What's inside the box?

[midniterider]

Ok, thanks for all that. So is the basic premise of the experiment with the detectors flawed if they mostly decide to go through the detector a certain way? 

[pantheory]

12 hours ago, midniterider said:

Ok, thanks for all that. So is the basic premise of the experiment with the detectors flawed if they mostly decide to go through the detector a certain way? 

 

No, the problem is their assumption that going through a horizontal detector the entangled photons of a wave have a 50-50 chance that their spin can turn one way or the other. This is not a bad assumption since when testing 1000 entangled photons, for instance, about half will turn one way and the others will turn the other way. But each individual photon of a wave may only be able to turn their spin in a single direction. Since in my explanation the waves combination of characteristics would be the reason for this and cannot individually be tested, therefore it seems my explanation cannot be tested with existing technology. It is simply a logical explanation, whereby the mainstream QM explanation in quotes below seems impossible and fantastic.

 

"..... when you change the spin in one direction of an entangled photon, you automatically, instantaneously change the direction of spin of the other entangled photon (moving in the opposite direction), no matter how far apart the distance between the two photons."

[AntiChrist]

Why do scientist's say.

 

"If you think you know quantum mechanics, then you don't know quantum mechanics"

 

 

[WalterP]

22 hours ago, pantheory said:

"....what's your justification for wanting to change the theory of QM?"  The correct answer is that Quantum Mechanics is not a theory. It is primarily a statistical system in quantum physics used to predict the probability of events in the quantum world. There is no consensus theory to it.

 

My thanks to you and Disillusioned for correcting me.  Sometimes one lapses into sloppiness and that was one of those times.

 

 

22 hours ago, pantheory said:

I believe generally speaking, simple logic can be used to simply organize and explain everything in the universe including the basis of Quantum Mechanics via theory. Nothing is complicated IMO. Everything that exists can be simply understood by an average person. Look at religion, for instance, and how educated people can believe such BS. I think everyone should strive to learn and understand the truth of everything, how things really work, not the pure BS we hear concerning Quantum and other modern physics. If an explanation does not seem logical to most people, it is either wrong or poorly explained. IMO complicated or bizarre explanations are not needed to understand anything in general.  Bottom line is that I do not like BS as a way to explain anything. BS is only necessary if you totally don't understand what you are talking about and you are only wildly guessing as to how it works, such as the god of the gaps. Perfect examples are most quantum theories. Many great experiments have been conducted in the name of science and then misinterpreted based upon wrong hypotheses.

 

The question becomes, what do we gain by understanding how quantum mechanics or the universe works? After all, Engineering develops nearly all technologies often with little science involved, so why do we need to understand how things work? I think this is a goal for most of humanity, not just the benefits from resulting technology, but to really understand the basic inter-workings of reality.

 

Pantheory,

 

I'm sorry, but your beliefs and your opinions cut no ice with me. 

 

Your belief that the universe ought to be able to be understood by simple logic is similar to the position adopted by string theorists. 

 

They believe that the universe ought to be able to be described by such a mathematically beautiful theory as theirs.

 

But is the universe really under any obligation to be understood or described by what you (Pantheory) want or expect?  I'd say no. 

 

But, that's just an opinion of mine .  Unlike you, I don't believe that my opinions carry any weight when it comes to how reality ought to behave.

 

 

So, instead of arguing against you, I'll adopt the null position and ask you to persuade me.

 

Why do you think the universe ought to be able to be understood by simple logic?

 

Why do you think the universe ought to be able to be understood by the average person?

 

Why do you think that an explanation of how the universe works ought to seem logical to most people?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[disillusioned]

Just to be clear, if we are now discussing opinions, my personal opinion is that the universe is very likely inexplicable in its entirety by the human mind. I think QM illustrates this by brushing up against the limits of our ability to understand how things actually work. As a statistical model, it is comprehensible, and it works very well indeed. But in terms of common sense interpretations, well, they are a dime a dozen.

 

For the interested: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

[pantheory]

7 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

My thanks to you and Disillusioned for correcting me.  Sometimes one lapses into sloppiness and that was one of those times.

 

 

 

Pantheory,

 

I'm sorry, but your beliefs and your opinions cut no ice with me. 

 

Your belief that the universe ought to be able to be understood by simple logic is similar to the position adopted by string theorists. 

 

They believe that the universe ought to be able to be described by such a mathematically beautiful theory as theirs.

 

But is the universe really under any obligation to be understood or described by what you (Pantheory) want or expect?  I'd say no. 

 

But, that's just an opinion of mine .  Unlike you, I don't believe that my opinions carry any weight when it comes to how reality ought to behave.

 

 

So, instead of arguing against you, I'll adopt the null position and ask you to persuade me.

 

Why do you think the universe ought to be able to be understood by simple logic?

 

Why do you think the universe ought to be able to be understood by the average person?

 

Why do you think that an explanation of how the universe works ought to seem logical to most people?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

We can't stray too far from Schrodinger's cat and QM in this thread. I would love to answer all of your questions in more detail but in this thread I will give you brief answers to your questions , but. If you want more complete and extended answers I will be glad to do it in a separate thread with your questions if you wish, OK?  As you may know based upon our previous conversatinos I have written a number of peer reviewed scientific papers in cosmology and a book relating to cosmology and modern physics. My writings and works in modern physics are not mainstream but have been critically acclaimed.

 

https://www.pantheory.org/

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&hl=en

 

Why do you think the universe ought to be able to be understood by simple logic?

 

Answer: Because IMO the universe is a relatively simple place having a lot of detail, but none of it beyond normal logic IMO.

 

Why do you think the universe ought to be able to be understood by the average person?

 

Answer:  Mainstream explanations of the universe and modern physics are not simple, and many such explanations are not valid IMO.  But if reality is properly understood and explained, its details can be understood by most interested persons of normal intellect IMO.

 

Why do you think that an explanation of how the universe works ought to seem logical to most people?

Answer: From my experience most people who are seriously interested in a subject can follow a logical  analysis of it if the explanation of the subject is valid and follows the normal rules of logical analysis.

 

https://arcapologetics.org/three-laws-logic/

[pantheory]

12 hours ago, AntiChrist said:

Why do scientist's say.

 

"If you think you know quantum mechanics, then you don't know quantum mechanics"

 

 

This was a quote from Richard Feynman said with tongue in cheek . He was an important contributor to QM. He is known for Feynman diagrams, named after him. Here he is talking about how bizarre the results of QM experiments are and  how far their interpretations veer from what seems logical.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627596-800-quantum-wonders-nobody-understands/

[pantheory]

7 hours ago, disillusioned said:

Just to be clear, if we are now discussing opinions, my personal opinion is that the universe is very likely inexplicable in its entirety by the human mind. I think QM illustrates this by brushing up against the limits of our ability to understand how things actually work. As a statistical model, it is comprehensible, and it works very well indeed. But in terms of common sense interpretations, well, they are a dime a dozen.

 

For the interested: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

 

I have never heard a mainstream common-sense explanation of Quantum Mechanics. Some of the more well-known and accepted explanations are totally fantastic IMO. But certainly some explanations are better than others concerning logic and common sense.

[disillusioned]

4 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

I have never heard a mainstream common-sense explanation of Quantum Mechanics. Some of the more well-known and accepted explanations are totally fantastic IMO. But certainly some explanations are better than others concerning logic and common sense.

 

Of course not. What you mean by this is different from what I mean. When I said "common sense interpretations" what I was referring to are interpretations which allow for, align with, and/or explain what we already know by common sense. The interpretation itself does not need to accord with common sense. This is fairly high-level philosophy of science, not grade school.

 

Also, "common sense" is not particularly well-defined, and the history of science is littered with examples of the common sense of the day being flatly wrong. I don't see any reason at all to think that common sense interpretations, as you are using the term, should be possible at all. I just don't take that simplistic of a view.

[WalterP]

7 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

We can't stray too far from Schrodinger's cat and QM in this thread. I would love to answer all of your questions in more detail but in this thread I will give you brief answers to your questions , but. If you want more complete and extended answers I will be glad to do it in a separate thread with your questions if you wish, OK?  As you may know based upon our previous conversatinos I have written a number of peer reviewed scientific papers in cosmology and a book relating to cosmology and modern physics. My writings and works in modern physics are not mainstream but have been critically acclaimed.

 

https://www.pantheory.org/

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&hl=en

 

Why do you think the universe ought to be able to be understood by simple logic?

 

Answer: Because IMO the universe is a relatively simple place having a lot of detail, but none of it beyond normal logic IMO.

 

Why do you think the universe ought to be able to be understood by the average person?

 

Answer:  Mainstream explanations of the universe and modern physics are not simple, and many such explanations are not valid IMO.  But if reality is properly understood and explained, its details can be understood by most interested persons of normal intellect IMO.

 

Why do you think that an explanation of how the universe works ought to seem logical to most people?

Answer: From my experience most people who are seriously interested in a subject can follow a logical  analysis of it if the explanation of the subject is valid and follows the normal rules of logical analysis.

 

https://arcapologetics.org/three-laws-logic/

 

Thank you for this Pantheory,

 

I don't need more complete and extended answers because what you've written above tells me all I need to know.

 

I asked you three questions and your responses to the first two amount to nothing more than your evidence-free opinions.  

 

You also opine that the universe is a relatively simple place, without giving any concrete reason for why this is so.

 

You go on to assert that mainstream scientific explanations are invalid because they are not simple.  Yet, that assertion rests upon the the universe actually being a simple place.  That which is simple requires only a simple explanation.  Thus far you have provided only an opinion that this is so.  No evidence.  Therefore, its time for a HitchSlap. 

 

"That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

 

In response to my third question, you appeal to your experience.  Seeing as I'm not party to your experience, I don't find your reply at all persuasive. 

 

Finally, I see that you link to a Christian apologetics site.

 

That's a curious irony, seeing as Young Earth Creationist Christians do exactly the same thing as you do when presented with complex scientific explanations of the universe.

 

They call BS.

 

 

And when it comes to your evidence-free opinions, assertions and beliefs, so do I.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

6 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

Of course not. What you mean by this is different from what I mean. When I said "common sense interpretations" what I was referring to are interpretations which allow for, align with, and/or explain what we already know by common sense. The interpretation itself does not need to accord with common sense. This is fairly high-level philosophy of science, not grade school.

 

Also, "common sense" is not particularly well-defined, and the history of science is littered with examples of the common sense of the day being flatly wrong. I don't see any reason at all to think that common sense interpretations, as you are using the term, should be possible at all. I just don't take that simplistic of a view.

 

Yes, there are different levels of understanding a subject. I believe that at the foundation level of understanding most people of average intelligence who are interested in the subject can understand it with some effort. Of course  this basic understanding would not result if the ones trying to explain the subject don't understand it, or the theory involved is invalid.

 

There are a number of famous quotes along these lines.

 

"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Albert Einstein

“A scientist who can’t explain his theories to a barmaid doesn’t really understand them”

“If a piece of physics cannot be explained to a barmaid, then it is not a good piece of physics.”
“A good scientific theory should be explicable to a barmaid.”
“No physical theory is worth much if it cannot be explained to a barmaid.”
“An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid.”

All quotes attributed to Nobel Laureate — Ernest Rutherford

Barmaid Physics:

"In science, barmaid physics, aka "barmaid explanations", refers to the oft-cited premise that, in physics one doesn’t fully understand a phenomena, theory, concept, principle or law, etc., until one can explain it to a barmaid or child, e.g. in simple words, or on a cocktail napkin.

 

Anecdotally, the origin of this simplification rule for difficult concepts is said to have occurred in a real situation in the working existence of either: James Maxwell, Charles Wilson, Ernest Rutherford, and/ or to Albert Einstein, albeit most oft-cited is Ernest Rutherford."

 

http://www.eoht.info/page/Barmaid+physics

 

 

[AntiChrist]

Does my body, with it's chemical and electrical reactions, act based on the laws of quantum mechanics?

[pantheory]

20 minutes ago, AntiChrist said:

Does my body, with it's chemical and electrical reactions, act based on the laws of quantum mechanics?

 

Hi again AntiChrist, great name

 

Quantum mechanics relates to interactions in the world of micro particles, such as photons, electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, bosons etc. It generally relates to "free particles," not molecules like we are made of.

 

But some or many quantum physicists believe at the most fundamental level of reality, everything follows the laws of quantum mechanics.

 

But IMO there is much these physicists don't understand concerning QM which would be contrary to present theory.

[AntiChrist]

5 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Hi again AntiChrist, great name

 

Quantum mechanics relates to interactions in the world of micro particles, such as photons, electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, bosons etc. It generally relates to "free particles," not molecules like we are made of.

 

But some or many quantum physicists believe at the most fundamental level of reality, everything follows the laws of quantum mechanics.

 

But IMO there is much these physicists don't understand concerning QM which would be contrary to present theory.

Is the quantum world connected to the sub-atomic/atomic world?

[pantheory]

2 minutes ago, AntiChrist said:

Is the quantum world connected to the sub-atomic/atomic world?

 

Usually the sub-atomic world is considered the same thing as the quantum world.  The atomic and molecular worlds are usually considered to be something different.

[AntiChrist]

2 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Usually the sub-atomic world is considered the same thing as the quantum world.  The atomic and molecular worlds are usually considered to be something different.

Really? But everything is made up of atoms, right?

 

(Wait! I didn't read your post right)

 

Okay I get it. My mistake.

[pantheory]

14 minutes ago, AntiChrist said:

Really? But everything is made up of atoms, right?

 

No, the subatomic world is based upon sub-atomic particles, some of which atoms are made of. The supposed laws of QM usually don't apply or relate to the macro world of atoms and molecules, such as sticks and stones and you and me

 

 

 

[AntiChrist]

12 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

No, the subatomic world is based upon sub-atomic particles, some of which atoms are made of. The supposed laws of QM usually don't apply or relate to the macro world of atoms and molecules, such as sticks and stones and you and me

 

 

 

That is interesting, super interesting. Does the quantum world materialise outwardly (Like the atomic world?)

[pantheory]

3 minutes ago, AntiChrist said:

That is interesting, super interesting. Does the quantum world materialise outwardly (Like the atomic world?)

 

For now I have to go to work. My time right now is in the morning, the opposite of you down under at night.  So about 10-11 hours from now I'll be able to answer your question, cheers

 

[midniterider]

Pantheory and Disillusioned, do some of these mainstream interpretations seem like a bunch of woo to you? Woo masquerading as science? What is fantastic vs common sense or 'logical?' Light travels at 186.000 miles per second. That seems absurdly fantastic...yet it is a fact. 

 

Pantheory, thanks for your explanation of entanglement regarding particle detectors , etc. What would you say is going on in the double slit experiment? Why does adding a detector by a slit result in 2 light bars instead of an interference pattern? 

 

I tend to have a little disdain for Occam's Razor, though maybe I dont understand it. If the gist of it is that we should refrain from any old crazy explanation that pops into our head, then I agree but that seems like commons sense...and not not some philosophical epiphany from Occam. I would think that more assumptions would lead to a less factual less reasonable explanation. But using Occam's Razor as a kind of rule of thumb doesnt seem sound to me. It seems like arbitrary nonsense. 

 

With some science topics I am more reserved or conservative. I play with radio waves on a daily basis and I generally follow in others' footsteps, not really challenging the mainstream radio theory. And that's because existing theory works. Other topics like QM and consciousness though I think may tie into woo and spirituality so I think differently about it. 

 

If I'm getting off topic, let me know. 

 

[disillusioned]

3 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Yes, there are different levels of understanding a subject. I believe that at the foundation level of understanding most people of average intelligence who are interested in the subject can understand it with some effort. Of course  this basic understanding would not result if the ones trying to explain the subject don't understand it, or the theory involved is invalid.

 

There are a number of famous quotes along these lines.

 

"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Albert Einstein

“A scientist who can’t explain his theories to a barmaid doesn’t really understand them”

“If a piece of physics cannot be explained to a barmaid, then it is not a good piece of physics.”
“A good scientific theory should be explicable to a barmaid.”
“No physical theory is worth much if it cannot be explained to a barmaid.”
“An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid.”

All quotes attributed to Nobel Laureate — Ernest Rutherford

Barmaid Physics:

"In science, barmaid physics, aka "barmaid explanations", refers to the oft-cited premise that, in physics one doesn’t fully understand a phenomena, theory, concept, principle or law, etc., until one can explain it to a barmaid or child, e.g. in simple words, or on a cocktail napkin.

 

Anecdotally, the origin of this simplification rule for difficult concepts is said to have occurred in a real situation in the working existence of either: James Maxwell, Charles Wilson, Ernest Rutherford, and/ or to Albert Einstein, albeit most oft-cited is Ernest Rutherford."

 

http://www.eoht.info/page/Barmaid+physics

 

Yes, one should be able to explain what one is talking about (more or less) in layman's terms. Otherwise, one isn't making sense. 

 

My point here is more or less that what physics does is allow us to try to make sense of the universe. And physics always, ultimately, fails in this goal, which is why there is no theory of everything. The universe itself may or may not actually make sense. I think it probably doesn't. (By "make sense" I mean something roughly along the lines of "be comprehensible to humans").

[disillusioned]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

Pantheory and Disillusioned, do some of these mainstream interpretations seem like a bunch of woo to you? Woo masquerading as science? What is fantastic vs common sense or 'logical?' Light travels at 186.000 miles per second. That seems absurdly fantastic...yet it is a fact. 

 

 

I think that the interpretations of QM just don't matter. The ones that work all yield exactly the same results, and generate exactly the same knowledge. When they are presented as being science, the people who present them as such are over-reaching, in my view.

 

Certainly some people engage in woo via pseudo quantum jargon. Deepak Chopra comes to mind, among others. This kind of thing works because people generally don't understand QM (because it is very difficult to understand, and very specialized) and because QM genuinely does yield some very strange, counter-intuitive results. These two things work together to lend it a very strange, mysterious air. People often leap from this to spirituality. I don't think this is sound reasoning.

[pantheory]

10 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

Yes, one should be able to explain what one is talking about (more or less) in layman's terms. Otherwise, one isn't making sense. 

 

My point here is more or less that what physics does is allow us to try to make sense of the universe. And physics always, ultimately, fails in this goal, which is why there is no theory of everything. The universe itself may or may not actually make sense. I think it probably doesn't. (By "make sense" I mean something roughly along the lines of "be comprehensible to humans").

 

Schrodinger's cat and almost every aspect of quantum mechanics, based upon mainstream theory and interpretations, does not make sense. As you said, it is simply a statistical system that works in the quantum world. I also agree with you in that almost every aspect of modern physics ultimately fails in its goal to make sense of the universe. This, however, does not mean that the universe is necessarily difficult to understand. I think it just means that the explanations of the universe based upon present theory do not make sense.

[pantheory]

12 hours ago, midniterider said:

Pantheory and Disillusioned, do some of these mainstream interpretations seem like a bunch of woo to you? Woo masquerading as science? What is fantastic vs common sense or 'logical?' Light travels at 186.000 miles per second. That seems absurdly fantastic...yet it is a fact. 

 

Pantheory, thanks for your explanation of entanglement regarding particle detectors , etc. What would you say is going on in the double slit experiment? Why does adding a detector by a slit result in 2 light bars instead of an interference pattern? 

 

I tend to have a little disdain for Occam's Razor, though maybe I dont understand it. If the gist of it is that we should refrain from any old crazy explanation that pops into our head, then I agree but that seems like commons sense...and not not some philosophical epiphany from Occam. I would think that more assumptions would lead to a less factual less reasonable explanation. But using Occam's Razor as a kind of rule of thumb doesnt seem sound to me. It seems like arbitrary nonsense. 

 

With some science topics I am more reserved or conservative. I play with radio waves on a daily basis and I generally follow in others' footsteps, not really challenging the mainstream radio theory. And that's because existing theory works. Other topics like QM and consciousness though I think may tie into woo and spirituality so I think differently about it. 

 

If I'm getting off topic, let me know. 

 

 

I can briefly explain the double slit experiment but a more lengthy explanation would need its own thread. 

 

Almost every problem of logic in the quantum world relate to the belief that there is no physical background field. As you may know, it used to be called the aether. Einstein discarded it in his theory of special relativity. But today we know of more than one physical background field. We have known of at least one since the 1950's. We call it the Zero Point Field. In the last decade we came up with another proposed physical background field which we call the Higgs field. We also have theorized background fields of dark matter and dark energy.

 

As to Occam's Razor,  the gist of it is that if you have two or more explanations or hypotheses for the same event, the simplest explanation having the fewest details or assumptions, is more likely to be valid than the other explanations, all else being equal.

 

In the double slit experiment with light, the interference pattern produced is easy to understand based upon the wave theory of light and such explanation is not in dispute. But when you break light down to individual photons and direct the photons to just one of the two slits, an interference pattern is still produced.

 

The explanation I adhere to for the double slit experiment is quite simple. A photo is part of a light wave. As a photon goes through one slit, the light wave goes through both slits and interferes with the photons so that an interference pattern is produced. The same thing happens with electrons. As an electron also produces waves in the background field. These waves are called De Broglie waves, also called matter waves. As the electron spins in the physical background fieldm it produces waves. The electron goes through just one slit but its waves go through both slits. The results is also an interference pattern of electron impacts.

 

 

[pantheory]

13 hours ago, AntiChrist said:

That is interesting, super interesting. Does the quantum world materialise outwardly (Like the atomic world?)

 

OK, my daily work is done and  I'm back at my computer. The quantum world is just as massive as the atomic world. As to its mass, it mostly consists of free electrons and protons. We have plenty of free electrons here on Earth. These are electrons not attached to an atomic nucleus. We can see their flow as electrical flow or current, albeit they jump from atom to atom. 

There are also free protons, which have no electron orbiting them. These are rather rare in the Earth's atmosphere or crust because of all the available electrons that attach themselves to protons to form hydrogen. But with galaxies like our Milky Way, there are plenty of free protons. There are also free neutrons but they only last about 11 minutes once they are free from an atom. There are also countless neutrinos but their masses are minuscule. Outside of galaxies there are even more free unattached particles.

 

Since the quantum world is primarily based upon unattached particles, it seem less interesting than the macro-world of togetherness, atoms, molecules, sticks and stones, you and me. But there is still another world much larger than both of these worlds. It is the world of plasma containing free particles that are too dense to form atoms and molecules. This is the world of stars, star clusters, galaxies, galaxy clusters etc. This world operates under the laws of nuclear physics.