On moon and mice. (Quantum wavefunctions CCC..)

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
On moon and mice. (Quantum wavefunctions CCC..)

'So the moon exists because a mouse is present to observe it?' - Albert Einstein

'You're not thinking, you're merely being logical' -Neils Bohr

 

The most obvious impact of the Quantum is wave functions. These are waves of probability, and cause many a confusion among the community. Coincidentally these people usually have little training in physics.

 

What I'm referring to of course is the interpretation 'Consciousness Causes Collapse (CCC..)' often confused with the Copenhagen interpretation (in a nutshell 'measurement causes collapse' MCC...). These are too completely different interpretations and are often substituted/confused with each other.

 

Of course the most common use of CCC is used by certain theists (not mentioning any names..) to assert God. What they fail to realize however, is that CCC would disprove God!

 

Here's how. Well, some assertions is that reality must be 'observed' to be real hence God observes everything, After all, what collapsed the wave function before life forms came to be? There are several key problems here:

 

1) According to the De-Broglie formula wavelength=h/p, the wave is so small, that it practially doesn't exist. For example a 46-g golf ball travelling at 30m/s would have a wavelength of 7.310-11 m. (Slightly larger than the radius of an hydrogen atom..) Massive objects require no collapse. The uncertainty of a tennis ball (position/velocity is about 10-33 ...)

What they fail to realize, is that wave functions only apply to small objects. When the wavelength is greater than physical length (such as an electron for example..) And as I will get to later, in an relativly isolated system.

 

2) Simple logic would assert that if God were observing everything collapsing their wave functions, we wouldn't see wave functions at all! This completely contradicts experimental evidence that wave functions do indeed exist and work in probability.

 

So two major problems right there. Where the second one disproves God. After all, why are we seeing wave functions if God is collapsing them?

 

Now, the confusion takes place with the Copenhagen interpretation. The wave function collapses when a measurement is made. This measurement need not be conscious. For example, when radiation is shot at a hydrogen atom, information is exchanged and the wave function collapses, that is the atom is now emitting information about it's properties (since the electron jumps back down to it's previous orbital and emits radiation....).

 

It is not some cosmic observer that collapses the wave functions, it's information.

 

 

 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I'm glad you included the

I'm glad you included the phrase 'relatively isolated system'.

My two things:

The wavelength and thus frequency are not static, but do fall within certain parameters determinant upon the field.

[courtesy deBroglie expounded by Bohr. correct?]

When the field collapses, it isn't consciousness(relativity to nucleus and external observation point) that determines path of the electron(or theoretically any particle within a wave function), but the point within the field where the wave function collapses. Shrodinger says that point becomes obsolete then and beyond that his little 'cat metaphor' breaks down into almost a hopeless guess as to the predictability of the particle's travel up to and including jumping orbitals.

We're going to be beyond that point soon, I think.

To use your metaphor of the golf ball. Not only is the golf ball travelling at 30 m/s relative to you, but depending upon which direction the ball is travelling relative to the earth's rotation, the earth's travel through its orbit, the gravitational field, AND last but not least the spin of the ball in relation to all external effects. Thus defining the field effects and finding that it has a pattern observable for each instance of matching circumstances.

Accelerating without effecting the field of the target object to the predicted point, decelerating (again without effecting the field), while the exact scenario (wave function collapse) follows its determined course...

means

I'll see you tomorrow, but I won't be a day older. lol.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:I'm glad

darth_josh wrote:

I'm glad you included the phrase 'relatively isolated system'.

My two things:

The wavelength and thus frequency are not static, but do fall within certain parameters determinant upon the field.

[courtesy deBroglie expounded by Bohr. correct?]

When the field collapses, it isn't consciousness(relativity to nucleus and external observation point) that determines path of the electron(or theoretically any particle within a wave function), but the point within the field where the wave function collapses. Shrodinger says that point becomes obsolete then and beyond that his little 'cat metaphor' breaks down into almost a hopeless guess as to the predictability of the particle's travel up to and including jumping orbitals.

We're going to be beyond that point soon, I think.

To use your metaphor of the golf ball. Not only is the golf ball travelling at 30 m/s relative to you, but depending upon which direction the ball is travelling relative to the earth's rotation, the earth's travel through its orbit, the gravitational field, AND last but not least the spin of the ball in relation to all external effects. Thus defining the field effects and finding that it has a pattern observable for each instance of matching circumstances.

Accelerating without effecting the field of the target object to the predicted point, decelerating (again without effecting the field), while the exact scenario (wave function collapse) follows its determined course...

means

I'll see you tomorrow, but I won't be a day older. lol.

 

I don't get what you're trying to say.

 

Are you trying to factor in relavistic parameters onto the ball?
 

 

[edit]

 

I ask about the relavistic factors since you mentioned Gravatational fields. It could be because it's late, but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're saying.

 

For example you say

Quote:

The wavelength and thus frequency are not static, but do fall within certain parameters determinant upon the field.

By 'field' do you mean probability density?

 

[/edit]


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Yes. Including (I believe I

Yes. Including (I believe I remember right) your favorite zero-point hypothesis.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
A theist discrediting

A theist discrediting arguments in favour of god.... Smiling

It's because of theists like you that I prefer to use the term "religious" rather than "theist" when I am bagging stupid god botherers.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Yes.

darth_josh wrote:

Yes. Including (I believe I remember right) your favorite zero-point hypothesis.

 

First I have no idea why you're trying to take in relavistic parameters here. The ball is far to small and traveling far too slow to take them into account.

 

Second, you seem to be taking the Hidden Variable interpretation with the ZPF as said hidden variable.

 

Third I have no idea what this has to do with my 'favorite zero-point hypothesis.'

 

If you want to try to expand in a way that makes physical sense.....

 

 

 

 

 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Why is it I recall having

Why is it I recall having the ZPF discussion with you somewhere on these boards?

The purpose driving particle physics is the elimination of 'hidden variables'.

First we have to prove ZPF before labeling it. Labeling it would denote consciousness of it which then we'll have to determine whether or not  we can find the elusive real time effects of matter in one... as it collapses??? (that last part was for fun)

 

Are you looking to make this a 500 post thread? lol.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Why is it I

darth_josh wrote:

Why is it I recall having the ZPF discussion with you somewhere on these boards?

 

Because we have. IIRC, you said that I would have to drop my beliefs once the Higgs Boson is found, but I haven't seen the justification as to why I should.

 

Quote:

The purpose driving particle physics is the elimination of 'hidden variables'.

 

Experiments point to the Copenhagen Interpretation, not the Hidden Variable one.

 

 

Quote:

First we have to prove ZPF before labeling it.

 

The ZPF is predicted by the uncertainty principle and proved by Casmir I believe through the Casmir effect. But somebody might of proven it prior to him.


 

Quote:

Labeling it would denote consciousness of it which then we'll have to determine whether or not  we can find the elusive real time effects of matter in one... as it collapses??? (that last part was for fun)

 

 

The ZPF's effect on matter is studied all the time. Radiatctive decay, inertia etc....


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The ZPF is predicted

Quote:

The ZPF is predicted by the uncertainty principle and proved by Casmir I believe through the Casmir effect. But somebody might of proven it prior to him.

The Casmir effect ignores effects from the external forces upon the field. right?

The plates are dependent upon temperature thus one would conclude a conductive field not a ZPF. If this is too far off topic I'm sorry, but fix my thinking if I've missed something.

I mean this is why they're using liquid helium to get as close to a ZPF as hypothesized.

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Quote:The

darth_josh wrote:

Quote:

The ZPF is predicted by the uncertainty principle and proved by Casmir I believe through the Casmir effect. But somebody might of proven it prior to him.

The Casmir effect ignores effects from the external forces upon the field. right?

The plates are dependent upon temperature thus one would conclude a conductive field not a ZPF. If this is too far off topic I'm sorry, but fix my thinking if I've missed something.

 

 

The Casimir effect is a type of radiation pressure so to speak cause by virtual photons (generated by fluctuations in the ZPF..)

 

Depending on the distance between the two plates, the wavelengths outside differ from the ones inside.

 

So the ZPF inequality pushes the plate together. 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

I mean this is why they're using liquid helium to get as close to a ZPF as hypothesized.

 

The Zero point state is the lowest energy a particle can have. In theory at T=0K motion completly stops. This violates the Uncertainty principle, so there has to be a 'lowest energy' greater than zero.

 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Thus the need to include the

Thus the need to include the relativistic parameters. Uncertainty nullified BY observations rather than the converse.

I know. Asking too much, too soon.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Thus the

darth_josh wrote:

Thus the need to include the relativistic parameters. Uncertainty nullified BY observations rather than the converse.

I know. Asking too much, too soon.

 

You can't violate the uncertainty principle, it is a mathematically and physically derived law between two non-commutable operators and has great physical significance.

 

There will always be uncertainty between two non-commutable operators. This is a direct result of the wave function.

 

I have no idea what you're trying to show here.

 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

darth_josh wrote:

Thus the need to include the relativistic parameters. Uncertainty nullified BY observations rather than the converse.

I know. Asking too much, too soon.

 

You can't violate the uncertainty principle, it is a mathematically and physically derived law between two non-commutable operators and has great physical significance.

can't?

Why build giant underground detectors then? lol.

I think you've forgotten the aim of the uncertainty principle as a 'challenge' not a dogma.

 

Quote:
There will always be uncertainty between two non-commutable operators. This is a direct result of the wave function.

 

I have no idea what you're trying to show here. 

Ditto, sweety.

Cpt.Pineapple wrote:
So two major problems right there. Where the second one disproves God. After all, why are we seeing wave functions if God is collapsing them?

Bringing 'god' into the discussion from OP? C'mon now.

We're in it to set ourselves up as 'gods' by proving the old boy wrong. I need only the present and a 'present t' afterward to find something later and what it has/will oscillate to when I go to find it.

 

Back to measuring...

Have you seen the TOTEM detector's specs?

photon-proton physics examination based upon the luminosity of the beam.

They aren't looking for uncertainty. lol.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:can't?Why

darth_josh wrote:

can't?

Why build giant underground detectors then? lol.

I think you've forgotten the aim of the uncertainty principle as a 'challenge' not a dogma.

 

I think you're confusing you woo-hoo understanding of physics with actual physics.

 

Do you know what the uncertainty principle entails? Where it comes from?

No really. I'm not trying to be mean. It's not a 'challenge' it's a physical parameter. You can't violate the uncertainty principle anymore than you can violate any other laws of physics.

Do you know what it means when two operators don't commute?

 

 

Quote:

Cpt.Pineapple wrote:
So two major problems right there. Where the second one disproves God. After all, why are we seeing wave functions if God is collapsing them?

Bringing 'god' into the discussion from OP? C'mon now.

We're in it to set ourselves up as 'gods' by proving the old boy wrong. I need only the present and a 'present t' afterward to find something later and what it has/will oscillate to when I go to find it.

 

 

That statement is to show how CCC disproves God.

I wasn't trying to get God to fly in.

 

Quote:

Back to measuring...

Have you seen the TOTEM detector's specs?

photon-proton physics examination based upon the luminosity of the beam.

They aren't looking for uncertainty. lol.

 

No, they're looking for data.

The uncertainty principle isn't just a negative statement. In fact I can pretty much assure you they're going to use the uncertainty principle to analyze the data.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   ummm , so limits on a

   ummm , so limits on a particle as if it could die !

Any theory with an actual zero, meaning nothing, in it,  is obviously fucked up.    What the hell are you two talking about  !       


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Yes, Cpt.Uncertainty states

Yes, Cpt.

Uncertainty states that we can know one thing. Momentum or Location, but not both because as soon as we see(measure) then momentum is altered.

CERN is saying they want to measure how much it is altered.

It's more than just putting a question mark in place of deltaT and calling it a day.

Have a nice day. Or by saying that have I altered it already? lol.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
http://www.rationalresponders

I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  "Uncertainty principle" ,

  "Uncertainty principle" , Yeah, I AM confused    What else is new  God don't know, not from here  .....    Is three a crowd ?   


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
    I can pick a spot to

    I can pick a spot to measure from, but it can never be repeated exactly. If said to be exact , something is wrong with the math. Nothing is repeatable exactly. Nothing is the same, not anything measurable .....      , boy that was deep !    

Hey thanks for my making my head spin, feels good !         More please .....