Posted on 11/08/2010 8:33:23 AM PST by The Comedian
Please explain how something can simultaneously be a particle and a wave.
Oh, and I also strongly objected to this statement:
“we merely observe it and use the observations”
I don’t want to say that theory is fundamentally more important than observation, because of course theories are tested by observation and untested theories are useless. However, without theory there is no quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics IS theory. Whether or not theory rises from observation, it is not all observation. Which ought to be obvious to anyone who paused to consider that the same phenomena now explained by quantum mechanics did not go unobserved in the past.
There was always observation, but no quantum physics before quantum theories.
Explain the particle/wave paradox, Perfessor.
“Please explain how something can simultaneously be a particle and a wave”
What am I, a scientist? I don’t know (or particularly care). Like most people, I assume that issue (along with the famous cat) will be better explained by future theory. Then again, I don’t really know what the current theory is, as I don’t know the math.
All this is completely irrelevant to our conversation.
“Explain the particle/wave paradox, Perfessor.”
Why would I have to? What possible bearing does this have on what we were talking about?
I get it.
To you, a theory is a fact.
There is no paradox. There is the phenomenon but that phenomenon exists so there is no paradox.
It's a paradox because we can't explain it, we can only empirically observe and accept it.
“I get it.
To you, a theory is a fact.”
No, I define a scientific theory the way everyone else does. Namely, a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A fact is what theories hypothesize about.
Take some observable physical event: an apple falling from a tree, for instance. That is a fact. Place a series of scientists in front of it: Aristotle, Newton, Eistein (with his general relativity hat on), and Bohr. Each would undoubtedly come up with different means of explaining what just happened, according to their school. That is what theory is all about. Ideas inside scientists’ heads which derive from but are not caused nor determined by empirical reality.
“It’s a paradox because we can’t explain it”
We can’t explain it in plain English, but that’s not what scientists are interested in anyway, which apparently most laymen don’t understand. They express their theories via math. One could accurately say their theories are math, and cannot be understood in any way without it.
“but are not caused nor determined by empirical reality”
Except in a biological/psychological/neurological sense. I simply mean to say that the facts from which theories rise do not cause said theories. Science is detached from the objects that it studies, in a deductive sense.
Observation by a conscious entity is the basis of quantum mechanics.
“So explain consciousness”
Why do you keep demanding this of me. i’m not going to, and can’t, and it’s irrelevant.
“Observation by a conscious entity is the basis of quantum mechanics.”
No it isn’t, except insofar as every science is. The basis of quantum mechanics is the notion of “quanta” and the interactions of matter and energy on the atomic and subatomic level.
“except insofar as every science is”
By which I meant to say observation by a conscious entity is the basis of every science. Should have phrased it: “except insofar as it is the basis of every science.”
Except that with quantum mechanics, the conscious observer affects the result simply by observing.
Prostate problems will do that for you too........unfortunately all night long.
“Except that with quantum mechanics, the conscious observer affects the result simply by observing.”
I assume you’re talking about the infamous Uncertainty Principle, which states that particular sets of physical properties—momentum and position, for instance—cannot be known with great accuracy simultaneously. I shouldn’t think it necessary to explain it’s a small part and in no way the basis of quantum mechanics.
I also shouldn’t have to explain that it doesn’t mean what it’s popularly taken to mean. That is, something along the lines of, “Hey, man, you can’t know anything, ‘cause to know it you have to measure it, and to measure it you have to interfere with it, and when you interfere with it you, like, totally disturb it, you know?” If that were the case (perhaps expressed in more flattering language), it wouldn’t much differ from various loose theories in various other fields. Indeed, most all intellectual disciplines, whether scientific or not, are aware of the problem of the observer.
Luckily for Heisenberg, that’s not what it means. It has a limited and clearly defined meaning, and actually consists of a mathematical equation that can never be fully explained, least of all by tossed-off phrases like “the conscious observer affects the result simply by observing.”
What is a "conscious observer?"
Now you will resort to your "heretofore by the party of the first part" voice.
“You never answer the crux of my question:
What is a ‘conscious observer?’
Now you will resort to your You never answer the crux of my question:
What is a “conscious observer?”
Now you will resort to the “heretofore by the party of the first part” voice if I refuse to answer your question. Which I do. It’s not important for me or any random quantum physicist to fully understand what a conscious observer is for quantum mechanics to be a science and for their ramblings to be more than mere observation.
Consciousness is one thing among many that quantum mechanics doesn’t explain. But who said it’s suppose to or has to, for now? It’s not an omnibus theory. It’s a series of discreet theories covering discreet phenomena that is constantly being added to. Your assertion that the “conscious observer” is the “basis” for it being incorrect, this particular branch of physics either will or won’t get around to it without in the meantime affecting its overall efficacy.
Nevermind the second iteration of: “You never answer the crux of my question:
What is a ‘conscious observer?’”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.