Uncertainty and locality

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by quantum_wave, Oct 23, 2008.

  1. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    This thread is about “uncertainty” in physics. It came up in another thread discussing the quantum realm of Louis de Broglie’s theory of matter waves. The subject of Pilot Wave theory was mentioned. A brief look at links about Pilot Wave theory seemed to address philosophical issues but “uncertainty” in physics is where my question is so the physics forum seems appropriate.

    What is the connection or disconnection

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    between uncertainty and locality? Does this question make any sense and if not, then what is the difference between non-locality and locality in physics?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    I wouldn't waste any more time, you won't get any coherent "answers" from this lot.

    You simply aren't clever enough.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I think people who read this and who know what they are talking about will realize the value of the responses

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Would anyone waste their time reading this? http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0508/0508143.pdf

    "Using the Einstein’s boxes thought experiment, as well as EPR and Heisenberg’s ones, the local-realistic hidden-variable interpretation of quantum mechanics is explained. The key hidden variable is the consciousness forecasting the future. It is supposed that atoms and particles are complex products of evolution."

    Do quantum decoherence and entanglement come into play when discussing locality/non-locality, i.e. are the concepts tied together or is the association meaningless?
     
  8. IsThatSo Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    It seems like he is questioning what role consciousness have for creating events in space time.
    There is actually experiments going on testing this.
    hxxp://seedmagazine.com/news/2008/06/the_reality_tests_1.php
    And their conclusion seems rather unexpected, at least for me.
    Not that I count out consciousness/the observer from spacetimes behavior.
    But I also see that spacetime do 'keep on' even when I'm not observing

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But it is interesting.
     
  9. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Here is the link you provided:

    http://seedmagazine.com/news/2008/06/the_reality_tests_1.php

    This is an excellent and very current article that is right on spot with what I was asking. Thank you.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

    The link in my OP isn't working. This one covers what I was linking to in the OP.

    The subject of reality and quantum mechanics currently points to Einstein being wrong about reality at the quantum level, even though no one would say that the moon is not there unless we observe it.

    There is strong evidence against local realism and in favor of quantum mechanics. This statement means that there is no reality unless we observe it. Don't be confused and misinterpret that statement. The moon is still there even if we don't observe it, but the quantum particulars are not real, they are probabilities and undetermined until observed.

    The fact is that on a large scale we have no means of detecting the quantum reality. The experiment with polarization mentioned in the Seed Magazine article is the first time I have seen experimental evidence. That is the best answer I could have hoped for and proof that you can get results from this forum.

    Thank you IsThatSo.
     
  10. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    The conclusion as far as I can tell is that the Uncertainty Principle lays down the limits of particle research. The unobserved particle will act predictably but all we know about its location and momentum are probabilities. Observing the particle allows us to identify its location but not its momentum, and observing its momentum doesn't allow us to identify its location.

    The Seed Magazine article went further and said that there is evidence that even if a particle is not observed, it has no real location and momentum. It is only when we observe it that either characteristic becomes real. Thus the article concludes that there is no "reality" in the quantum world and only on a large scale of readily visible particles can we be sure that they are actually there even if we don't observe them. The assurance at that scale is based on the fact that in large enough numbers, quantum particles occupy all of the probable localities.

    The article says that before this conclusion, "Physicists attribute a fundamental reality to what they do not directly perceive. Particles and atoms have observable effects that are well described by theories like quantum mechanics. Single atoms have been "seen" in measurements and presumably exist whether or not we observe them individually. The properties that define particles—mass, spin, etc.—are also thought to exist before we measure them. In physics this is how reality is defined; particles and atoms have measurable properties that exist prior to measurement."

    But the conclusion of the article and of the interpreted results of the light polarization experiments says that light is not polarized until we observe it and so, "There is strong evidence against local realism and in favor of quantum mechanics".

    The conclusion is that an unobserved quantum particle has no "reality" in terms of location and momentum. Do you agree with that conclusion or do you think that we simply cannot observe those characteristics but they are there none the less?
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2008
  11. Saxion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    264
    Not only was Einstein wrong, but one of Bens most favored-to-hate subjects has now prctically been proven to be true all along. Consciousness (and the acts of conscious beings), are in fact creating the world, and no one can right now say anything against these results that have shown up.

    It's strange, because i was reading the paper on this result just three days ago, and they found in their results that fundamental or observable qualities of matter at very small levels are not real in the sense of being tangible until it has been observed; EVEN atomic observation fails unless there is a sufficiently large enough number of particles. In this sense even, we need to now abandon the idea that atomic observation is enough to account for the material world, as their paper now suggests it is not.

    Human observation, as i have been saying for the good part of a year on this forum (and slagged off by a great many people who call themselves scientists), will now have to simply deal with the fact that the crackpots where right.
     
  12. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Einstein was right, because he was 'wrong' - about the expansion of the old cosmos thing.

    What he 'struggled' with eventually, I suppose was the notion that solid 'bits' of matter cannot have a definite position, but still have momentum (so they must 'exist', so what about their indefinite position?). And so on. He possibly had too 'classical' an outlook, and didn't make the connection between measurement and the environment.

    Which is - the environment can 'measure' or observe too; we are therefore part of the 'environment' of a measurement, or observation. The final duality, perhaps; the paradox of observation, which implies that an observation can 'measure' the observer, instead of how we like to think it happens.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2008
  13. Saxion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    264
    Yes, that cosmological constant thingy...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Got a link?
    'Practically' is stretching it a bit, don't you think? That Seed link is months old and it openly admits it doesn't pander for the mainstream status quo people.
    I don't see any results, I see a link to a philosophy website and a long rambling article not in a journal. :shrug:
     
  15. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Yeah, it would be nice to see something more mainstreams about a test that supposedly answers a question as significant as "is there or is there not a 'reality'" at the quantum level".

    I want to move this to the pseudoscience forum and discuss some ideas. I'll flag it for the mods to consider moving it.
     
  16. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    This thread has to be here in Pseudoscience to freely allow discussion of what it means to say there is no "reality" at the quantum level. If you were following this thread in the Physics forum welcome to Pseudoscience.

    The thing is that what we can observe and what is really there are two different things. It is logical that we can't observe quantum action that takes place in the realm below what we can observe. But if that is the case, the original question of reality of the unobserved particles momentum and location isn't resolved yet.

    So who thinks there is reality at the quantum level and who thinks there is not?
     
  17. Saxion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    264
    Links?

    All i can tell you is that it has been proven (with scientific papers written in its event) that non-local events coupled with entanglement has been experimented on photons to show that fundamental attributes do not exist until some detector has fired.

    I will look for the paper, but for now you will simply have to accept my post.
     
  18. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Oh I do accept your post as almost as good as the paper

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    Are you referring to the experiment mentioned in the article I link to in Seed mag about the polarity of photons? Either way I would like to see the paper that addresses the experiment and not just a one liner about the conclusion that the Seed article gives. If you can find it or someone else can add a link it would be nice.
     
  19. Saxion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    264
    If this was the experiment which was conducted from the thoughts of non-locality and entanglement, then yes it will be the same. I will take a look.
     
  20. Saxion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    264
    Yes, i do believe it may be the same work i am referring to. I could be wrong, but a quick look through, it seems to be the same. This work is only a year old, and these new results seem to show compelling evidence that we do shape the world.

    Ben's a pure idiot for moving this scientific work.
     
  21. Saxion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    264
    And alphanumeric is also an idiot for believing there is no credible scientific paper written. Hardly any of these kinds of articles refer to scientific work without there being a scientific background. Hell, i even read it last week or something independant of this thread quantum wave made.

    I will even find it!!
     
  22. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I hope you can find it.

    I asked Ben to move the thread here so we could talk about various ideas, so it was me. I want to explore both sides and all view points are welcome.
     
  23. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I just posted new ideas of how reality does exist on my thread about Photon Deflection in QWC. If I am right about the nature of the photon, that it is composed of energy in quantum increments, and that its energy is 100% contained in its own frame of reference as it travels at the speed of light, then there is a real number of quanta in the photon. That real number of quanta was emitted as a photon and is a product of the energy level of the source that emitted the photon. The emission occurred in the frame of reference of the source, the photon itself traveling at the speed of light has a frame of reference of its own, and when observed, the observer has a third frame of reference.

    There is a real number of quanta in the photon in its frame but the perceived amount of energy in the photon is frame dependent and so an observer will not be able to observe the reality. The observer would have to know the information about the source, i.e. location and momentum, and the history of the photon, path and encounters, in order to correctly determine the real number of quanta.

    The philosophical debate comes in as to whether the perception of the observer imparts reality to the energy and number of quanta in the photon when observed. The perceived reality would never be the true reality of the energy in the photon from the photons frame of reference or from the frame of reference of the source.

    Here is that post I referenced above: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2098646&postcount=10
     

Share This Page