Seasons

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.

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

Call it a photon if you like - it happens to be in this case, since we're using a flashlight. All photons are quanta, but not all quanta are photons. The quanta in the torch only become photons when you switch it on and they're energised enough to start streaming out of the filament - before that they're electrons. I just thought that changing the label halfway through might be confusing.

Even if this episode of global warming were entirely natural (not my view,) it is clearly happening. And reducing greenhouse gas emissions can only help.

The cause is irrelevant to whether sequestering greenhouse gases is a good idea or not. What's relevant is the irrefutable fact that the ice is melting at an unprecedented rate, and the process appears to be accelerating. Anything we can do to reverse or reduce the process has to be considered a pretty good idea, I'd have thought.

Psimagus, you told Irina,"And I must repeat that you are failing to differentiate a wave from a wave function - they are not synonymous,..."

Oh Great. Just when I thought I had something with "physical waves" vs. "mathematical waves". Please to elaborate now?

Coolchimpk, Sorry about the typos. I do that to everyone. You should see how many ways I spell Fizzy Schizoid. (I still think Fuzzy Schizoid sounds more cuddly).

Thanks for all the work on the site. I will try to look at it later; however, I will just end up echoing what Ulrike and Psimagus said. It was a nice attempt to change the topic though.

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.)



I have no idea what you mean by "this" wave function.


There are 1.1 million Google matches for the plural "wave functions", and while many refer to quantum physics, most do not.

How in the world can you tell,just from looking at the results of a Google search, with 1.1 million matches, how mahy of them are quantum-mechanical?

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.

As far as I can see, any of these could be quantum-mechanical, and some of them almost certainly are.

Let's take "Hydrogenic atom wave functions." I actually look at the site. Loks like QM to me. QM does a very decent job of modelling small atoms.
Let's take "Wave-functions from density matrices." Looks like QM to me. It's about math, but it's appled math. See the Dirac notation? |phi-sub-alpha>? Physicists tend to use that, pure mathtematicians not. See the reference to "Kohn-Sham orbitals"? Orbitals are where electrons hang out in an atom. So this is Physics or Physical Chemistry, not pure math.
OK, let's take "Coulomb wave functions". The term "Coulomb" is a tip-ff that it has something to do with electric charge. But, let's actually look at the article...
OK, on to "electron wave functions". The reference to electrons tells us that it's not pure math. Google doesn't give me an article of exactly that title, so I will take "Imaging Electron Wave Functions of Quantized Energy Levels in Carbon Nanotubes" Well, the "quantized" gives it away, let's try "Electron wave distribution change in mesoscopic systems." Ouch! This person needs to study English more ... but his first paragraph (after the precis) mentions DeBroglie, Bohm, and, yes, the two-slit experiment!!! Looks like QM to me!
On to "Conformal Extension of Massive Wave Functions" It's in the Journal of Functional Analysis, so perhaps it's pure math, but...I see a reference to Minkowsky Space, and to the Klein-Gordon Equation. OK, what thisis, is an article on the boundary between Theoretical Physics and Math. Some Theoretical Physicists just do math; the justification is that it's a kind of math that can be applied to Physics. Here I would have to say, that I don't know of any other discipline that uses the term "wave functions" in this way. I can't see the article itself, only the precis; I'd have to buy the article to see it. My guess would be that it's some kind of cosmological QM a la Hawking. I'm not really in doubt, but I admit that it's a matter of judgment.
OK, on to "nucleon wave functions." Nucleons are particles in the atomic nucleus; they can only be treated with QM. But to be double sure, I will look at the paper.
Hmm...I'm not getting anything with the exact title you specified, so I'll take "Light cone nucleon wave function in the quark-soliton model." Well anything with quarks and solitons in it is QM!
On to "Molecular wave functions". The first one Google gives me is "molecular wave functions SIRIUS" This SIRIUS appears to be software for computing wave functions. Something someone in QM might use, or in a field like Physical Chemistry that uses QM. So I'd couunt it as QM, or at least 'QM, among other things.'
On to "Topological wave functions." I'm curious about that. The first one Google gives me is, "Topological wave functions and Heat Equations." Ooh, it's a string theory thing. Their first sentence is, "It is generally known that the holomorphic anomaly equations in topological string theory reflect the quantum mechanical nature of the topological string partition function." So clearly there is something quantum-mechanical about it. In general, I regard String Theory as a sort of wild outgrowth of QM.
And now, last but not least, "Spheroidal wave functions." The first one Google gives me is "Sheroidal wave function" from MathWorld. OK, it's pure math, I admit it. It could be applied to QM, but they don't actually do so here. As soon as you see that something is from MathWorld, it's a good bet that it will be treated as pure math, even though it has a billion applications to science.

So, most of it is explictly QM, and then there are two or three that are pure math, or close to it, although they are subjects that are definitely relevant to QM. So your claim that "...while many refer to quantum physics, most do not" is not accurate, at least not for this sample.

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.

What???? I don't remember making any statement whatever about "every mention of anything in the universe," much less that one. If I did, I hereby admit to having been wrong. It is certainly not my opinion at the present time. You are not speaking of me, but of some creation of your imagination that you call "Irina." It is the fallacy of the "straw man" (in this case woman), wherein the arguer caricatures his opponent's position in order to make something refutable, and then refutes the caricature; but the opponent's true position is left untouched.
your explanation would be refuted by every quantum physicist who has ever lived.
Now, how could you possibly know that?
Do you think it likely that every quantum physicist who ever lived would deny the postulates I have been discussing? You said that you agreed with those postulates. But then, that is the real Irina, not your caricature.