At 9/11/2020 04:11 PM, Mike wrote:
>Entangled Moose writes:
>
><<<More a philosophical problem that a science problem, no?
>
>Seems to be both a science AND philosophical problem. QM has proven extremely
>robust in predicting experimental results and if there were convincing
>evidence that
>objective results are observer dependent, that would have profound
>implications. There is no clear upper limit to the size of objects that can
>undergo entanglement:
>
>https://www.pnas.org/content/116/45/22413
>
>
>Even if not directly applicable, quantum effects can be very imp't for
>macroscopic beings--witness use of the these effects by enzymes, navigation
>by flutterbys and probably birds--magneto-reception is very likely based on
>the production of quantum entangled radical pairs that interact differently
>with the earth's magnetic field.
>
>I suppose if QM is a final theory with nothing deeper, we may never know how
>it works. If one is an anti-realist like Niels Bohr all this doesn't matter.
> He is the source for the "Copenhagen
>interpretation" which can be summarized as "shut up and calculate." There
>are no paradoxes when QM viewed like that as wave functions are not real but
>an artificial construction like a hieroglyph that are useful in predicting
>results but have no do not mirror reality. Einstein and other realists have a
>problem as there is no explanation for how wave functions collapse and
>nonlocality. Hidden variables have been debunked by elegant experiments
>showing violation of Bell's inequality. It just seems very unsatisfactory not
>have a deeper explanation for the workings of QM. Most physicists working on
>this have previously ended up in departments of mathematics or philosophy.
>There is no conspiracy against this line of inquiry but no mentor would let
>their student head down a likely dead end. There seems to be more work on
>this now and perhaps the physicist is alive today that will slay John
>Wheeler's "Great Smokey Dragon."
>(tail is wave fxn before collapse, head is after, with large smokey middle)
>
>As Einstein said, "Reality is merely an illusion albeit a very persistent
>one," or better yet from the american science fiction writer Philip K Dick,
>"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away," Mike
I've always been intrigued by QM and took extra physics classes just to
understand it. The professor commented that I had a good intuitive
understanding of the electron orbit. I also took complicated field and waves
courses. Without a mathematical vision to guide intuition, I don't see how most
people can really get QM. Any attempt to translate into our everyday
perspective is just more confusing, and contradictory, to most people. So some
justify saying, at the macroscopic level, QM is less of an effect. But QMs is
fundamental to the nature of reality, whatever that is at this time. I
sometimes think of matter/particles as just energy twisting space into a
topological knot. Sometimes the knot comes untied, decays, releases the energy.
Einstein showed mass causes bent space, so all those knots bend space around
them. Spooky action at a distance for couple particles could be just a phase
shift in the waves that sum up to make the two particle.... Phase shift is not
limited by the spee
d of light. Group velocity is limited by the speed of light and spreads out
the particle in the summation of waves as it moves faster, hence the
uncertainty principle is just group velocity. Can a mathematical view make it
all consistent? Or is it better to just be a mystic/artist and capture it all
with photos. The universe is vast and prolific. Whatever can be, will be.
With Awe and Wonder
WayneS
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|