Why the quantum world appears weird?

[finiter]

It is held that the quantum world is quite different from the normal physical world. Why should it be? I think the weirdness is due to wrong concepts, and will disappear if we change them as follows.

 

1. Use mass in place of charge to calculate electrostatic force
2. Change the concept of force utilization

 

IF we use mass, the force between an electron and a proton will be nearly 1837 times the force between two electrons (the constant to be changed using the charge- mass ratio of electron). The immediate consequence is that the size of the proton becomes proportional to that of electron (with respect to mass).

 

I propose that electron/proton has a fixed electrostatic energy. The available electrostatic energy can be used for attraction and repulsion in any ratio. The position of atoms will be such that the force is completely used. Normally, the attractive electrostatic force will be more, and the atoms have to vibrate in such a way that the attractive forces (including gravity) and repulsive forces (including the inertial force due to vibrations/oscillations of atoms) remain balanced.

 

I think that superconductivity, super fluidity, bosanova explosion, etc. can be explained based on these, and hence there is no need to treat the quantum world as something different.

[John Cuthber]

"IF we use mass, the force between an electron and a proton will be nearly 1837 times the force between two electrons "

But it isn't; so you idea is wrong.

[insane_alien]

the reason the quantum world is regarded as mindbogglingly different from the classical world is not because of the theories (as those are a direct result of the observations) but of the observations themselves.

 

what you are proposing is to take a duck, and call it an elephant and then hope that it does actually become an elephant.

 

or if your in an aircraft experiencing engine failure if someone says "Don't Panic! I call luggage an engine so we can just strap some bags to the wing and we'll be fine!"

 

it doesn't change the fact that you'll still be powerless.

[Edtharan]

It is held that the quantum world is quite different from the normal physical world. Why should it be?

 

The reason that the quantum world seems so strange is that we didn't evolve in it.

 

We evolved in a macroscopic world where the effects of the quantum weirdness is smeared out and not noticeable. Also, because we have evolved in a world where their are macroscopic changes to overcome, we have evolved to perceive and deal with these.

 

Think of it like this:

 

When using your computer you don't need to know how all the transistors are switching inside the CPU. However, all these get bundled together (sort of smeared together if you will) into larger scale effects, ultimately resulting in what you see on your screen.

 

Even the letters that you see on the screen when you type are not actually letters at all, but are a sequence of electrical pulses racing through electrical circuits. But that is not what you perceive. You perceive letters, numbers and other icons.

 

The reality of a computer is completely strange an bizarre when compared to what is displayed on the screen.

[Pincho Paxton]

The Quantum World isn't strange at all, it is just misunderstood.

[finiter]

"IF we use mass, the force between an electron and a proton will be nearly 1837 times the force between two electrons "

But it isn't; so you idea is wrong.

What I suggest is that the force between a proton in one atom and an electron in the neighbouring atom is actually 1837 times the force between two electrons; such a possibility, I think, cannot be ruled out easily. If that is correct, then the size of proton will be proportional to that of electron (with respect to their masses). So, I suggest that the proton consists of electron-positron pairs and an unpaired positron. Inside the atom, the electrostatic force is between the unpaired positron and the electron. In hydrogen atom, at Bohr radius, the sum of electrostatic force (between the positron and the electron) and gravitational force (between the proton and the electron) is equal to the sum of the kinetic energy and the spin energy of electron, and thus the forces remain balanced.

 

the reason the quantum world is regarded as mindbogglingly different from the classical world is not because of the theories (as those are a direct result of the observations) but of the observations themselves.

Non of the observations (superfluidity, superconductivity, etc.) are weird. Only the explanations are weird; there can be logical explanations (which would be applicable to both the quantum world and normal world). What I have suggested is an attempt in that direction.

 

The reason that the quantum world seems so strange is that we didn't evolve in it. We evolved in a macroscopic world where the effects of the quantum weirdness is smeared out and not noticeable. Also, because we have evolved in a world where their are macroscopic changes to overcome, we have evolved to perceive and deal with these.

The reality of a computer is completely strange an bizarre when compared to what is displayed on the screen.

Your example regarding the computer is really good. However, the strangeness disappears once we know what happens. Not only that, there is no uncertainty in that strange world. It always gives the required display.

So the strangeness comes when we do not properly understand the things at the quantum level. As in the case of computer, to get a required display, there should be no uncertainty at the quantum level, and any law that is applicable to the normal world should be applicable to the quantum world.

 

The Quantum World isn't strange at all, it is just misunderstood.

I agree with you, it is misunderstood. The so-called uncertainty at the quantum level, is a myth. There is more uncertainty in the normal world. However, we know the reasons for the uncertainty, and so do not invoke any uncertainty principle in the normal world.

[Edtharan]

...should be no uncertainty at the quantum level, and any law that is applicable to the normal world should be applicable to the quantum world.

Why should this be true? There are known phenomena called "Emergent Phenomena". These are behaviours that are not part of the basic "rules" of a system, but derive from them in a way that is difficult (or impossible) to predict without letting the system operate (whether it is probability based or deterministic, these things occur).

 

One example is something called a cellular automata, specifically the one Called "Conway's game of Life" (you can get probabilistic ones, this one just happens to be deterministic).

 

Conway's Game of Life uses a grid of "Cells" (hence: cellular automata). Each cell operates according to a given set of rules and these are quite simple:

1) If a cell has exactly 3 neighbours that are switched on, then it switches itself on.

2) If a cell has exactly 2 neighbours that are switched on, then don't change (that is: If on stay on, or if off stay off).

3) In any other case, then it switches itself off.

 

Now from these rules, there is nothing that states there should be self perpetuating structures (structures that remain the same despite time moving on), also that some of these structures can seem to move around the world (the grid).

 

But more than that, these rules do not state that you can construct a pattern of cells to create a computer (universal Turing machine).

 

All of these are possible in Conway's game of Life, but nothing in those 3 basic rules actually state that they are possible, and in fact, it is actually impossible to know beforehand (that is until someone does it) that a certain emergent behaviour is possible at all.

 

However, the most important thing is, all of these emergent rules are nothing like the underlying rules. So someone who could only see the large scale patterns of behaviour (the emergent phenomena of the system) would be baffled by the difference between the macroscopic and microscopic sets of rules.

 

So, the fact that our quantum world operates by a seemingly different set of rules (including being uncertain) than our macroscopic world is not a problem because the rules of our macroscopic world emerge from the quantum rules.

 

I agree with you, it is misunderstood. The so-called uncertainty at the quantum level, is a myth. There is more uncertainty in the normal world. However, we know the reasons for the uncertainty, and so do not invoke any uncertainty principle in the normal world.

 

Following on from what I said above: Take for example position.

 

In the quantum world position is subject to uncertainty. But, if a particle is observed (that is interacts with another particle), then its position looses that uncertainty (or momentum, etc depending on how the interaction takes place).

 

Now a particle might only need to travel a couple of atomic diameters (or even less) before it interacts with another particle. But then that particle and the one it interacted with loose their uncertainty in position. Repeat this trillions of times and the position seems fixed, because the position is never uncertain enough to be observable by macroscopic entities.

 

However, if you were to examine this object at atomic resolution, you might well see that each particle become uncertain, and then looses that when it interacts with another particle in the object.

[finiter]

Conway's Game of Life uses a grid of "Cells" (hence: cellular automata). Each cell operates according to a given set of rules and these are quite simple:

1) If a cell has exactly 3 neighbours that are switched on, then it switches itself on.

2) If a cell has exactly 2 neighbours that are switched on, then don't change (that is: If on stay on, or if off stay off).

3) In any other case, then it switches itself off.

 

Now from these rules, there is nothing that states there should be self perpetuating structures (structures that remain the same despite time moving on), also that some of these structures can seem to move around the world (the grid).

 

But more than that, these rules do not state that you can construct a pattern of cells to create a computer (universal Turing machine).

 

All of these are possible in Conway's game of Life, but nothing in those 3 basic rules actually state that they are possible, and in fact, it is actually impossible to know beforehand (that is until someone does it) that a certain emergent behaviour is possible at all.

 

However, the most important thing is, all of these emergent rules are nothing like the underlying rules. So someone who could only see the large scale patterns of behaviour (the emergent phenomena of the system) would be baffled by the difference between the macroscopic and microscopic sets of rules.

 

So, the fact that our quantum world operates by a seemingly different set of rules (including being uncertain) than our macroscopic world is not a problem because the rules of our macroscopic world emerge from the quantum rules.

You have provided a set of three rules; based on these, it is impossible to to know beforehand that a certain emergent behaviour is possible at all. I do agree with that. But the rules are rather arbitrary. Suppose you can create such a set of rules, ie, you can create three cells having that predictable properties. For this, you require some basic rules that give predictable results; then only can you make each cell behave as you have said. So, that basic rules should be not only deterministic, but also should be at least less uncertain in deciding the course of things that lead to your three rules. Therefore, what I think is that uncertainty should decrease as we go to more fundamental (quantum) levels.

 

 

Following on from what I said above: Take for example position.

 

In the quantum world position is subject to uncertainty. But, if a particle is observed (that is interacts with another particle), then its position looses that uncertainty (or momentum, etc depending on how the interaction takes place).

 

Now a particle might only need to travel a couple of atomic diameters (or even less) before it interacts with another particle. But then that particle and the one it interacted with loose their uncertainty in position. Repeat this trillions of times and the position seems fixed, because the position is never uncertain enough to be observable by macroscopic entities.

 

However, if you were to examine this object at atomic resolution, you might well see that each particle become uncertain, and then looses that when it interacts with another particle in the object.

Here, you have started with an assumption that there is uncertainty in the quantum world. Yes, starting with that uncertainty, you may be able to arrive at a macroscopic world where that uncertainty is not observable. However, even if you start with a deterministic quantum world, you will arrive at the same macroscopic world. Then, why that assumption?

[Edtharan]

Therefore, what I think is that uncertainty should decrease as we go to more fundamental (quantum) levels.

Just because we think (or fell) that something should be a certain way does not mean that is has to be that way, or is that way. Just because it would make more sense to you that quantum reality is deterministic, does not mean that it has to be (or is) deterministic.

 

Remember, we are product of reality, reality is not a product of us.

 

Here, you have started with an assumption that there is uncertainty in the quantum world. Yes, starting with that uncertainty, you may be able to arrive at a macroscopic world where that uncertainty is not observable. However, even if you start with a deterministic quantum world, you will arrive at the same macroscopic world. Then, why that assumption?

The reason I was using that assumption is that you had use the assumption that because the macroscopic world is deterministic, then that means that the quantum world must be too.

 

Actually, if you look at the macroscopic world, it is not completely deterministic, there are certainly events that occur due to probability. This is partly because some events are so sensitive to initial conditions that quantum variability does play a part.

 

Actually such phenomena are used in some Charged Coupled Devices to allow them to pick up very low levels of light. By exploiting "noise" an element in a CCD can pick up a signal far weaker than it could normally pick up. If a CCD element needs a certain amount of energy from photons to activate (say around 100), but you want to pick up a signal of just 1 or 2 photons, this might just be impossible. But by exploiting the noise from random events around it, the CCD element hovers near the point of activation (say at the equivalent of 99-98 photons). Then when the 1 or 2 photons you are after hits the CCD, it is enough to trigger the element and send the signal to the electronics.

 

Also there are phenomena that are not attributable to any classical (ie: deterministic) cause. One such is the "Casimir Effect". This is when you bring 2 electrically neutral conductive plates close together. What occurs is the forces on them can be ascribed to known forces (gravity, electromagnetics, etc), but when they are about 1mm or so apart a new force appears attracting the plates together.

 

As all forces can be controlled with these plates and external forces can be eliminated, there needs to some explanation of what causes this effect. There is no classical explanation. The only explanation is that particles are appearing randomly and non deterministically everywhere. However, between the plates there is less chance of them appearing (due to the fact that only certain wavelengths can fit between them where as outside any wavelength is allowed). Because less particles are appearing between them plates than outside them, the force from outside is greater than the force inside and the plates are pushed together.

 

As no classical, deterministic explanation can allow for the random appearance of particles form nothing (and they subsequent disappearance back to nothing), then this means that the quantum world is not only fundamentally different than the macroscopic world (for one we don't see things popping into and out of existence), but also must be non-deterministic.

 

In other words, this one effect completely disproves your claims that the quantum world must be deterministic and operate as the macroscopic world does.

 

Now, faced with evidence against your claims (and you can easily find research papers - and even wikipedia articles - so this is not just idle claims by me), how does this effect your belief that the quantum reality must be the way that makes sense to you, rather than your understanding or quantum reality having nothing to do with how it actually is.

 

And that is the point I am making. You think that reality has to make sense, but because we are a product of reality, not the creators of it, it does not have to make sense to us at all.

[Pincho Paxton]

Just because we think (or fell) that something should be a certain way does not mean that is has to be that way, or is that way. Just because it would make more sense to you that quantum reality is deterministic, does not mean that it has to be (or is) deterministic.

 

Remember, we are product of reality, reality is not a product of us.

 

 

The reason I was using that assumption is that you had use the assumption that because the macroscopic world is deterministic, then that means that the quantum world must be too.

 

Actually, if you look at the macroscopic world, it is not completely deterministic, there are certainly events that occur due to probability. This is partly because some events are so sensitive to initial conditions that quantum variability does play a part.

 

Actually such phenomena are used in some Charged Coupled Devices to allow them to pick up very low levels of light. By exploiting "noise" an element in a CCD can pick up a signal far weaker than it could normally pick up. If a CCD element needs a certain amount of energy from photons to activate (say around 100), but you want to pick up a signal of just 1 or 2 photons, this might just be impossible. But by exploiting the noise from random events around it, the CCD element hovers near the point of activation (say at the equivalent of 99-98 photons). Then when the 1 or 2 photons you are after hits the CCD, it is enough to trigger the element and send the signal to the electronics.

 

Also there are phenomena that are not attributable to any classical (ie: deterministic) cause. One such is the "Casimir Effect". This is when you bring 2 electrically neutral conductive plates close together. What occurs is the forces on them can be ascribed to known forces (gravity, electromagnetics, etc), but when they are about 1mm or so apart a new force appears attracting the plates together.

 

As all forces can be controlled with these plates and external forces can be eliminated, there needs to some explanation of what causes this effect. There is no classical explanation. The only explanation is that particles are appearing randomly and non deterministically everywhere. However, between the plates there is less chance of them appearing (due to the fact that only certain wavelengths can fit between them where as outside any wavelength is allowed). Because less particles are appearing between them plates than outside them, the force from outside is greater than the force inside and the plates are pushed together.

 

As no classical, deterministic explanation can allow for the random appearance of particles form nothing (and they subsequent disappearance back to nothing), then this means that the quantum world is not only fundamentally different than the macroscopic world (for one we don't see things popping into and out of existence), but also must be non-deterministic.

 

In other words, this one effect completely disproves your claims that the quantum world must be deterministic and operate as the macroscopic world does.

 

Now, faced with evidence against your claims (and you can easily find research papers - and even wikipedia articles - so this is not just idle claims by me), how does this effect your belief that the quantum reality must be the way that makes sense to you, rather than your understanding or quantum reality having nothing to do with how it actually is.

 

And that is the point I am making. You think that reality has to make sense, but because we are a product of reality, not the creators of it, it does not have to make sense to us at all.

 

The problem with you argument here is that my theory predicts all of these behaviours. Even before I found out that particles pop into existence I had a theory that was based on that assumption. I even know why, and how they pop into existence.Quantum physics may be as complex a system as the weather, but it is easily understandable still, and is based on physics.Similar rules to The Game Of Life in fact. Particles pop into existence like ear drums flutter around. We have no senses to detect the flat wave, and we also hardly ever interact with the negative wave. But we have evolved to sense the positive waves pretty well. The problem with negative waves is that they head away from us, so if you want to sense them you need to pick them up in the other direction.. or mirror them. The flat waves we call nothing, and ignore completely, but they are ready to bulge in either direction, so they are not a stable state of zero. Even when you have figured out all of the flexible properties, you still get them overlapped, and also interconnected. It's complex, but not as weird that it doesn't make sense.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[Realitycheck]

...

Edited September 13, 2011 by Realitycheck

[Pincho Paxton]

So ... does the Law of Conservation all of a sudden become invalid, or are the hidden particles just considered Unobserved?

 

They are flat waves. Consider an Igloo, it starts as flat ice, flat wave. You dig a hole, negative wave. Build the dome, positive wave. The dome fits exactly in the hole.. zero wave. So what you have is a total of zero, and yet you have a structure. Your eyes looked out across the ice, they did not pick up a signal. Now they look across the ice they pick up a dome. but you haven't changed the quantities.The positive energy that pops up, is taken from the negative energy that pops down.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[finiter]

Just because we think (or fell) that something should be a certain way does not mean that is has to be that way, or is that way.

I agree with you. The rules of the quantum world may be either deterministic or non-deterministic. If that laws in turn can lead to deterministic laws in the macroscopic world, then it would be more logical to take the laws in the quantum world to be deterministic. It is just logic. If you say that logic has nothing to do here, then it goes against scientific thinking. However, if there is observational evidence which appears to be against that logic, then we have to think of other possibilities.

 

The reason I was using that assumption is that you had use the assumption that because the macroscopic world is deterministic, then that means that the quantum world must be too.

Actually, if you look at the macroscopic world, it is not completely deterministic, there are certainly events that occur due to probability. This is partly because some events are so sensitive to initial conditions that quantum variability does play a part.

The laws of physics in the macroscopic word are deterministic, but the macroscopic world itself is not completely deterministic (the example you provided earlier is clear). What I argue is that the rules in the quantum world are also deterministic; like the macroscopic world, the quantum world is not completely deterministic, but will be more deterministic than the macroscopic field.

 

Also there are phenomena that are not attributable to any classical (ie: deterministic) cause. One such is the "Casimir Effect". This is when you bring 2 electrically neutral conductive plates close together. What occurs is the forces on them can be ascribed to known forces (gravity, electromagnetics, etc), but when they are about 1mm or so apart a new force appears attracting the plates together.

As all forces can be controlled with these plates and external forces can be eliminated, there needs to some explanation of what causes this effect. There is no classical explanation.

By saying that there is no classical explanation, you are closing that door. There may be. For example, gravity may be a residual force of the strong nuclear force; ie, the residual force after the formation of masses of atoms like Earth. So, gravity may be stronger between individual atoms. When the plates are close, it is as if the two plates are trying to merge into one. Once they merge, the attractive force would be very strong. If they simply touch, the force will be less. As the force is between atoms, not between plates, the force decreases rapidly, and 1mm apart, there can still be some attractive gravitational force (which is stronger than the normal gravity) between the atoms in the plates.

 

And that is the point I am making. You think that reality has to make sense, but because we are a product of reality, not the creators of it, it does not have to make sense to us at all.

This is the point where I disagree. The whole of physics should be based on the concept of reality. If the physical world is not real, there is no need to search for any laws. Even for the probability to work, there should be some deterministic basic laws. That is the laws have to make sense.

[Edtharan]

I agree with you. The rules of the quantum world may be either deterministic or non-deterministic. If that laws in turn can lead to deterministic laws in the macroscopic world, then it would be more logical to take the laws in the quantum world to be deterministic. It is just logic. If you say that logic has nothing to do here, then it goes against scientific thinking. However, if there is observational evidence which appears to be against that logic, then we have to think of other possibilities.

Actually what you said is not logical. It is in fact a logical fallacy (that is false logic). Specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

 

Therefore it is not logical to say that because the macroscopic world is deterministic, then the quantum would has to be as well.

 

The laws of physics in the macroscopic word are deterministic, but the macroscopic world itself is not completely deterministic (the example you provided earlier is clear). What I argue is that the rules in the quantum world are also deterministic; like the macroscopic world, the quantum world is not completely deterministic, but will be more deterministic than the macroscopic field.

But, as your arguments rely on logical fallacies, and there is a lot of data that show the quantum world is less deterministic than the macroscopic world, then your arguments seem to lack much in the way of support.

 

By saying that there is no classical explanation, you are closing that door. There may be. For example, gravity may be a residual force of the strong nuclear force; ie, the residual force after the formation of masses of atoms like Earth. So, gravity may be stronger between individual atoms. When the plates are close, it is as if the two plates are trying to merge into one. Once they merge, the attractive force would be very strong. If they simply touch, the force will be less. As the force is between atoms, not between plates, the force decreases rapidly, and 1mm apart, there can still be some attractive gravitational force (which is stronger than the normal gravity) between the atoms in the plates.

But, that residual force would be the product of a non-classical effect (specifically due the law of quantum physics: that particles don't have a specific place and energy). If it was a "classical" explanation, then we would see the effect of gravity being stronger (and detectably so - it would be the gravitational equivalent of magnetism) in one direction than another. As we don't see this we can rule out classical explanations. We would have the ability to effect gravitation as we do the electromagnetic force (because the magnetic force comes from a residual electric field moving around).

 

This is the point where I disagree. The whole of physics should be based on the concept of reality. If the physical world is not real, there is no need to search for any laws. Even for the probability to work, there should be some deterministic basic laws. That is the laws have to make sense.

Yes: Reality wins. We know what is real by measuring it (and making repeated measurements and trying to find errors in the measurements). According to all measurements taken so far, quantum reality is very non-deterministic and non-classical. This is in direct opposition to your argument.

[Pincho Paxton]

Actually what you said is not logical. It is in fact a logical fallacy (that is false logic). Specifically: http://en.wikipedia....acy_of_division

 

Therefore it is not logical to say that because the macroscopic world is deterministic, then the quantum would has to be as well.

 

 

But, as your arguments rely on logical fallacies, and there is a lot of data that show the quantum world is less deterministic than the macroscopic world, then your arguments seem to lack much in the way of support.

 

 

But, that residual force would be the product of a non-classical effect (specifically due the law of quantum physics: that particles don't have a specific place and energy). If it was a "classical" explanation, then we would see the effect of gravity being stronger (and detectably so - it would be the gravitational equivalent of magnetism) in one direction than another. As we don't see this we can rule out classical explanations. We would have the ability to effect gravitation as we do the electromagnetic force (because the magnetic force comes from a residual electric field moving around).

 

 

Yes: Reality wins. We know what is real by measuring it (and making repeated measurements and trying to find errors in the measurements). According to all measurements taken so far, quantum reality is very non-deterministic and non-classical. This is in direct opposition to your argument.

 

Particles do have a specific place, and energy, but when you try to observe that position you blow them out of the way like a wind. Say you were trying to measure the static electricity of two balloons touching. The only instrument you have to measure them is the reflection of wind off their surfaces. Each time you did a measurement the wind deflection would blow the balloons apart. That's what happens when you measure electron positions. So today, scientists try to use high speed laser impulses. Grab an image before they move apart, and I think it will work.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[finiter]

Actually what you said is not logical. It is in fact a logical fallacy (that is false logic). ...Therefore it is not logical to say that because the macroscopic world is deterministic, then the quantum would has to be as well.

The 'fallacy of division' cannot be applied here. This is not a case of attributing a special characteristic of 'the whole' to 'the part'; it is the rules leading to that characteristic that we consider. In the example given in the Wikipedia, the individual parts of the Boeing 747 have a role in flying. These roles are deterministic, otherwise the Boeing will not fly. Though the roles of the parts are deterministic, there may be some 'outside' factors, and the Boeing will not be able to fly always; ie, some uncertainty exists. My argument is that the rules at the quantum level are deterministic, but the end result caused by these laws will have some uncertainty.

 

But, as your arguments rely on logical fallacies, and there is a lot of data that show the quantum world is less deterministic than the macroscopic world, then your arguments seem to lack much in the way of support.

You cannot invoke the the 'fallacy of division', and hence my argument is logical. Count the 'data's, and you will find the macroscopic world (I mean the world at the normal level, and not at the cosmic level) far less deterministic.

 

But, that residual force would be the product of a non-classical effect (specifically due the law of quantum physics: that particles don't have a specific place and energy). If it was a "classical" explanation, then we would see the effect of gravity being stronger (and detectably so - it would be the gravitational equivalent of magnetism) in one direction than another. As we don't see this we can rule out classical explanations. We would have the ability to effect gravitation as we do the electromagnetic force (because the magnetic force comes from a residual electric field moving around).

Let us say there is a residual force; it may be the product of a classical or non-classical effect. Just because the present classical explanation does not suit, we cannot say that no classical explanation is possible. Gravity and magnetic force have many things in common (there can even be a relation between speed and the gravitational constant, I think), but there are differences, especially in the case of direction, because the direction of motion of electron decides the position of magnetic poles. In the case of gravity, the residual force and the constant may decrease as we go to higher levels: from 'constituents of nucleons' - nucleons - atoms - and finally to 'masses of atoms'.

Yes: Reality wins. We know what is real by measuring it (and making repeated measurements and trying to find errors in the measurements). According to all measurements taken so far, quantum reality is very non-deterministic and non-classical. This is in direct opposition to your argument.

We cannot know the reality by indirect measurements, even if it is done thousands of times. You have to know the internal structures to know the reality. If we take the internal structure to be non-classical, then you can interpret the measurements, and modify the non-classical model (non-classical explanation gives more room for maneuvering than classical ones) accordingly, and that will give a fine picture. But that may not be the reality, and that (the fact that the picture you get is fine) does not imply that there cannot be any classical model for the internal structures.

 

Particles do have a specific place, and energy, but when you try to observe that position you blow them out of the way like a wind. Say you were trying to measure the static electricity of two balloons touching. The only instrument you have to measure them is the reflection of wind off their surfaces. Each time you did a measurement the wind deflection would blow the balloons apart. That's what happens when you measure electron positions. So today, scientists try to use high speed laser impulses. Grab an image before they move apart, and I think it will work.

I am also of the opinion that the classical model that visualizes particles to have well defined positions and velocities is correct. The uncertainty is due to the indirect measurement, which does not take into consideration the structure at the quantum level. There is more uncertainty at the normal level than at the quantum level. Initially, when the laws governing the physical world at normal levels were not known to us, we resorted to similar 'non-classical' explanations for everything. However, now we know the structures and laws at the normal level to a great extent, and hence do not resort to such 'non-classical' explanations. So we can expect that in future the classical laws will be so changed (without destroying their classical nature) and the structures at the quantum level are well explained (that also in a classical way) such that the 'non-classical' or 'weird' explanations of today just wither away.

Edited September 18, 2011 by finiter

[Edtharan]

Particles do have a specific place, and energy, but when you try to observe that position you blow them out of the way like a wind. Say you were trying to measure the static electricity of two balloons touching. The only instrument you have to measure them is the reflection of wind off their surfaces. Each time you did a measurement the wind deflection would blow the balloons apart. That's what happens when you measure electron positions. So today, scientists try to use high speed laser impulses. Grab an image before they move apart, and I think it will work.

This doesn't work with observed phenomena like tunnelling, the Casimir effect, electrons (there are specific effects that can not occur if electrons had a definite location, protons (again, properties of the proton require that it have a non specific location/momentum or we would observe the behaviours of them to be different), quarks and a whole host of other observed phenomena that would be different if quantum systems had defined position/momentum attributes.

 

Basically the last 50 Or more years of observations and measurements disproves your claim here.

 

The 'fallacy of division' cannot be applied here. This is not a case of attributing a special characteristic of 'the whole' to 'the part'; it is the rules leading to that characteristic that we consider. In the example given in the Wikipedia, the individual parts of the Boeing 747 have a role in flying. These roles are deterministic, otherwise the Boeing will not fly. Though the roles of the parts are deterministic, there may be some 'outside' factors, and the Boeing will not be able to fly always; ie, some uncertainty exists. My argument is that the rules at the quantum level are deterministic, but the end result caused by these laws will have some uncertainty.

Actually it does. You claimed that the rules quantum realm must be deterministic because the macroscopic world had deterministic rules. This is assuming that the properties of one (the macroscopic would) must apply to another (the quantum realm. This is then very definition of that logical fallacy.

 

The other part of the claim that "the rules at the quantum level are deterministic, but the end result caused by these laws will have some uncertainty" is logically impossible. Even with emergent phenomena, the emergent behaviours can not have something that can not be traced back to the underlying system. With my Conway's Game of Life example of emergent phenomena, the behaviours of the higher order system, while not predicable from the underlying system, none the less are completely controlled by the underlying system's rules. You can't have behaviour that is not traceable to the underlying system.

 

So, if quantum rules were deterministic, then this means that although the specific behaviours of the macroscopic world might not be predictable from the quantum rules, there still can not be any behaviour that violates these underlying rules. And, since they would be deterministic, that means that the macroscopic world is also deterministic too. There would be no way that randomness could exist (it might be complex and not easily predictable, but it would not be non-deterministic).

 

The only way you could have the macroscopic world become non-deterministic is for the quantum world to be non-deterministic too. But, if you accept that the quantum world has non-deterministic behaviours, then you are back to the standard model and your argument is invalidated.

 

You cannot invoke the the 'fallacy of division', and hence my argument is logical. Count the 'data's, and you will find the macroscopic world (I mean the world at the normal level, and not at the cosmic level) far less deterministic.

As your argument was a classic fallacy of division, then I can invoke it. You were arguing that the properties of one part (macroscopic world) determines the properties of the microscopic world. Note, that you have not actually provided any evidence that shows that the quantum world is deterministic, you have only made the claim that it is. And, when pressed for your reasons why you think it is, your argument was that the macroscopic world is deterministic.

 

That is, by definition, the fallacy of division. And on that ground I invoke it.

 

Let us say there is a residual force; it may be the product of a classical or non-classical effect. Just because the present classical explanation does not suit, we cannot say that no classical explanation is possible. Gravity and magnetic force have many things in common (there can even be a relation between speed and the gravitational constant, I think), but there are differences, especially in the case of direction, because the direction of motion of electron decides the position of magnetic poles. In the case of gravity, the residual force and the constant may decrease as we go to higher levels: from 'constituents of nucleons' - nucleons - atoms - and finally to 'masses of atoms'.

The term "classical" refers to laws of physics that are based on the Newtonian laws (and a few others). Relativity, although is completely deterministic, is still a non-classical theory.

 

Now, with a claim like you made, that gravity is attributable to a "residual force of the strong nuclear force", then this means we would get gravitational poles, just like we get magnetic poles. It also means you would not be able to get gravitational monopoles either. But as we live at the bottom of a gravitational monopole, and we have never seen a different gravitational pole than the one we live in, then your claims are not supported by any evidence, and there is evidence to the contrary.

 

This makes your claims extremely unlikely to be true.

 

We cannot know the reality by indirect measurements, even if it is done thousands of times. You have to know the internal structures to know the reality. If we take the internal structure to be non-classical, then you can interpret the measurements, and modify the non-classical model (non-classical explanation gives more room for maneuvering than classical ones) accordingly, and that will give a fine picture. But that may not be the reality, and that (the fact that the picture you get is fine) does not imply that there cannot be any classical model for the internal structures.

Your premise that "We cannot know the reality by indirect measurements" is actually false. All measurements are indirect. When you look at a measurement device, say a Geiger counter you are making indirect measurements.

 

1) The particle is entering the Geiger counter hits a gas, and causes it to ionise

2) The electrical current produced by this ionised gas is then picked up by the electronics

3) The electronics causes some mechanism or display to change

4) The light bouncing off (or emitted by) the mechanism then enters the eye

5) The light that entered the eye collides with chemicals inside the rod and cone cells of the eye and breaks them apart

6) The breaking of the chemical causes the cell to fire and send the signal along the optic nerve to the brain

 

And that is not even looking at how our brain interprets that signal. This means that all measurements are indirect and therefore your premise here is plainly wrong.

[swansont]

Particles do have a specific place, and energy, but when you try to observe that position you blow them out of the way like a wind. Say you were trying to measure the static electricity of two balloons touching. The only instrument you have to measure them is the reflection of wind off their surfaces. Each time you did a measurement the wind deflection would blow the balloons apart. That's what happens when you measure electron positions. So today, scientists try to use high speed laser impulses. Grab an image before they move apart, and I think it will work.

 

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the observer effect are not the same thing.

[Pincho Paxton]

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the observer effect are not the same thing.

 

I think they are the same thing. I don't really have time to study everything, but from what I can gather you just have a missing particle... the Aether. It becomes a lot easier to get an understanding of what is happening then. Scientists just tend to get over-excited about things that they don't understand, and start throwing out nonsensical words.The only real problem is "Why is the Aether so hard to detect?" Well it is half negative mass, and this makes it equal zero most of the time, especially over an average distance which is the scale that we would see. So it could be very spiky in places, but it is tiny, so the spikes are averaged out. You nearly always end up with a flat wave.The photons travel through these spikes, be we average them out.The spikes lock the Aether to the Earth for a very brief moment, so the Micheal Morley experiment was just observing the Aether locked to the Earth.

 

When you can make a rational explanation like that, it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. It matters that you can make sense of Quantum physics.It matters that there are explanations that work that haven't been tested yet.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[swansont]

I think they are the same thing. I don't really have time to study everything, but from what I can gather you just have a missing particle... the Aether. It becomes a lot easier to get an understanding of what is happening then. Scientists just tend to get over-excited about things that they don't understand, and start throwing out nonsensical words.The only real problem is "Why is the Aether so hard to detect?" Well it is half negative mass, and this makes it equal zero most of the time, especially over an average distance which is the scale that we would see. So it could be very spiky in places, but it is tiny, so the spikes are averaged out. You nearly always end up with a flat wave.The photons travel through these spikes, be we average them out.The spikes lock the Aether to the Earth for a very brief moment, so the Micheal Morley experiment was just observing the Aether locked to the Earth.

 

When you can make a rational explanation like that, it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. It matters that you can make sense of Quantum physics.It matters that there are explanations that work that haven't been tested yet.

 

No, they aren't, and while hypothesizing is fun, at the end of it all you have to be able to test the hypothesis before you accept it as valid science. The ball is in your court regarding the aether. Come up with tests to show that it exists.

 

The HUP says you can't simultaneously measure the conjugate variables to arbitrary accuracy. The observer effect says you will change the system when you observe it, and a later measurement will not tell you what the variable used to be because you have changed by an undetermined amount. That's a huge difference. IOW, if you have a sample of identically-prepared particles, you can measure e.g. the momentum of half and the position of the other half, and you will still satisfy the HUP. There is no observer effect here at all, because you aren't relying on a subsequent measurement.

[Pincho Paxton]

No, they aren't, and while hypothesizing is fun, at the end of it all you have to be able to test the hypothesis before you accept it as valid science. The ball is in your court regarding the aether. Come up with tests to show that it exists.

 

The HUP says you can't simultaneously measure the conjugate variables to arbitrary accuracy. The observer effect says you will change the system when you observe it, and a later measurement will not tell you what the variable used to be because you have changed by an undetermined amount. That's a huge difference. IOW, if you have a sample of identically-prepared particles, you can measure e.g. the momentum of half and the position of the other half, and you will still satisfy the HUP. There is no observer effect here at all, because you aren't relying on a subsequent measurement.

 

You don't have to prove the Aether is there to make Quantum Physics work. All you have to do is say that Quantum Physics CAN work. And then you make any sort of possibility that would work physically. So long as you use physics to make Quantum physics work it doesn't matter if it is proved or not, it just means that people are not trying hard enough to make it work.

[mississippichem]

You don't have to prove the Aether is there to make Quantum Physics work. All you have to do is say that Quantum Physics CAN work. And then you make any sort of possibility that would work physically. So long as you use physics to make Quantum physics work it doesn't matter if it is proved or not, it just means that people are not trying hard enough to make it work.

 

But it had been exhaustively demonstrated that established physics based on both theory and observation does work with aether.

[Pincho Paxton]

But it had been exhaustively demonstrated that established physics based on both theory and observation does work with aether.

 

I don't think your reply works to....

 

Replying to Why the quantum world appears weird?

 

Because you are talking about standard physics. I was talking about making Quantum Physics work with the Aether.. and then changing it to standard physics.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[mississippichem]

I don't think your reply works to....

 

Replying to Why the quantum world appears weird?

 

Because you are talking about standard physics. I was talking about making Quantum Physics work with the Aether.. and then changing it to standard physics.

 

No, my comment is completely relevant. I'm saying that you can't make physics work with aether, the premise is flawed right from the start.

[swansont]

You don't have to prove the Aether is there to make Quantum Physics work. All you have to do is say that Quantum Physics CAN work. And then you make any sort of possibility that would work physically. So long as you use physics to make Quantum physics work it doesn't matter if it is proved or not, it just means that people are not trying hard enough to make it work.

But QM works without an aether. If you add one, you need a compelling reason for it.