraffe if someone looks at it.
I know I'm way over my head here, so please tell me what I am missing.
Is the experiment you describe the one used by Foucault when trying to find a "crucial test" to determine if light was a particle or a wave? If not, it seems similar to the brief description I read. As Hempel explained it, at the time those experiments were performed, it seemed to support the theory of a "light wave" over that of a "light particle", however Hempel argued that the main hypothesis contained may auxiliary hypotheses, so that we do not know exactly which of the "light as a particle" theories assumptions can or should be rejected by an experiment showing light acting like a wave. Hempel said the experiment left open the possibility of particle like projectiles playing a role in the propagation of light and continued to explain the in 1905 Einstein came up with the photon theory which radically revised the older corpuscular conception. If I understand the second crucial experiment (which may be doubtful), it involves shining a light onto a perpendicular screen. Under classical wave theory, the energy should decrease towards zero as the screen is mover farther away, but if the energy is carried in a photon, the energy would not decrease. Since the results of this second "crucial" experiment supported the photon hypothesis, Hempel concludes that some modification was needed to the original theories, but that such experiments do not eliminate rival theories.
I probably missed the point of your argument with Psimagus, but it seems to me that it can not be proven to be a giraffe or a lion. It would seem that there is a call for some modification of theories, and that you have a creature with characteristics of a giraffe and a lion who may have many other characteristics we don't know about. Let's not even wonder what the animal looks like in another dimension or whether it's spooky or it only collapses int lion of giraffe if someone looks at it.
I know I'm way over my head here, so please tell me what I am missing.
I think Irina just proved that Samuel Beckett and Eugene Ionesco would have made great Quantum physicists 
P: No, it's a particle!
Except that I don't say it's a particle, I have repeatedly said it is a thing with both wave-like and particle-like properties, ie: a wavicle. But you do claim it's a wave, not a particle, and apply a classical model of wave diffraction that can't be made to consistently fit the observed results.
I totally accept the six postulates you have referenced. They are absolutely 100% relevant to the behaviour of the quantum, and the mechanics of quantum interaction. But they are not, I think, actually very relevant to its nature. This whole argument began, as I recall, because we started discussing (rather speculatively,) the behaviour of the quantum, without first ensuring that we agreed on its nature. And it doesn't look as if we're going to make much progress on what a quantum does until we can agree on what a quantum is. I think it wise to learn to walk in step, before we attempt to run a Schroedinger marathon!
What I would say is relevant to the nature of the quantum is the fundamental notion of wave-particle duality. If you don't accept that, then I'm far from surprised that you find the
Yes. Because the probability is not part of the coin, but merely governs its behaviour. That is my point precisely.
Precisely. Because the probability affects the location of the scintilla, and not any degree of their 'apparition'.
That appears to be a complete non sequitur. The location of impact on the detector can surely have no special relevance to the composition of the impacting object, be it wave, particle, wavicle, snark or boojum!
You have said yourself that psi is a continuous function. It may be defined by the wave-like properties of the quantum, but it cannot be bound up compositionally in the quantum. It is a comprehensive wave function, not merely the wave-like properties of a wavicle.
If you want to read up on it while you're waiting for the book to arrive, you might find
worth a look (I'd be fascinated to know how you would explain the workings of an entirely wave-based quantum computer!
)In fact the whole
Psimagus:
Once again, I don't have a wave-only theory. My view is that it's the wave, psi, which propagates. That's why you get diffraction and interference and other wave effects. But the amplitude of the wave measures the probability that certain discrete (quantized) events will occur. These discrete events are not waves.
Analogy: you have an operatic soprano, and a rack of small, delicate wine glasses. When the soprano sings, some of the wine glasses break. There are two schools of thought on how this happens. One school of thought says that she emits tiny particles, called spit bullets, which fly from her mouth to the glasses. If a spit bullet (of sufficient energy) hits a glass, the glass breaks. The other school of thought says that there's a wave that travels from her mouth to the glasses.
To test this, they make the following experiment: they set up a bank of very tiny glasses, so that they can measure very precisely what the pattern of breakage is. They also place a soundproof, bulletproof barrier between the soprano and the glasses; but they make a small hole in the barrier. Bothe the soprano and the glasses are at some distance from the barrier. They reason follows: if the damage is done by spit bullets, then a glass will break only if there is a straight line from the soprano's mouth through the hole to the glass, except perhaps for a few bullets that ricochet off the edges of the hole. So the glasses will break primarily in a circular region. On the other hand, if it is a wave that does the damage, it will diffract, producing a pattern known as an Airy Pattern, which is a series of concentric rings; in some rings there will be a lot of damage, in others less damage or even none. They make the experiment, and behold, they get an Airy pattern!
Once again, I don't have a wave-only theory. My view is that it's the wave, psi, which propagates. That's why you get diffraction and interference and other wave effects. But the amplitude of the wave measures the probability that certain discrete (quantized) events will occur. These discrete events are not waves.
Analogy: you have an operatic soprano, and a rack of small, delicate wine glasses. When the soprano sings, some of the wine glasses break. There are two schools of thought on how this happens. One school of thought says that she emits tiny particles, called spit bullets, which fly from her mouth to the glasses. If a spit bullet (of sufficient energy) hits a glass, the glass breaks. The other school of thought says that there's a wave that travels from her mouth to the glasses.
To test this, they make the following experiment: they set up a bank of very tiny glasses, so that they can measure very precisely what the pattern of breakage is. They also place a soundproof, bulletproof barrier between the soprano and the glasses; but they make a small hole in the barrier. Bothe the soprano and the glasses are at some distance from the barrier. They reason follows: if the damage is done by spit bullets, then a glass will break only if there is a straight line from the soprano's mouth through the hole to the glass, except perhaps for a few bullets that ricochet off the edges of the hole. So the glasses will break primarily in a circular region. On the other hand, if it is a wave that does the damage, it will diffract, producing a pattern known as an Airy Pattern, which is a series of concentric rings; in some rings there will be a lot of damage, in others less damage or even none. They make the experiment, and behold, they get an Airy pattern!
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar