Probability

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

If you want to learn about this "charade" of quantum physics, then why don't you ask on a physics forum instead of a philosophy forum? You really think that stumping us is going to illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of quantum science?

Furthermore, if you are a doubter of quantum science, then you'd best find an alternative way to explain technologies from engineering to medicine that are based purely on quantum science. :nonooo: MRI, CT, hemodialysis, pharmacology, protein and enzyme chemistry, etc, are ALL practical applications of quantum physics.

If you're actually interested in pursuing this, I'd suggest you go to some more erudite sources and then report back to us. I just did a search in JSTOR and came up with 15,000 individual research articles using the search term "quantum physics". Even a search of PubMed, which is a medical directory, revealed more than 200 articles when "quantum physics" is the keyword.

So if you have doubts about the relevance or evidence basis behind quantum science, there are places you can go to REALLY see what all that hubub is based on. After all, why would you reject something without being informed first?

Im not rejecting it..im being asked in a philosophical forum to accept its conclusions...your making the claims im asking for an explanation..nothing to complicated now..how does a pendulum disappear into infinity???

@Holiday20310401,

Medicine is, by the way, the only current aplication of anti-matter. They bombard people's brain with it in one kind of exam... I dont have idea of how they prevent the anti-matter of coliding with the billions of things to colide with along they way thought Smile

@xris,

xris;37925 wrote:

So you who dont sit passively and claim to know QM... Can you tell me if the claim by QM that oscillating particles disappear into infinity at certain times in their cycle is in your opinion correct and if it is can you explain the best way you can..WHY THAT IS.

I don't 'claim to know' quantum theory at all. I, like others, have certain understandings. No one "understands quantum theory" in all it's depth and vast implications. It goes all mystical almost as soon as you walk in the door (thats one of my strong points)!
I do 'know' that quantum theory never says something 'disappears into infinity'.
Perhaps I can offer an explanation of the 'appearance';
Perhaps the 'why', is that each moment is a complete universe, discrete, with a 'particle' in it or not. Particles appear and disappear depending on the moment that is being observed. There is no one 'particle' travelling here and there, appearing and disappearing. An electron does not 'leap' from energy level to energy level. It disappears from existence and in the new existence/universe of the 'next' moment, another electron appears on the next energy level. Nothing actually 'moves'. The appearance is that the electron 'leapt'. We now know that this is an illusion and that they are distinct/discrete (quanta) 'electrons'.

@xris,

xris;37965 wrote:

your making the claims im asking for an explanation

I'm not making any claims, other than that I generally trust the integrity of mature sciences that have tens of thousands of participants publishing their research in peer-reviewed journals. I mean there is a pretty tight system of checks and balances there.

That's not to claim that it's infallible, but it would take a major paradigm shift within science for that to happen. Such paradigm shifts do happen, but they happen because of research.

@xris,

xris;37956 wrote:

does anyone one on this forum know anymore than i ?

It appears so...

Quote:

This charade of QM

Exactly to what "charade" do you refer? I assume that only by 'superior education' and understanding can you logically call anything a 'charade', yet you admit 'knowing' nothing yet still 'criticize and dismiss'. That sounds more emotionally/egoically/'belief' based than ratio-logically.

Quote:

and its ignored..

By whom? Only by those that do/cannot understand it or don't care to! It isn't 'in the box', isn't easy baby brainfood. IF you are really interested in understanding anything about it, and don't like or understand what you see here, go do your own research. Educate yourself. Than you can show us all the true understanding! And offer an educated criticism that goes beyond mere namecalling and dismissal.
Pffft!

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

I don't 'claim to know' quantum theory at all. I, like others, have certain understandings. No one "understands quantum theory" in all it's depth and vast implications. It goes all mystical almost as soon as you walk in the door (thats one of my strong points)!
I do 'know' that quantum theory never says something 'disappears into infinity'.
Perhaps I can offer an explanation of the 'appearance';
Perhaps the 'why', is that each moment is a complete universe, discrete, with a 'particle' in it or not. Particles appear and disappear depending on the moment that is being observed. There is no one 'particle' travelling here and there, appearing and disappearing. An electron does not 'leap' from energy level to energy level. It disappears from existence and in the new existence/universe of the 'next' moment, another electron appears on the next energy level. Nothing actually 'moves'. The appearance is that the electron 'leapt'. We now know that this is an illusion and that they are distinct/discrete (quanta) 'electrons'.

But you say it does not but then says it does and then its an illusion...I hear that there is only one electron in the universe and its everywhere..that atoms communicate faster than light...I hear you all but are you sure are you really really sure...or is god a pink elephant riding a blue balloon...

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

It appears so...

Exactly to what "charade" do you refer? I assume that only by 'superior education' and understanding can you logically call anything a 'charade', yet you admit 'knowing' nothing yet still 'criticize and dismiss'. That sounds more emotionally/egoically/'belief' based than ratio-logically.

By whom? Only by those that do/cannot understand it or don't care to! It isn't 'in the box', isn't easy baby brainfood. IF you are really interested in understanding anything about it, and don't like or understand what you see here, go do your own research. Educate yourself. Than you can show us all the true understanding! And offer an educated criticism that goes beyond mere namecalling and dismissal.
Pffft!

I dismiss you because you tell me you dont know and no one here who claims to know will claim they know but only say its an illusion...

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;37942 wrote:

nameless wrote:

new moment, new quanta.

new moment, new quanta.Yes, but it doesn't imply indeterminacy.

All synchronously appearing moments, universes, are not determined or indeterminate as that implies a 'determiner'. Every moment is exactly as it is, could never be other than as it is. Timelessly. No possibility of 'could have been', no 'choice'. What is, is!
The only ('thing') that is 'undetermined' is Mind/quantum wave field/undifferentiated potential... Our observation 'determines' the moment, 'differentiates' the 'potential' (to us).

Quote:

Perhaps the reason we have a wave and a particle is the wave makes the particle coherent.

Perhaps, but the only reason that something is viewed as a 'wave' and a 'particle' is how we 'view' it. And it isn't there when not 'viewed', in all it's potentiality!

Quote:

Well if you have only 1 frame of a stack of film then if each film is not precisely the same, should there not be inevitably a way of figuring out how long the film is?

Like the 'particle', it depends on Perspective. Every 'frame' is unique, as are Perspectives. We see the 'movie' as we do, imagine all the rest of the potential Perspectives; all added together to give a complete picture of the 'movie' (something that we can't possibly imagine)!

Quote:

If every single frame was the same, they all imply eachother, then it would not matter how long the film was, but the result of measuring how long it was would be completely random. So in order for the mind to compensate for this redundancy, all quanta are connected to eachother via a wave to the perceiver until the perception becomes not that of the film but just of the single frame of the film.

I repeat, all moments/universes are quantized, 'individually discrete/unique. There is no 'redundancy'. The definition of 'quanta' is that they are not "all connected to each other". That is what is meant by 'discrete'.

@xris,

xris;37972 wrote:

I hear that there is only one electron in the universe and its everywhere..

I hear that people believe that other people can walk on water. So?

Quote:

that atoms communicate faster than light...

Yeah, so?

Quote:

I hear you all but are you sure are you really really sure...

Well, no. That is what qm is finding. Nothing is 'sure'. That has been the error of classical physics, thinking that there are one-size-fits-all answers. There are not. Consciousness has been discovered, Perspectives. All the toys that made us feel so stable are now broken. Quantum is a nebulous world of Consciousness/Mind rather than 'things'.

Quote:

or is god a pink elephant riding a blue balloon...

Perhaps. Depends on Perspective, on the 'believer' ('belief', as there is no 'natural evidence' to critically examine (perhaps there is for some!), so a ratio-logical examination is not possible (but for those who actually perceive evidence).

@xris,

xris;37973 wrote:

I dismiss you because you tell me you dont know and no one here who claims to know will claim they know but only say its an illusion...

No one 'knows', many 'think'! Some understand.
You dismiss in ignorance and emotion. Obviously, 'science' is not for you. It requires knowledge to 'dismiss' something (for someone capable of critical thought, science), or 'emotional/psychological processes'. I dismiss your willful ignorance as the latter.
If I were Heisenberg himself, would the words offered here make more sense to you? I think not.
Your willful ignorance is what limits you, not my identity.
have a nice day
nameless out

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

No one 'knows', many 'think'! Some understand.
You dismiss in ignorance and emotion. Obviously, 'science' is not for you. It requires knowledge to 'dismiss' something (for someone capable of critical thought, science), or 'emotional/psychological processes'. I dismiss your willful ignorance as the latter.
If I were Heisenberg himself, would the words offered here make more sense to you? I think not.
Your willful ignorance is what limits you, not my identity.
have a nice day
nameless out

So you become abusive and leave the room how very constructive...im not being willfully ignorant i have asked for your opinion and you agree with me you have no idea..how can i converse with a negative ??

@nameless,

Xris the problem is that not only you write in a manner that is very hard to understand (example: I dismiss you because you tell me you dont know and no one here who claims to know will claim they know but only say its an illusion...) but you also seen to not understand what the others are saying at all, taking in account how much times you just repeat your old questions instead of making new ones after the answers. I think you have to improve your english badly.

In case you write so bad due to lazyness and is actually understanding what everbody is saying then... the answer you seek does not exists, we believe quantum mechanics merely because we have chosen to believe, since we need to believe some form of physics in order to do stuff, and quantum mechanics makes more sense among all the options for its believers.

@manored,

manored wrote:

Xris the problem is that not only you write in a manner that is very hard to understand (example: I dismiss you because you tell me you dont know and no one here who claims to know will claim they know but only say its an illusion...) but you also seen to not understand what the others are saying at all, taking in account how much times you just repeat your old questions instead of making new ones after the answers. I think you have to improve your english badly.

In case you write so bad due to lazyness and is actually understanding what everbody is saying then... the answer you seek does not exists, we believe quantum mechanics merely because we have chosen to believe, since we need to believe some form of physics in order to do stuff, and quantum mechanics makes more sense among all the options for its believers.

So you refuse to answer my question ..then cant answer.. then its an illusion and finally my english is crap...o how i love these debates..I think you ought to look at your own english and spelling before you criticise mine..I dont you have any idea how to support QM and its probabilities..

@manored,

manored wrote:

taking in account how much times you just repeat your old questions instead of making new ones after the answers. I think you have to improve your english badly.

Well... I don't feel that any questions, ideas, creativity, ingenuity is really abundant in this thread.

I think it is important to respect xris who asks questions a lot. If all we're here to do is be arrogant to novices then I won't create all these threads.

And no Nameless, I don't care about bandwidth, I'm more than happy to start paying to be a part of this forum.

@Holiday20310401,

I dont mean to sound accusatory, I DO believe his english will create trouble for him and am trying to help. I know that sounds like arrogance, but I wont stop myself from trying to help others because I will sound arrogant Smile

And, to speak the truth, I AM arrogant. You pretty much cant avoid being arrogant then you are a solipist Smile

My english indeed isnt perfect but, as far as I know, its understandeable. I have trouble understanding what you write, and I know enough english to know its not because you write too well Smile

Indeed I dont have idea of how to support QM, except that, assuming it is correct, it is a fitting explanation, that is, makes sense. Basically what I mean is: You dont have to be right if your wrong version is enough.

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

I repeat, all moments/universes are quantized, 'individually discrete/unique. There is no 'redundancy'. The definition of 'quanta' is that they are not "all connected to each other". That is what is meant by 'discrete'.

Sure all photons are discrete through time, and their energy varies.
I mean you take a photon, just one photon; and you compare it to another photon. What are you left with of these two photons when their energy becomes zero. They can't disappear, this just doesn't make sense. These quanta are indivisible so how can they have a closed system of energy? There is just nothing else to take away, unlike with a divisible object. Matter is just bound energy.

And so it would make sense for time instants to be discrete with indivisible bounds of energy. You can't disprove a photon has no mass...:bigsmile:...(I hope)

If you look at the universe as a parallel program (an analogy if you will) then every subject (quantum) would have to have some absolute quality, its own constant. And lets say every subject was acting synchronously:a-ok:, but also discretely. And there are also (to the perceiver), subjects that are divisible.

The divisible objects would have an energy proportional to the mass. When the energy is mingling in the conditions of a divisible object (because there exists quantum moments) the mass can retain its proportionality with energy.

The indivisible objects would have to be different because there is no proportion, not that there is no mass, there is just no energy conversing within the photon itself.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;38022 wrote:

nameless wrote:
I repeat, all moments/universes are quantized, 'individually discrete/unique. There is no 'redundancy'. The definition of 'quanta' is that they are not "all connected to each other". That is what is meant by 'discrete'.

Sure all photons are discrete through time, and their energy varies.
I mean you take a photon, ...They can't disappear, this just doesn't make sense. These quanta are indivisible so how can they have a closed system of energy? There is just nothing else to take away, unlike with a divisible object.

Yes, they do disappear! along with the universe of the moment of which they are a feature. Did you understand what i said regarding the 'quantum leap' of an electron? It disappears with the universe, another appears with the new universe.
And like everything else, a 'photon' or an 'electron' or a 'hamburger' are, at origin, 'information', not 'stuff' (massive or massless regardless).
It is the limited Perspective that imagines 'stuff'.

Quote:

Matter is just bound energy.

No... 'matter' is 'energy' (at a particular 'speed').

Quote:

And so it would make sense for time instants to be discrete with indivisible bounds of energy.

'Energy' is, also, a feature of 'information waves'. It is not 'basic'. 'Energy' is as much a feature of existence as boogers. Nothing 'special' in and of itself. It is still a (foundational) 'feature' with an underlying 'foundation', an underlying 'reality'.

Quote:

You can't disprove a photon has no mass...:bigsmile:...(I hope)

Heh.. Depends on Perspective, according to what I have just seen... the particular definition of mass, etc.. but still a 'feature' and not the 'source'.
Besides, 'mass' to me is meaningless. In a dream, holding a rock and worrying about the 'mass' of the 'dream rock'. What is the mass of a 'concept'? How much can a 'dream' weigh? Physics, being the analytical study of a 'dream' only interests me peripherally. It is the 'source' of the dream that interests me; 'Reality'.

Quote:

If you look at the universe as a parallel program (an analogy if you will) then every subject (quantum) would have to have some absolute quality, its own constant.

NO 'absolute qualities' can be known by individual Perspectives. We can only know what we can perceive. All Perceptions sum total = existence, the 'absolute quality' of the complete manifestation of the moment/universe.

Quote:

And lets say every subject was acting synchronously:a-ok:, but also discretely.

There is no 'acting'. There is no 'motion'. Just a pile of static frame tapestry-like moments/universes as perceived by us.

Quote:

And there are also (to the perceiver), subjects that are divisible.

Everything perceived in existence is Contextual, dualistic, and therefore 'divisible', by definition. 'Existence' is Grounded in (manifested of) the non-contextual, the 'indivisible' (undifferentiated potential).
On the scale, from the Perspective of 'appearance', 'stuff' has the 'qualities' of 'stuff', but the 'stuff' is an 'appearance', only, of 'non-stuff'.

Quote:

The divisible objects would have an energy proportional to the mass.

This is all a study of the features of the 'dream', and goes on and on and on...
Common, classic physics, the study of the 'manifestation'. My interest lies in the deeper reality than the apparent 'manifestation'.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;38008 wrote:

And no Nameless, I don't care about bandwidth, I'm more than happy to start paying to be a part of this forum.

Ahhh, like those who drive their SUVs and figure that since they pay for the gas and upkeep that any affect on the environment or 'resources' is irrelevent. It isn't. Your money doesn't replace my air, my groundwater or our bandwidth.
Keep your money (well, donate to the site anyway, do you?) and spare all of our limited resources! What an 'Amerikkkan' attitude... If I ever see you gasping for air, shal I just toss you a ten spot? *__-

@Holiday20310401,

I'm not so sure folks who can't stay on topic should be trying to tackle quantum physics.

I see two conflicting possibilities:

1. There is only probability:
There are no certainties, only probabilities because we can never, ever know everything there is to know about a given scenario. Not to mention, there are an infinite number of explanations to anything that happens.

2. Probability is a fallacy:
There are no probabilities because everything that happens happens due to cause and effect. The dice landed on "5" because the forces applied to it caused it to do so. If you could repeat those exact forces, then the dice would land on "5" every single time, no exceptions. That's not randomness, that's simply the complexities in repeating a given set of parameters due to the observer not having gathered enough information. Probability is simply the level of difficulty that repeating a given scenario requires. If you had all the data, you would know the exact outcome every time.

@balhallah,

Those aren't conflicting -- in fact they're perfectly complementary. Insofar as we cannot explain everything, probability is a substitute for an inability to know all causes and all effects.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know