Posted on 05/29/2002 8:32:25 AM PDT by cornelis
Acutally, that's exactly the point I was making. It has great explanatory power, but the 'reality' of it cannot be proved (i.e. we can't measure or detect wave functions).
You could say as much for a lot of these threads.
Unless I'm mistaken, your point assumes that the reality of "it" (e.g. quantum states) is assumed in the theory but is unprovable/unverifiable. In fact that reality isn't assumed at all - the experimental preparation and measurements are real but the states aren't (necessarily). At least that's the orthodox position; there are others like many worlds or Bohm's carrier waves that have a different twist.
Well, (Do not try this at home) if you stick your tongue in a light socket, the part that stops your heart is the real part; the imaginary part knocks your teeth out.
Most major religions do not teach determinism. Christianity posits that man was created with free will - something not possible in a deterministic world (though the illusion of free will could be). If you are referring to Christians as 'the anti-science crowd,' then you're off the mark.
Your point? If any?
Whoops! Mistake. I meant to post in reference to the above... Your point? If any?
No, you are mistaken (but could easily be my fault)... What I said was that quantum theory provides explanatory power, but that quantum states (i.e. uncollapsed wave functions) cannot be directly shown to exist - thus I agree with you. I do NOT assume the reality of quantum states.
Yes, it is. And yes, they do!
And how do you explain Aspect's experiments? Aspect's stuff shows non-classical correlation. How do you derive (or explain) the actual results without resorting to the wave function?
For example, take three polarized lenses (sunglasses are a good source); look through two of them and rotate one until no light is transmitted. Then put the other lens in between. How does the light get through now? Hard to explain without non-collapsing wave functions.
Are you a die-hard Platonist? To predicate existence is otherwise than simply saying numbers are real. Kant pointed out that the predication of existence to the concept of number adds nothing. This is why we can speak of mental concepts as being existentially neutral.
In science, those things which are modeled with imaginary numbers (such as wave functions in quantum mechanics or time-like intervals in relativity) are things which cannot be proven to exist through direct experiment. In basic alternating current electronics, imaginary number equations of the type 'e' to some imaginary number x t power are used NOT in that way, but as an expedient approach to differentiating difficult sin and cos equations. Imaginary numbers in that case do not model electrical phenomena (because only the real part of those equations apply to actual electrical phenomena). If you don't believe me, take out your Feynman lectures. There is a fundamental difference between the two. My point again is that in both quantum mechanics and relativity (the two theories which provide the most explanatory power to date in science), imaginary numbers are used to model the most basic parts of these theories. And in each case, no direct scientific or experimental contact with those parts of the models can be made. Again, basic reality, as it is currently modeled, is actually NOT something that can be touched on by science. (Only inferred.) Surprising, isn't it? And my other point was that religious belief is similar in that way.
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.