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 3,820 - 3,831 of 6,170
Does a person's choice of icon tell something about her/him?
Mine doesn't look much like me, but I do smoke a pipe, and I'm quite fond of hats.
Some icons, like Bev's, look directly at the viewer, whereas others, like mine, do not. Is this an indicator of extraversion or introversion?
That's probably an important point. But I would have chosen the same icon as Albot123 (with moustache and pipe, looking directly at the viewer,) if he hadn't been ginger. So clearly that's a stronger subconscious prejudice for me than preference of aspect (it's funny, I like red hair actually - I just wouldn't want it myself, I guess.)
Wait! Irinia says there is a particle like energy which travels in waves and has characteristics of both, and Psimagus says there is a wavicle, which is a partile-wave thing that shows characteristics of both. What exactly is the difference?
Irina's interpretation, it appears in an attempt to make the whole phenomenon accord to "common sense", has two significant flaws:
1) she is confusing the waveform psi, or some function of it (being the 'probability wave',) with the quantum's electromagnetic wave-like nature (the "De Broglie pilot wave" of my quoted excerpt, though I don't much like the term - there is no divisibility of pilot and vehicle,) and
2) she is ascribing to quanta (be they named "waves" or not,) behaviour that only applies to large-scale classical waves.
I do not particularly mind what we name it - wave, particle, wavicle, teapot. What is important is that in many significant respects it does not behave remotely like a classical wave. It's Irina's insistence that it does, and that it can be analogised to the behaviour of eg: a soundwave, that causes the problem. With an inaccurate, neo-classical model of the nature of the quantum, no wonder that most models of the behaviour of the quantum appear "bizarre" to her.
Posts 3,820 - 3,831 of 6,170
Dear All:
Earlier (or was that another forum?) we were discussing whether our bots were extensions of (parts of) ourselves. In this regard, our choice of icons is interesting. Does a person's choice of icon tell something about her/him?
And now, I will reclaim my six-guns and head back to camp!
Walk in Beauty, Irina
Earlier (or was that another forum?) we were discussing whether our bots were extensions of (parts of) ourselves. In this regard, our choice of icons is interesting. Does a person's choice of icon tell something about her/him?
And now, I will reclaim my six-guns and head back to camp!
Walk in Beauty, Irina
I used to have long red hair, but I never see icons with my facial features, and my eyes are hazel green but often look brown to many people. Does my choice say I have a huge ego and want and icon that looks like me?
Oh, and I just checked and i think I actually look more like Liath's now, but with red-brown hair. Maybe a slightly bigger nose, but not so big as the big nosed choices. See how I really care? Huge ego! Gi-normus!
Irina, I noticed you picked the one that comes closest to showing cleavage. Is that the reason you picked it?
JK!
Irina, I noticed you picked the one that comes closest to showing cleavage. Is that the reason you picked it?
JK! 
I didn't care for any of the female faces, wasn't feeling transgendered, and didn't really want an alien/monster face. This left the flame, by process of elimination.
Mine doesn't look much like me, but I do smoke a pipe, and I'm quite fond of hats.
Bev: I think it was a plus for me that it wasn't all head, as most of them are. I think the biggest plus was the hair blowing in the wind effect.
I note that one of my bots, "Your Husband", looks just like Psimagus. Let's not draw any conclusions, however, until DNA testing has been done!
Some icons, like Bev's, look directly at the viewer, whereas others, like mine, do not. Is this an indicator of extraversion or introversion?
What does hairstyle tell? One parameter goes from Butterfly Dream, whose hair contributes to her frazzled appearance, to Prob123, whose hairstyle is elaborate and very controlled.
Bev's icon is very wide-eyed. Is this an indication of innocence? Or perhaps hallucinogen use?
Then there's Corvin, the bull...
I note that one of my bots, "Your Husband", looks just like Psimagus. Let's not draw any conclusions, however, until DNA testing has been done!
Some icons, like Bev's, look directly at the viewer, whereas others, like mine, do not. Is this an indicator of extraversion or introversion?
What does hairstyle tell? One parameter goes from Butterfly Dream, whose hair contributes to her frazzled appearance, to Prob123, whose hairstyle is elaborate and very controlled.
Bev's icon is very wide-eyed. Is this an indication of innocence? Or perhaps hallucinogen use?
Then there's Corvin, the bull...
Irina,
Once again, I don't have a wave-only theory. My view is that it's the wave, psi, which propagates.
Not a "wave-only theory", but a theory explained entirely by the propagation of a single wave? You make no reference to anything but a single wave anywhere in the explanation of your view (except to dismiss the strawman notion of "spit bullets".) Does that not seem evidently contradictory to you?
And once again I must emphasise that you are confusing and combining waves. Psi is the probability wave, not the electromagnetic wave-nature of the quantum (here "pilot wave", though I would emphasise there is no divisibility of 'pilot'/'vehicle',)
"The carrier of the non-local instantaneous action is the wavefunction similar to the de Broglie pilot wave and the reaction is the net observable local space result. The Schrodinger wave equation does not describe an ordinary electromagnetic wave but a probability wave, and the probability wave determines all of the action and reaction of the total electrogravitational interaction."
http://www.electrogravity.com/AVECWAVE/AVecWave.pdf (my emphasis.)
Furthermore, psi does not propagate (even if we choose to regard it as, in common parlance, a wave.) It may be similar (related even,) but psi is not the propagated em-wave - it is "constant throughout the whole of spacetime" (thus by definition unpropagated,) vide:
"In accordance with this probability interpretation, it is not uncommon for the wavefunction to be called a 'probability wave'. However, I think that this is a very unsatisfactory description. In the first place psi(x) itself is complex, and so it certainly cannot be a probability. Moreover, the phase of psi (up to an overall constant multiplying factor) is an essential ingredient for the Schroedinger evolution. Even regarding |psi|^2 (or |psi|^2/||psi||) as a 'probability wave' does not seem very sensible to me. Recall that for a momentum state, the modulus |psi| of psi is actually constant throughout the whole of spacetime. There is no information in |psi| telling us even the direction of motion of the wave - it is the phase alone, that gives this wave its 'wavelike' character.
Moreover, probabilities are never negative, let alone complex. If the wavefunction were just a wave of probabilities, then there would never be any of the cancellations of destructive interference. This cancellation is a characteristic feature of quantum mechanics, so vividly portrayrd in the two-slit experiment!" [Penrose The Road to Reality chap.21.9 p.519] (emphasis Penrose)
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,
No, this is a classical wave involving propagation through x-illions of air molecules, and not a single quantum. The analogy is not applicable. That is precisely the problem - you insist on analogising the quantum case to a classical wave example because, I can only assume, it gives the illusion of compliance to "common sense". But it only does this by glossing over the fact that all classical examples involve a medium containing lots of particles. And that it is only by containing lots of particles that this wave-like behaviour you cling to can be manifested.
The quantum is
A) travelling in a vacuum (so there are no air molecules to propagate it,)
B) is a tiny, indivisible unit in itself (and not a wavefront spreading across a volume of medium,) and
C) carries mass and momentum as an integral property of itself (something classical waves can never under any circumstances do.)
which fly from her mouth to the glasses. If a spit bullet (of sufficient energy) hits a glass, the glass breaks.
I have never claimed anything remotely like this. It is merely a strawman, and I'm happy to help you burn it.
The other school of thought says that there's a wave that travels from her mouth to the glasses.
Which is the accepted case in a classical scenario, where there is a volume of medium for the wave to propagate in. This is evidently not applicable at a quantum level.
Not a "wave-only theory", but a theory explained entirely by the propagation of a single wave? You make no reference to anything but a single wave anywhere in the explanation of your view (except to dismiss the strawman notion of "spit bullets".) Does that not seem evidently contradictory to you?
And once again I must emphasise that you are confusing and combining waves. Psi is the probability wave, not the electromagnetic wave-nature of the quantum (here "pilot wave", though I would emphasise there is no divisibility of 'pilot'/'vehicle',)
"The carrier of the non-local instantaneous action is the wavefunction similar to the de Broglie pilot wave and the reaction is the net observable local space result. The Schrodinger wave equation does not describe an ordinary electromagnetic wave but a probability wave, and the probability wave determines all of the action and reaction of the total electrogravitational interaction."
Furthermore, psi does not propagate (even if we choose to regard it as, in common parlance, a wave.) It may be similar (related even,) but psi is not the propagated em-wave - it is "constant throughout the whole of spacetime" (thus by definition unpropagated,) vide:
"In accordance with this probability interpretation, it is not uncommon for the wavefunction to be called a 'probability wave'. However, I think that this is a very unsatisfactory description. In the first place psi(x) itself is complex, and so it certainly cannot be a probability. Moreover, the phase of psi (up to an overall constant multiplying factor) is an essential ingredient for the Schroedinger evolution. Even regarding |psi|^2 (or |psi|^2/||psi||) as a 'probability wave' does not seem very sensible to me. Recall that for a momentum state, the modulus |psi| of psi is actually constant throughout the whole of spacetime. There is no information in |psi| telling us even the direction of motion of the wave - it is the phase alone, that gives this wave its 'wavelike' character.
Moreover, probabilities are never negative, let alone complex. If the wavefunction were just a wave of probabilities, then there would never be any of the cancellations of destructive interference. This cancellation is a characteristic feature of quantum mechanics, so vividly portrayrd in the two-slit experiment!" [Penrose The Road to Reality chap.21.9 p.519] (emphasis Penrose)
No, this is a classical wave involving propagation through x-illions of air molecules, and not a single quantum. The analogy is not applicable. That is precisely the problem - you insist on analogising the quantum case to a classical wave example because, I can only assume, it gives the illusion of compliance to "common sense". But it only does this by glossing over the fact that all classical examples involve a medium containing lots of particles. And that it is only by containing lots of particles that this wave-like behaviour you cling to can be manifested.
The quantum is
A) travelling in a vacuum (so there are no air molecules to propagate it,)
B) is a tiny, indivisible unit in itself (and not a wavefront spreading across a volume of medium,) and
C) carries mass and momentum as an integral property of itself (something classical waves can never under any circumstances do.)
I have never claimed anything remotely like this. It is merely a strawman, and I'm happy to help you burn it.
Which is the accepted case in a classical scenario, where there is a volume of medium for the wave to propagate in. This is evidently not applicable at a quantum level.
That's probably an important point. But I would have chosen the same icon as Albot123 (with moustache and pipe, looking directly at the viewer,) if he hadn't been ginger. So clearly that's a stronger subconscious prejudice for me than preference of aspect (it's funny, I like red hair actually - I just wouldn't want it myself, I guess.)
I first had the icon Azureon has..the old guy..My only excuse is, when I joined the site I had just been in an accident and was on some pain medications. Thank's to the professor for changing it..I don't know why I picked this icon..There really wasn't one that I thought was me.
Irina's interpretation, it appears in an attempt to make the whole phenomenon accord to "common sense", has two significant flaws:
1) she is confusing the waveform psi, or some function of it (being the 'probability wave',) with the quantum's electromagnetic wave-like nature (the "De Broglie pilot wave" of my quoted excerpt, though I don't much like the term - there is no divisibility of pilot and vehicle,) and
2) she is ascribing to quanta (be they named "waves" or not,) behaviour that only applies to large-scale classical waves.
I do not particularly mind what we name it - wave, particle, wavicle, teapot. What is important is that in many significant respects it does not behave remotely like a classical wave. It's Irina's insistence that it does, and that it can be analogised to the behaviour of eg: a soundwave, that causes the problem. With an inaccurate, neo-classical model of the nature of the quantum, no wonder that most models of the behaviour of the quantum appear "bizarre" to her.
[psi] Penrose is technically correct that psi is not a 'probability wave". It is the amplitude of psi which, normalized and integrated over a region, gives the probability of finding the 'particle' in that region. So why did you say, "Psi is the probability wave" in your second paragraph in your message 3827? And why did you quote with approval the statement, "The Schrodinger wave equation does not describe an ordinary electromagnetic wave but a probability wave, and the probability wave determines all of the action and reaction of the total electrogravitational interaction", shortly thereafter?
Perhaps because, as everyone in the field knows, writers often refer to psi informally as "the probability wave" or "the probability amplitude wave" for the sake of brevity, and everyone knows that this is not meant to be taken literally.
You are quite right that psi is not to be identified with the classical electromagnetic wave. I certainly did not intend to do so. In fact, I don't see anyplace where I did; can you help me?
The whole story about the soprano was only an analogy, as you know. In reading an analogy, it is necessary to grasp which aspects of the analogue are meant to carry over and which are not, for any analogy can be "refuted" by finding some aspect of the analogue which does not carry over. Analogy is not identity.
I'm afraid, Psimagus, that I want to resign from this discussion. For me, the point of such discussions is to build consensus, but we do not seem to be approaching consensus in any way. Such is the human condition, alas, that consensus is not always approachable, at least in the short run. Perhaps in a few years we will each have matured somehow and will be able to profitably continue. I repeat my admiration for your intelligence and generosity.
Walk in Beauty, Irina
Perhaps because, as everyone in the field knows, writers often refer to psi informally as "the probability wave" or "the probability amplitude wave" for the sake of brevity, and everyone knows that this is not meant to be taken literally.
You are quite right that psi is not to be identified with the classical electromagnetic wave. I certainly did not intend to do so. In fact, I don't see anyplace where I did; can you help me?
The whole story about the soprano was only an analogy, as you know. In reading an analogy, it is necessary to grasp which aspects of the analogue are meant to carry over and which are not, for any analogy can be "refuted" by finding some aspect of the analogue which does not carry over. Analogy is not identity.
I'm afraid, Psimagus, that I want to resign from this discussion. For me, the point of such discussions is to build consensus, but we do not seem to be approaching consensus in any way. Such is the human condition, alas, that consensus is not always approachable, at least in the short run. Perhaps in a few years we will each have matured somehow and will be able to profitably continue. I repeat my admiration for your intelligence and generosity.
Walk in Beauty, Irina
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar