Car Insurance - thankyou QM

[ponderer]

It is not necessary to consider particles, in order to get the wonderful logic and deductions of QM.

 

Let's say we own a car insurance company. Once a year we take a census of our insured cars out there by issuing an insurance bill. We find out the home base for the cars and trucks, and we know statistically, on average most of these vehicles will spend most of their time parked, somewhere close to their base.

 

However, we do not know if any given car is parked, or where they are, but statistically, if they are not parked they are on average within a certain range of their home base, most of the time. We also know that in locations where there is a higher density of cars, there is a statistical increased likelyhood of collisions.

 

As an insurer, we do not know where any given car is at any given time, until there is an accident, and the time and location are recoded. Such an event cannot occur without disrupting the progress of the car.

 

Now, it is logical to assume that every car exists in a quantum flux, and only materializes when it has an accident. Further it is logical to assume that there must be mutltiple universes where all things are possible, because the cars all exist in a quantum flux.

 

All of this works out statistically perfectly, for budgeting and business planning. Most accidents happen close to home, just like the statistics say. The accidents happen in the right statistical percentages every year, and we have the whole thing analysed from top to bottom statistically. Our actuarials are the best in the industry.

 

Because it all works out we must accept the assumptions about every car existing in multiple universes, and that every car is caught in limbo between having an accident and driving along OK, until we get an accident report. I think I'll go out to the garage, and see if my car actually exists.

 

Thankyou Quantum Theorists.

 

When did we abandon reason?

Edited February 17, 2010 by ponderer

[swansont]

Now, it is logical to assume that every car exists in a quantum flux, and only materializes when it has an accident. Further it is logical to assume that there must be mutltiple universes where all things are possible, because the cars all exist in a quantum flux.

 

What definition of "logical" are you using here?

 

Can you make two cars interfere with each other, or have a car interfere with itself?

[ponderer]

What definition of "logical" are you using here?

 

Can you make two cars interfere with each other, or have a car interfere with itself?

 

1) Schroedinger's Cat, logical.

 

2) You know, it seems to happen to me all the time, when I am driving, and I don't have to make it happen. I happens all on it's own. I have to be constantly interferring with the operation of the my own car too, because the road turns, or has contours, and then those other driver's, and traffic lights and stop signs.

 

But, you are trying to strain the analogy. No analogy is perfect. That is why it is an analogy.

 

There is an underlying point, to this little parable. You know the moral of the story sort of thing.

 

What is the math describing? You cannot convert a statistical picture into an actual picture. You are just building a phase space sort of view, based on very limited local scale input, and a large scale statistical input. You are trying to impose a large scale statistical construction on localized phenonoma. You have to expect that it will work out statistically and provide good outcome prediction, but it cannot be construed to actually reflect the actual local scale reality, beyond a statistical estimation.

 

To suddenly go off on whimsical tangents is illogical.

Edited February 17, 2010 by ponderer

[Sisyphus]

He's only "straining" to make the analogy relevant. The reason for many worlds interpretation, etc., is not because of anything analogous to the car insurance company, it's because of things like the double slit experiment.

[timo]

The reason for many worlds interpretation, etc., is not because of anything analogous to the car insurance company, it's because of things like the double slit experiment.

I think the reason for the many worlds interpretation is that your books sell better when you fantasize about parallel universes.

[swansont]

I think the reason for the many worlds interpretation is that your books sell better when you fantasize about parallel universes.

 

There are an infinite number of universes in which I have a snappy comeback to this.

[ponderer]

He's only "straining" to make the analogy relevant. The reason for many worlds interpretation, etc., is not because of anything analogous to the car insurance company, it's because of things like the double slit experiment.

 

You have to be kidding. The double slit experiment? A wavicle makes many worlds?

 

I should actually appologize for my attitude. I expect that QM has advance a good deal over the last 40 years.

 

I do not really know enough about it, but my early exposure 40 years ago, was that of probabilities, where electrons were indistinct entities. This much I am not buying, for the reasons stated.

 

I find in general that some of the conjecture coming out of Q-M appears to me to be absurd.

 

I am sure that Q-M is a very useful tool and that it is excellent theory, but I think that some it's practitioners push the limits of reason, beyond tolerance.

 

But in fairness, I should just shut up about something, that I don't know enough about. So, I will refrain from further comment on the topic.

[ajb]

I find in general that some of the conjecture coming out of Q-M appears to me to be absurd.

 

This seems more to do with the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Indeed, here things do seem to get weird. The problem lies in the fact we want to keep as many classical notions in the interpretation as possible. To do this, you end up with some weird ideas like quantum tunnelling and wave-particle duality etc.

[swansont]

I do not really know enough about it, but my early exposure 40 years ago, was that of probabilities, where electrons were indistinct entities. This much I am not buying, for the reasons stated.

 

Hence my comment on interference, especially self-interference.

 

You can stand on your porch and shake your fist at the world of QM, but using a computer and the internet to do it make you either a fool for not recognizing that computer and laser communication technology are based on QM, or a hypocrite.

[ponderer]

This seems more to do with the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Indeed, here things do seem to get weird. The problem lies in the fact we want to keep as many classical notions in the interpretation as possible. To do this, you end up with some weird ideas like quantum tunnelling and wave-particle duality etc.

 

There is nothing weird about wavicles. They make sense to me. The double slit experiment also makes sense. I don't see the problem.

 

IMO wave particle duality makes plenty of sense, if you are taking about non-massive particles.

 

It is the electrons, protons, and neutrons, where I make a distinction. To me they have mass, and the cause of their mass gives them more distinct boundaries and position, but they are made from the same stuff as wavicles, and so given to some limited wave-like properties.

[Sisyphus]

You don't see the problem with the double slit experiment? A single electron passes through both slits at once as a wave. Can a car do something analogous?

[ponderer]

Hence my comment on interference, especially self-interference.

 

You can stand on your porch and shake your fist at the world of QM, but using a computer and the internet to do it make you either a fool for not recognizing that computer and laser communication technology are based on QM, or a hypocrite.

 

Well now that's a little unfair. I have said consistantly that Q-M works and is an excellent tool. That does not address the issue which I am arguing. Seems like a deflection, and rather poor form.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You don't see the problem with the double slit experiment? A single electron passes through both slits at once as a wave. Can a car do something analogous?

 

Not at all.

 

Propagating E-M energy is not the same thing as a car. It's a wavicle. You have a problem with wavicles?

Edited February 18, 2010 by ponderer
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

Well now that's a little unfair. I have said consistantly that Q-M works and is an excellent tool. That does not address the issue which I am arguing. Seems like a deflection, and rather poor form.

 

If by consistently you mean once, then OK.

 

 

But then there's this

 

When did we abandon reason?

 

You have to be kidding. The double slit experiment? A wavicle makes many worlds?

 

[M]y early exposure 40 years ago, was that of probabilities, where electrons were indistinct entities. This much I am not buying, for the reasons stated.

 

I find in general that some of the conjecture coming out of Q-M appears to me to be absurd.

 

Some of the underlying problems are that science is not á la carte, and nature is under no obligation to be logical to your mind. If you are going to post snarky criticisms of science that you admittedly don't understand, I think it's poor form to feign shock that someone objects to and calls you on it.

 

You have another option, of asking for knowledgeable people to explain the science to you. That door is still available to you. I suggest you use it.

[Sisyphus]

I don't have a problem, no. You're the one trying to push the auto insurance company as an apt analogy.

[ponderer]

If by consistently you mean once, then OK.

 

 

But then there's this

 

When did we abandon reason?

 

You have to be kidding. The double slit experiment? A wavicle makes many worlds?

 

[M]y early exposure 40 years ago, was that of probabilities, where electrons were indistinct entities. This much I am not buying, for the reasons stated.

 

I find in general that some of the conjecture coming out of Q-M appears to me to be absurd.

 

Some of the underlying problems are that science is not á la carte, and nature is under no obligation to be logical to your mind. If you are going to post snarky criticisms of science that you admittedly don't understand, I think it's poor form to feign shock that someone objects to and calls you on it.

 

You have another option, of asking for knowledgeable people to explain the science to you. That door is still available to you. I suggest you use it.

 

All of this works out statistically perfectly, for budgeting and business planning. Most accidents happen close to home, just like the statistics say. The accidents happen in the right statistical percentages every year, and we have the whole thing analysed from top to bottom statistically. Our actuarials are the best in the industry.

 

You have to expect that it will work out statistically and provide good outcome prediction

 

I am sure that Q-M is a very useful tool and that it is excellent theory

 

Are you being purposely difficult?

 

But OK, I'll bite. Tell me how the double slit experiment gives you <snicker> multiple universes. Educate me. I am sure that Occam will be rolling in his grave.

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I don't have a problem, no. You're the one trying to push the auto insurance company as an apt analogy.

 

No analogy is perfect. That is why it is an analogy.

 

I guess you missed that comment.

Edited February 18, 2010 by ponderer
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

No analogy is perfect. That is why it is an analogy.

 

I guess you missed that comment.

 

It's not a matter of not being perfect. It's a matter of not being useful. You say:

 

Now, it is logical to assume that every car exists in a quantum flux, and only materializes when it has an accident.

 

as if to mock the reasoning, but nobody would think that if not for phenomena that have no analogy in the car insurance business. Like, for example, self-interference.

[Mr Skeptic]

Quantum mechanics is based almost entirely on the wave nature of matter. Interference with self is a property of waves (and electrons and atoms and even buckyballs). For waves, not only can you not give a specific location for them, they don't have a specific location. This makes things difficult to interpret.

 

For your example, you are starting off with a small subset of evidence similar to that of QM. However, you are leaving out the most important aspect of QM: the wave-particle duality. Your example in no way leads to your conclusions exclusively; classical physics can deal with things you don't observe in a statistical manner as well.

[michel123456]

Till some degree, I agree with Ponderer.

My feeling in general is that there is a huge gap between mathematical results and interpretation of mathematical result.

I can't recall who said once that when we send a space probe around Jupiter, it is like we were investigating the Earth from a balloon: could we understand the valleys, the shadow of leaves during a windy afternoon, the stalactits in caves, the underwater world, all that make our planet?

When we are investigating the microcosm, we are in such a position: we are in a balloon above an unknown planet. We have no contact with reality, our main contact is based upon some mathematical theory and some very difficult experiments of high precision.

The interpretation is a very difficult procedure that can cause IMHO tremendous errors. A single positive sign can drive into wrong direction, or an "obvious-absurd-and-thus-cancelled" negative sign maybe can hide the truth.

I understand Ponderer's analogy as saying, well, maybe something totally weird in QM has a very simple explanation, and if we could go there and look at what is happening, we would say, of course it is so simple!

And in this sense, I agree with him.

[ponderer]

It's not a matter of not being perfect. It's a matter of not being useful. You say:

 

Now, it is logical to assume that every car exists in a quantum flux, and only materializes when it has an accident.

 

as if to mock the reasoning, but nobody would think that if not for phenomena that have no analogy in the car insurance business. Like, for example, self-interference.

 

Self interference is not a problem for me. I have a general idea of how it works. I do not understand why you keep throwing up this topic. It seems trivial.

 

I am not saying cars are electrons. I have never heard of an electron stopping at a gas station either.

 

I am questioning the reasoning, using a mundane analogy, where cars are substituted for electrons. Electron in motion will exibit some wave-like properties, but they are still distinct and have a distinct location, if you are not slamming them through a cheese grate at high velocity.

 

You have to realize, that with the slits, you are creating a dimensionally reduced constriction for a higher dimensional behaviour.

 

Electromagnetic force is chiral. The dimensional reduction inhibits that chiral behaviour, which undoes the quantum bundling. Big deal. That's all I am going to say on that topic.

 

In order to get another universe, you need another big bang, and you need a few billlion years, and the chances of getting another one anywhere near identical to ours would be astoundingly worse than finding two identical snow flakes. So what, I guess these parallel universes just materialize instantaneously out of the Quantum Vaccum. Poufft! Instant universe, just toss out reason.

 

If you wish to materialize a whole universe, you need much better logic than that, and to consider an infinite number and variety, you need a much better causality.

 

Where did these mulitple universe come from?

 

How are they arranged?

 

In order to provided complete uncertainty with all things possible for every particle, the universes would need to exist in an infinite number of dimensions for each particle, to form any sort of adjacency.

 

Physicist will argue over there being any more than 3 dimensions. 21 dimensions is a stretch.

 

I would like to know where quantum physicists get off making such crazy conjecture.

Edited February 18, 2010 by ponderer

[Sisyphus]

You're not questioning the reasoning. You're questioning different reasoning, i.e. a classic straw man argument. It's as if you're saying, "Roses are red, therefore gravity obeys an inverse square law? When did we abandon reason?"

 

The reasons for the conclusions of QM are not analogous to the reasons in your analogy.

[swansont]

 

Not at all.

 

Propagating E-M energy is not the same thing as a car. It's a wavicle. You have a problem with wavicles?

 

An electron is not an example of EM energy.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I am questioning the reasoning, using a mundane analogy, where cars are substituted for electrons.

 

Um, you are the one doing the substitution. We are also questioning the reasoning.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

All of this works out statistically perfectly, for budgeting and business planning. Most accidents happen close to home, just like the statistics say. The accidents happen in the right statistical percentages every year, and we have the whole thing analysed from top to bottom statistically. Our actuarials are the best in the industry.

 

You have to expect that it will work out statistically and provide good outcome prediction

 

Uses of probability are not interchangeable with application of quantum theory. That's why we are objecting to your analogy. There is no actual QM behavior proposed, only classical uses of probability.

 

 

I am sure that Q-M is a very useful tool and that it is excellent theory

 

Are you being purposely difficult?

 

But OK, I'll bite. Tell me how the double slit experiment gives you <snicker> multiple universes. Educate me. I am sure that Occam will be rolling in his grave.

 

You are confusing the theory with one of the interpretations of the theory. And yes, I am being purposely difficult. Challenging notions and assertions to make sure they can stand up to scrutiny is part of the process of science.

[ponderer]

You're not questioning the reasoning. You're questioning different reasoning, i.e. a classic straw man argument. It's as if you're saying, "Roses are red, therefore gravity obeys an inverse square law? When did we abandon reason?"

 

The reasons for the conclusions of QM are not analogous to the reasons in your analogy.

 

OK, simple question. Does QM describe the probability of an electron being in a given location as a probability wave form?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

An electron is not an example of EM energy.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Um, you are the one doing the substitution. We are also questioning the reasoning.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Uses of probability are not interchangeable with application of quantum theory. That's why we are objecting to your analogy. There is no actual QM behavior proposed, only classical uses of probability.

 

 

 

 

You are confusing the theory with one of the interpretations of the theory. And yes, I am being purposely difficult. Challenging notions and assertions to make sure they can stand up to scrutiny is part of the process of science.

 

Electrons - Electrons become more like photons in some ways, the faster they travel, since their relative motion causes the manifestation of increasing magnetic chiral behaviour, about the vector of motion.

 

Being difficult - No problem with that, but you know, whenever I do it, I ususally try deal with the logic of the argument.

 

In any case, we seem to be getting somewhere now.

 

You did not answer my question about probability wave form.

 

Now, your point about one interpretation of the theory is interesting, where is the divergence?

Edited February 18, 2010 by ponderer
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes; and the probability of a particle being in a certain volume is the integral of the square of the wavefunction over that volume(for normalized wavefunctions).

[Klaynos]

What about the double split experiment with bucky balls?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucky_balls

 

Very massive objects that self-interfere...