Seasons

OK, Irina, let me take another crack at this:

Postulate 1. The state of a quantum mechanical system is
completely specified by a function (Psi)(r,t) that
depends on the coordinates of the particle(s) and on time.

This postulate says that the probability of a given quantum
being is a specific spot (r) at a specific times (t) can be
determined by a function will call Psi.

I would rather say, it can be determined with the aid of the function
called (Psi). (Psi)(r, t) is not itself the probability that the particle is very near
to the point r at the time t. After all, (Psi)(r, t) is generally a complex
number and not a real number, but a probability has to be a real number - in fact,
a real number between 0 and 1, inclusive. As Postulate 1 says (approximately), the probability that the particle is in a tiny region around the point r at the time t is

(Psi)*(r, t) (Psi)(r, t) d(tau),

not (Psi)(r, t) .

This function
(Psi)(r, t)
can be
visualized as a wave when we plot it on a graph, but has
nothing to do with wave-like behavior of the quantum itself.

I'll agree to the first clause, but the clause after the "but" I cannot agree with.
For one thing, I don't really understand what "the quantum" is. But I suppose it means
something like a photon; I'll assume that and continue. IMHO, the wave function
(which is, in my vocabulary, just another name for (Psi)) has just about everything to do with the wavelike properties of a photon. [You and your friends on "Seasons" are in an intriguing situation: you are getting two very different views of what QM is, one from me and one from Psimagus. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to figure out which of us (if either) is right.]
It might help clarify things for me to add, that the term "wave function" is used in two senses by physicists. On the one hand it refers to a purely mathematical function, like
e^i(kx - wt).
But Physics is not pure math; there is something in the world that that function is being used to describe. Unfortunately, that something in the world is also called "the wave function". Perhaps it would be good for us to use two separate terms, "Mathematical wave function" and "Physical wave function". I will try to do that for awhile, until things settle down.

Other functions that describe waves (such as electromagnet wave) describe the actual behavior of the thing with the wave and not the probability of where the thing will be, but on paper they are both waves.

I give a qualified "yes" to that, my qualification being that the theories that have no probabilistic component are wrong. Or at least, they are wrong if Quantum Mechanics is right.
Classical Physics, which has been superceded by Quantum Mechanics, explained light as a pure wave. It was also a deterministic theory: it claimed to predict everything exactly, at least in principle; so there was no need for probability in it (except when dealing with cases where our knowledge was limited).
Now, a pure wave is a completely continuous thing. According to a pure wave theory of light, for example, if you shine a light on something, and there is an exchange of energy (for example, the object absorbs the light and warms up), this exchange of energy happens continuously, smoothly. It doesn't happen in bursts.
Quantum Mechanics, however, has a hybrid theory of light. It says that the object acquires energy in little bursts, called "quanta" (from the Latin "quantum", "how much".).
So why did we ever think that the exchange was smooth? Because normally, the bursts are too small for us to sense individually, and normally, there are so many of them that their individuality is lost. When my lover touches me I do not feel individual bits of heat coming from it (although it may tingle...). It is like water: we know that water is actually made of individual molecules, but to our senses, it appears to be a completely homogeneous fluid.
QM also challenged the determinism of Classical Physics. It says that there is some chance involved in the appearance of these quanta. There are also some constraints, though; we can say what the probabilities are that various things will happen.
So why did phenomena appear to be determined? Because the quanta are so small, and so numerous, that in the the phenomena we see, the chance has 'averaged itself out.'
Again, I strongly recommend the site, http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/two-slit3.html, where you can see the 'smooth' interference pattern being gradually built up out of individual dots (quanta). Practically the whole of QM is contained in this one experiment, so if you understand it well, the rest will be easy.


So, this probability is a bit like betting on the horses.
Yes!
Say we have determined that Dobbin has a 1:4 chance of winning the derby (.25?).
Yes! A one-in-4 chance would be a probability of .25 = 1/4. If we ran the derby over and over again, with the same initial conditions, Dobbin would win 1/4 of the time.
It's possible that whatever function I used to determine this probability could be plotted on a graph and look like a wave (as opposed to being linear or a normal curve or random or whatever). This does not mean Dobbin runs in a wave pattern, merely that the function use to determine the probability of his being at the finish line (r) at the fastest time (say 3 minutes)(t) can look wavy to a mathematician with a graphing calculator.
Yes! Yes! Yes! Just so! Yes! Yes! [leaps and dances with joy]

Now suppose the same formula that tells me the
probability of Dobbin winning can also tell me his momentum.
Better: the probability that his momentum will be this, that, and the other. To each possible value of Dobbin's momentum, there will be assigned a probability! We do this by applying the probability operator to Dobbin's mathematical wave function.
Dobbin's speed is a property of Dobbin, not a property of the
wave function used to predict his movement,
Yes! Yes!
however, within
the formula there is a way to calculate momentum (k) that is related
somehow to calculating where he will be in 3 minutes(r).
Yes! these things are all related, since they all come out of the wave function. But information is lost; you can't infer Dobbin's position probabilities from his momentum probabilities.
This momentum is "part" of the probability,
More precisely: implicit in the wave function.
but Dobbin's odds are not themselves moving.
They are not following Dobbin around the track, no. They may change, however. As Dobbin gets older, for example, his chances of winning the Derby may shrink.
It's just that the factors used to predict where he will be can also predict
how fast he will go.
Yes! Although it should be added that these are usually probabilistic predictions. Usually, QM will say something like, "The probability that Dobbin will be going 5 mph at 3 seconds after the starting gun is .02, the probability that Dobbin will be going 5.1 mph at 3 seconds after the starting gun is .099, ... and so on.

Walk in Beauty, Irina

What do you think of the visual QM at http://phys.educ.ksu.edu/vqm/index.html ?

I can't get it to work Perhaps it's because I'm using Firefox, or maybe I need a different Shockwave plugin

Or is it just available on the offline CD Rom?

New Debate.

Global Warming Greenhouse Gas theory.
Truth or hoax?

My personal views are that it is fake. It is not entirely bad but instead of blaming CO2, which if we didn't have vegetation would dissapear, they should try to reduce real pollution.

The greenhouse gas theories have been burnt into our heads so much that the other side to the debate is not discussed. Noone thinks about obvious reasons to global warming like thawing from the last iceage.So I will speak for this side.
Here is a list of sites I have compiled about this topic the last one is a page I am working on:

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0603/0603warming.htm

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18526

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/warmingeditorial.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

http://newsbusters.org/node/10966



I don't want to make people think what I think I just hope that some people will accept that there are two sides to this debate.

Cool Chipmonk, the links are nice, but if you want me to respond, you will have to summarize the case you believe these sites make. Just pick the strongest arguments and include your evidence. Meanwhile, I'm popping in An Inconvenient Truth just as soon as I piece together some thoughts I've been having on the magnitude of the wave function squared and the relationship between mathematical curves and physical curves so I can respond to Irina.

Fair warning: Irina has a better chance of convincing Psimagus that psi propagates than you have of convincing me there is merit in this particular "other side". Just because it seems fair to always have two sides to a discussion, doesn't mean some things are not scientifically more acceptable than others.

Global Warming Greenhouse Gas theory.
Truth or hoax?

Both, in superposition. The theory function hasn't been collapsed yet

Both, in superposition. The theory function hasn't been collapsed yet.

Smart ass.

Cool Chipmonk
Sorry, but my name is actually coolchimpk. I chose it because I am cool;, I like chimps and my name starts with K.
if you want me to respond, you will have to summarize the case you believe these sites make. Just pick the strongest arguments and include your evidence. I am working on a page but it is not entirely done yet and I didn't want to get questioned on inconsistencies, but if you want to see it I will send you the link.
I'm popping in An Inconvenient Truth
I wish someone made another video on the other side of the debate.

Cool Chipmonk
Sorry, but my name is actually coolchimpk. I chose it because I am cool;, I like chimps and my name starts with K.
if you want me to respond, you will have to summarize the case you believe these sites make. Just pick the strongest arguments and include your evidence. I am working on a page but it is not entirely done yet and I didn't want to get questioned on inconsistencies, but if you want to see it I will send you the link.
I'm popping in An Inconvenient Truth
I wish someone made another video on the other side of the debate.

Irina,

(Psi) is just the mathematical symbol for the wave function, so that "(Psi)" and "the wave function" are synonymous, so that all those articles about wave function propagation were articles about (Psi) propagation!

There are many wave functions. The definite article is only used here because this one is the important one for quantum physics, since it defines the main way quantum systems differ from classical ones (ie: the probabilistic nature of the position of quanta.) None of those articles in that google search you came up with refered to this wave function (not in the top 20 anyway - you can trawl through the other 550+ if you want to, but I guarantee none of them do either.)
There are 1.1 million google matches for the plural "wave functions", and while many refer to quantum physics, most do not.

A quick skim through just the first page of results describes "Hydrogenic Atom Wavefunctions", "Wave-functions from density-matrices", "Coulomb wave functions", "electron wave functions", "Conformal Extension of Massive Wave Functions", "nucleon wave functions", "Molecular wave functions", "Topological wave functions", "Spheroidal Wave Functions", I could go on.
Quite a few of these are describing waves that are many orders of magnitude too large to be in any way quantum phenomena.

And I must repeat that you are failing to differentiate a wave from a wave function - they are not synonymous, and I'm sorry, but I think parroting the "it's the wave function" mantra in response to every mention of anything in the universe that has an even remotely wavy nature is blinding you to the fact that your explanation would be refuted by every quantum physicist who has ever lived. Sorry to be so blunt, but there it is. There is no vehemence in my denial of the Irinaverse model, but it is nontheless absolute as regards this universe. You have many interesting and valuable insights to offer in a wide range of topics, but I cannot believe a propagating psi which replaces the electromagnetic wave is one of them.

"The properties of waves flow from the wave equation, and interference is their signature" (http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/waves/wavefun.htm) NOT from the "wave function equation" - from the "wave equation": Maxwell/de Broglie/Bohm - NOT Schroedinger.

That is why (and I'll tell you this before you get awfully excited to see all those psis in the formulae if you open that page!) the formulae that have psi in them (the wave function equations,) do not have momentum in them, and the equations that have momentum in them (the wave equations,) do not have psi in them. It's a good page, and I highly recommend it despite knowing that your reaction will be to claim that it supports the absurd notion of propagative probability. But my bagpipes are nevertheless completely safe.

It might be best to give up this argument - I can't see either of us convincing each other. What do you think, agree to differ?

Here's the deal. Global Warming is very, very real. The only possible question is "What is the cause?"

From icecore records, scientists have found that there is no precedent for such a rapid increase in global temperature. Local fluctuations, yes, but not a global change.

The most likely culprit is humans. We have changed the environment dramatically. I will acknowledge that there could be some natural process causing the warming, but that immediately raises the question of why there is no prior record of such a process. Lacking such a record, I conclude that humans are responsible.

As soon as we conclude that it is humans causing the problem, the most logical thing to do is figure out how to reduce the impact. Greenhouse gases have been the primary targets, but there are plenty of others.

Here's the deal: if we're wrong about greenhouse gases, reducing them is still a good thing. We're reducing pollution. If we're right, we're fighting global warming. It's win-win in the long-run. Along the way, we may find other problems that need to be dealt with. And we'll deal with them when we find them.

Hey Irnia. A basic question first. In

(Psi)*(r, t) (Psi)(r, t) d(tau),
What does the asterisk stand for again?


This function
(Psi)(r, t)
can be
visualized as a wave when we plot it on a graph,

So what does the whole enchilada look like on a graph? Do I do I have to get Prob123’s site to work?

>
but has
nothing to do with wave-like behavior of the quantum itself.
I'll agree to the first clause, but the clause after the "but" I cannot agree with.


I phrased that badly. I was trying to distinguish between mathematical waves and physical waves, but I didn’t pull my thoughts together say it correctly.

For one thing, I don't really understand what "the quantum" is. But I suppose it means
something like a photon;

But, but but…a few posts back when I started talking about photons Psimagus said to use “quantum”. *pouts*

Yes! these things are all related, since they all come out of the wave function.

Why do they come out of the wave function instead of feeding into the wave function? I understand that the wave function was developed based on observations of some real world phenomena, but the change in the photon/quantum/horse produce a change in the state, it’s not as if the change in state of the mathematical wave produces a change in the quantum/photon/horse.

This momentum is "part" of the probability,
More precisely: implicit in the wave function.
implicit meaning it’s a factor used in the formula (or a characteristic of a factor)? Or implicit in that momentum is a characteristic of the wave function itself?

They are not following Dobbin around the track, no. They may change, however. As Dobbin gets older, for example, his chances of winning the Derby may shrink.

Yes, but it’s the real world conditions of Dobbin that cause these changes (new values for specific factors) so the wave changes when Dobbin changes, but does not move on its own. Right?

On one of those sites I finally got to, http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/psi.html (those were the guys with the M & M’s in their demonstration. I always go to the sites who offer chocolate). They said, “I want to make it clear what we've introduced so far. We've said that 'the magnitude of the wave function squared gives the probability of finding the particle at a particular position.' This is a totally out-of-the-air rule; or, to put it another way, a fundamental postulate of quantum mechanics, that we will not make any attempt to justify." Are they are describing your postulate in other words or am I confusing it with another postulate? I think I have some idea based on this I may want to clarify but first I have to check that this “magnitude” (size of measurement from the very peak of the highest part to the very lowest part of the trough) of the wave function squared is somehow implicit in postulate one or if it comes in later.