immortal Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 In an early post I introduced the quote (bold from mine): You continue citing Am. J. Phys. papers, which are educational papers for basic level stuff, they are not serious contemporary theoretical sources. The Tomonura et al. paper reports a beautiful experiment that proves that electrons are quantum particles (as everyone knows). From Ballentine's Quantum Mechanics a Modern development page 4: I am not going to take you seriously if you don't cite papers from peer-reviewed journals and no one should take you seriously. If it is an idea which you are using for your reasearch then keep it with you, why do you try to convince me to accept your claims as fact before convincing the whole of the scientific community. I am not going to take you seriously if you don't cite papers from peer-reviewed journals to support your claims. A rigorous quantum mechanical and statistical analysis of Tomonura diffraction experiment does not support the duality interpretation. Where is the mistake? It was emphasized before, but I will repeat once more. Tomonura et al. use the term "particle" to mean little localized point or Newtonian particle. They need to appeal to an imagined duality (with waves) to explain the experiment, because an electron is not a Newtonian particle. If you look to the figures they represent the electron as a little black sphere with a little wave superposed!!! Moreover, the article makes very misleading claims as the one that you quote: "a single electron passes through the slits as a wave". There are three misconceptions of QM in this small quote!!! Quantum mechanics does not say that the electron was a little localized point (a Newtonian particle); when the quantum character of the electron is taken into account, there is no need to appeal to a hypothetical duality. As emphasized before, and by several people, there is no duality in quantum mechanics. Look, I have no problem if you want to term it as a quantum particle but then you go on to say that "particles behave as particles" you do know that they cannot be described in any way classically, this is what I mean when I say you're claiming too much, you're statement is meaningless, if something cannot be described using a term in its usual sense then it is in no way justified to be called as a particle. In the first place, QFT is not the more advanced formulation of Quantum Mechanics. In the second place, you again cite an educational paper: The Physics Teacher does not belong to serious contemporary theoretical sources. In the third place, nowhere in that paper the author develops or applies any QFT, but he only takes the idea of field quanta in a pictorial way. In the fourth place, this paper is one of the most misleading papers about quantum physics that I read in a long time. This paper even contradicts itself!!! May be you're the one who have misconceptions, not the Physics teacher, the view given in that paper is the view supported by Steven Weinberg himself which you quote him often. Steven Weinberg remarks: In 1926, Born, Heinsenberg and Jordan turned their attention to the electromagnetic field in empty space and .... were able to show that the energy of each mode of oscillation of an electromagnetic field is quantized .... Thus the application of quantum mechanics to the electromagnetic field at last put Einstein's idea of the photon on a firm mathematical foundation .... However, the world was still conceived to be composed of two very different ingredients particles and fields -- which were both to be described in terms of quantum mechanics, but in very different ways. Material particles, like electrons and protons were conceived to be eternal .... On the other hand, photons were supposed to be merely a manifestation of an underlying entity, the quantized electromagnetic field, and could be freely created and destroyed. It was not long before a way was found out of this distasteful dualism, toward a truly unified view of nature. Essential steps were taken in a 1928 paper of Jordan and Eugene Wigner, and in a pair of long papersin 1929-1930 by Heisenberg and Pauli. They showed that material particles could be understood as the quanta of various fields, in just the same way as the photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic field. There was supposed to be one field for each type of elementary particle. Thus the inhabitants of the universe were concieved to be a set of fields -- an electron field, a proton field, an electromagnetic field -- and particles were reduced to mere epiphenomena. In its essentials, this point of view has survived to the present day, and forms the central dogma of quantum field theory: the essential reality is a set of fields, subject to the rules of special relativity and quantum mechanics; all else is derived as a consequence of the quantum dynamics of these fields. Bohr's complementary principle, where he postulated the existence of complementary aspects of reality which would be revealed to us when "the account of all evidence must be expressed in classical terms" is plain wrong, as Steven Weinberg emphasized in Physics Today November 2005, page 31 [*]: And Weinberg explains why Bohr was wrong. I do not need to repeat again but it is rooted in Bohr's artificial split of universe into quantum and classical 'spheres of existence'. [*] Notice that it is "Physics Today", not "Physics 100 Years Ago". Our understanding of quantum physics has advanced a lot of since Bohr. I have defined you the Bohr's complementary principle earlier and now can you cite papers where the Bohr's complementary principle has been violated? If not I cannot take your claims seriously and there is too much ambuiguity in what Steven Weinberg meant in his quote.
juanrga Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I am not going to take you seriously if you don't cite papers from peer-reviewed journals and no one should take you seriously. If it is an idea which you are using for your reasearch then keep it with you, why do you try to convince me to accept your claims as fact before convincing the whole of the scientific community. I am not going to take you seriously if you don't cite papers from peer-reviewed journals to support your claims. In the part of my message that you quote I cite Ballentine well-known textbook (well-known for scientists). The material in that book is derived from papers published in theoretical journals dealing with foundations of physics (your links to basic educative journals and to philosophical journals do not count). One of those papers is http://rmp.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v42/i4/p358_1 Notice that is was published in Review of Modern Physics after that Bohr passed away. Notice that this is not the kind of philosophical obscure journal as those that you cited in the past. Look, I have no problem if you want to term it as a quantum particle but then you go on to say that "particles behave as particles" you do know that they cannot be described in any way classically, this is what I mean when I say you're claiming too much, you're statement is meaningless, if something cannot be described using a term in its usual sense then it is in no way justified to be called as a particle. Nobody is claiming what you pretend. You just quoted a part from my message that says the contrary of what you pretend. I reintroduce the quote: Evidently, quantum particles are indeed particles, but particles whose behavior is very different from what classical physics would have led us to expect. Evidently "particle" is not a synonym for "classical particle". What is more, I introduce a warning about this in my first post in this thread and even used red font for emphasizing this important point. May be you're the one who have misconceptions, not the Physics teacher, the view given in that paper is the view supported by Steven Weinberg himself which you quote him often. Steven Weinberg remarks: What SW writes here regarding the history of quantum physics (he writes about what was done/believed about 1926--1930) has nothing to do with what I wrote. But what I find more fascinating is how you pretend to use SW now when in the past you attacked to SW, for instance with your: Are you aware that SW remaks are subjective opinions and not objective truths? I have defined you the Bohr's complementary principle earlier and now can you cite papers where the Bohr's complementary principle has been violated? Quantum mechanics is based in a set of postulates, none of which is Bohr's complementarity principle. If not I cannot take your claims seriously and there is too much ambuiguity in what Steven Weinberg meant in his quote. There is nothing ambiguous about what he wrote in Physics Today and I quoted: Bohr's version of quantum mechanics was deeply flawed, but not for the reason Einstein thought.
Aguirre Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 No, science is not a branch of philosophy. Maybe not for you! "Nach Bohr besteht die spezielle Leistung einer umfassenden philosophischen Fachkenntnis darin, daß diese davor schützt, die gröbsten Fehler zu begehen, die man begehen kann (und besonders solche Fehler zu wiederholen, die andere bereits früher begangen haben). Die Philosophie schützt uns auch vor logischen und erkenntnistheoretischen Fehlschlüssen, die daraus resultieren, daß wir bestimmte Theoreme, die wir zufällig kennen, als selbstverständlich akzeptieren, weil uns die Fülle der Denkmöglichkeiten , die die Philosophie erarbeitet hat, unbekannt geblieben ist." Hans-Jürgen Treder Philosophische Probleme des physikalischen Raumes. The meaning of this text is more or less, without Philosophie you are lost in science, because without philosophie you are unable to cross the horizon. The definition is well-known, studied in textbooks and was also given here by me. Once again, move your philosophical ruminations and your links to the philosophical journal "Humanamente" to the correct subforum http://www.sciencefo...101-philosophy/
immortal Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 In the part of my message that you quote I cite Ballentine well-known textbook (well-known for scientists). The material in that book is derived from papers published in theoretical journals dealing with foundations of physics (your links to basic educative journals and to philosophical journals do not count). One of those papers is http://rmp.aps.org/a...P/v42/i4/p358_1 Notice that is was published in Review of Modern Physics after that Bohr passed away. Notice that this is not the kind of philosophical obscure journal as those that you cited in the past. See it looks nice when you cite papers from reputed journals instead of anonymous users in the wiki page. It helps us to better understand your point of view. Isn't it that this statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics cannot account for non-local effects without violating the principles of relativity? i.e if a hidden variable theory has to exist then it has to be non-local. Nobody is claiming what you pretend. You just quoted a part from my message that says the contrary of what you pretend. I reintroduce the quote: Evidently "particle" is not a synonym for "classical particle". What is more, I introduce a warning about this in my first post in this thread and even used red font for emphasizing this important point. Okay. I was concerned about the ontological implications of your quantum particle. What SW writes here regarding the history of quantum physics (he writes about what was done/believed about 1926--1930) has nothing to do with what I wrote. But what I find more fascinating is how you pretend to use SW now when in the past you attacked to SW, for instance with your: Yes, Steven Weinberg is a proponent of Many world Interpretation. So when you quote his words to refute the Copenhagen Interpretation who seem to be its critic, obviously I have to say like that in that context. Quantum mechanics is based in a set of postulates, none of which is Bohr's complementarity principle. There is nothing ambiguous about what he wrote in Physics Today and I quoted: No, you're moving the goal posts, I asked you a specific request or a question to cite papers to support your claims.
juanrga Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Aguirre. I do not know why you replied adding your words inside a quote from mine. When clicking in the reply button your message appears in white, because technically you posted nothing (you only modified a quote from mine). I wrote: No, science is not a branch of philosophy. And your reply was: Maybe not for you! "Nach Bohr besteht die spezielle Leistung einer umfassenden philosophischen Fachkenntnis darin, daß diese davor schützt, die gröbsten Fehler zu begehen, die man begehen kann (und besonders solche Fehler zu wiederholen, die andere bereits früher begangen haben). Die Philosophie schützt uns auch vor logischen und erkenntnistheoretischen Fehlschlüssen, die daraus resultieren, daß wir bestimmte Theoreme, die wir zufällig kennen, als selbstverständlich akzeptieren, weil uns die Fülle der Denkmöglichkeiten , die die Philosophie erarbeitet hat, unbekannt geblieben ist." Hans-Jürgen Treder Philosophische Probleme des physikalischen Raumes. The meaning of this text is more or less, without Philosophie you are lost in science, because without philosophie you are unable to cross the horizon. Regarding the first part, if you search a bit you can verify by yourself that more than a person in this planet claims that science is not a subfield of philosophy. Regarding your quote, you can find many brilliant scientists sharing their thoughts about what is the utility of philosophy for science, from short quotes as the next by Feynman: Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. to more detailed essays such as Against philosophy. A final though: I am not to debate about philosophy in a Quantum Theory forum. See it looks nice when you cite papers from reputed journals instead of anonymous users in the wiki page. It helps us to better understand your point of view. No. Mainstream textbooks and links to mainstream academic websites were given since the first post. The citation to the wiki page (not anonymous user as you say) was given only when someone tried to use the wiki as support for his incorrect ideas about particles being waves. Isn't it that this statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics cannot account for non-local effects without violating the principles of relativity? i.e if a hidden variable theory has to exist then it has to be non-local. No. Since it is pure QM, it deals with non-local effects without any violation. Moreover, as the author says, explicitly, this is not a hidden variable theory. It is deBroglie pilot wave theory which is in conflict with relativity, because deBroglie took the non-existent wave-particle duality as if was something real and fundamental as you do. Okay. I was concerned about the ontological implications of your quantum particle. My advice is the same: move your philosophical ruminations to the philosophy forum.
immortal Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 No. Since it is pure QM, it deals with non-local effects without any violation. Moreover, as the author says, explicitly, this is not a hidden variable theory. It is deBroglie pilot wave theory which is in conflict with relativity, because deBroglie took the non-existent wave-particle duality as if was something real and fundamental as you do. L.L Ballentine's paper was an excellent paper on the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics but isn't it that as John Gribbin says it is only of a historical significance which has been rejected by the scientific community at large. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_interpretation However, hopes for turning quantum mechanics back into a classical theory were dashed. Gribbin continues: "There are many difficulties with the idea, but the killer blow was struck when individual quantum entities such as photons were observed behaving in experiments in line with the quantum wave function description. The Ensemble interpretation is now only of historical interest." The assumption that the wavefunction cannot completely represent the state of individual systems and only an ensemble of systems seems to be false. My advice is the same: move your philosophical ruminations to the philosophy forum. No, your interpretation does not allow you to make any claims on the nature of the quantum system itself and hence take back your assertion that "particles behave as particles".
juanrga Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) L.L Ballentine's paper was an excellent paper on the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics but isn't it that as John Gribbin says it is only of a historical significance which has been rejected by the scientific community at large. http://en.wikipedia...._interpretation However, hopes for turning quantum mechanics back into a classical theory were dashed. Gribbin continues: "There are many difficulties with the idea, but the killer blow was struck when individual quantum entities such as photons were observed behaving in experiments in line with the quantum wave function description. The Ensemble interpretation is now only of historical interest." Gribbin [*] is not talking about the statistical interpretation of QM but about a supposed ensemble interpretation. Both are sometimes confounded (as you are doing now) but they are two completely different things: one is pure QM the other is a falsified classical theory. The same quote that you give confirms this: "However, hopes for turning quantum mechanics back into a classical theory were dashed." This is the ensemble 'interpretation', which is not any interpretation, but a failed ancient attempt. In fact, you got that quote from the Wikipedia section devoted to "Earlier Classical Ensemble Ideas". At the other hand, the statistical interpretation of QM is minimalist quantum mechanics, without the inconsistencies and philosophies associated to Bohr and coworkers (I already said this to you before). If you were to study the topic that you pretend to discuss with us or if at least you were to check some facts before posting insults or nonsense, then with a pair of clicks you would go to this Amazon page http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/9810241054 with 100% of reviewers giving the maximum score and saying that Ballentine textbook on the statistical interpretation of QM is a superior presentation of QM because it is logical and rigorous, technically deep, and because it corrects mistakes, misconceptions, and myths found in other textbooks on QM. And with a pair more of clicks you would go to http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=276701 with every physics mentor and science advisor agreeing in that it is the best treatment of QM up to the date, with quotes such as: I agree. It's an excellent book. Ballentine dispenses with much of the nonsense that slips into some books. ------ [*] An astrophysicist with zero contributions to QM: popular books and science fiction books do not count as contributions. Edited July 14, 2012 by juanrga
immortal Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) Gribbin [*] is not talking about the statistical interpretation of QM but about a supposed ensemble interpretation. Both are sometimes confounded (as you are doing now) but they are two completely different things: one is pure QM the other is a falsified classical theory. The same quote that you give confirms this: "However, hopes for turning quantum mechanics back into a classical theory were dashed." This is the ensemble 'interpretation', which is not any interpretation, but a failed ancient attempt. In fact, you got that quote from the Wikipedia section devoted to "Earlier Classical Ensemble Ideas". At the other hand, the statistical interpretation of QM is minimalist quantum mechanics, without the inconsistencies and philosophies associated to Bohr and coworkers (I already said this to you before). If you were to study the topic that you pretend to discuss with us or if at least you were to check some facts before posting insults or nonsense, then with a pair of clicks you would go to this Amazon page http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/9810241054 with 100% of reviewers giving the maximum score and saying that Ballentine textbook on the statistical interpretation of QM is a superior presentation of QM because it is logical and rigorous, technically deep, and because it corrects mistakes, misconceptions, and myths found in other textbooks on QM. And with a pair more of clicks you would go to http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=276701 with every physics mentor and science advisor agreeing in that it is the best treatment of QM up to the date, with quotes such as: ------ [*] An astrophysicist with zero contributions to QM: popular books and science fiction books do not count as contributions. No, no I didn't quoted John Gribbin just like that. L. L Ballentine in his paper makes the assumption that the wavefunction does not represent the state of a individual system but he says it represents the state of statistically prepared ensemble of systems. Now if the wavefunction clearly predicts the behaviour of individual systems (say an electron or a photon) as Gribbin says then there must be something wrong with his interpretation. Now which modified version of his interpretation are you arguing now? That's not the consensus of the whole of scientific community, that's just one physicist. Now will you address my requests and arguments or will you rebutt only those which are convenient for you. Edited July 14, 2012 by immortal
juanrga Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) No, no I didn't quoted John Gribbin just like that. L. L Ballentine in his paper makes the assumption that the wavefunction does not represent the state of a individual system but he says it represents the state of statistically prepared ensemble of systems. Now if the wavefunction clearly predicts the behaviour of individual systems (say an electron or a photon) as Gribbin says then there must be something wrong with his interpretation. Now which modified version of his interpretation are you arguing now? That's not the consensus of the whole of scientific community, that's just one physicist. Now will you address my requests and arguments or will you rebutt only those which are convenient for you. I will repeat this one time more: Gribbin is criticizing an earlier classical ensemble interpretation (classical physics) dealing with a classical ensemble: http://en.wikipedia...._Ensemble_Ideas Gribbin is not writing about the modern statistical interpretation of QM, which deals with quantum ensembles. Why do you insist on your mistake? The statistical interpretation of QM was initiated by Born, who won a Nobel Prize for that! Ballentine and other workers have developed and extended this interpretation of QM up to its modern version. As said before the statistical interpretation is a minimalist interpretation of QM without the inconsistencies and philosophies by Bohr and others (as someone wrote: it removes "the metaphysical mumbo jumbo and focus on what the theory actually says" ). It is the shut up and calculate of empiricists. Moreover, you have been given two links with multiple reviews of Ballentine textbook, where everyone states that Ballentine is probably the best textbook on QM. In the past you cited a philosophical encyclopedia. Are you aware on what is the first textbook cited in the article on quantum mechanics on the same encyclopedia? Can you read the commentary about Ballentine textbook? Edited July 14, 2012 by juanrga
immortal Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 One time more: Gribbin is critizing an earlier classical ensemble interpretation which is a failed theory dealing with a classical ensemble: http://en.wikipedia...._Ensemble_Ideas Gribbin is not writing about the modern statistical interpretation of QM, which deals with quantum ensembles. The statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - L.L Ballentine, Reviews of Modern Physics, 1970, APS. This was the paper which you linked earlier to and it says "Ballentine Ensemble Interpretation" In this paper it makes the assumption that the pure state provides description of certain statistically properties of an similarly prepared ensemble of systems and not the description of an individual system say an electron which is in direct conflict with the Gribbin's statements. "There are many difficulties with the idea, but the killer blow was struck when individual quantum entities such as photons were observed behaving in experiments in line with the quantum wave function description. The Ensemble interpretation is now only of historical interest." Then why don't you just give me a paper of the real modified version of your interpretation and not some old falsified interpretation. If this Ballentine ensemble interpretation has already been falsfied why should we still hold on to it and what is the modified interpretation? Citations please? The statistical interpretation of QM was initiated by Born, who won a Nobel Prize for that. Ballentine and other workers have developed and extended this interpretation of QM up to its modern version. As said before the statistical interpretation is a minimalist interpretation of QM without the inconsistencies and philosophies by Bohr and others (as someone wrote: it removes "the metaphysical mumbo jumbo and focus on what the theory actually says" ). It is the shut up and calculate of empiricists. Moreover, you have been given two links with multiple reviews of Ballentine textbook, where everyone states that Ballentine is probably the best textbook on QM... and I agree. I didn't had one but two problems with your first post in this thread, one was wave-particle duality is a myth and your other claim that particles behave as particles, you have justified the former claim by supporting your point of view with a physicist who treats wave-particle duality as a misnomer which is fine but you have not yet justified your latter claim and both of your claims were pretty upsetting in the begining. Even the Copenhagen Interpretation is not concerned with the metaphysical implications of the nature of the quantum system itself and only difference between this and the statistical interpretation is that it eliminates the paradoxes like wave-particle duality, heisenberg's uncertainty priniciple of the former. If this interpretation is the shut up and calculate approach then how did you made a statement like particles behave as particles? which is a claim on the physical nature of the quantum system. "Whereof one cannot speak we should remain silent" - Wittenstein
juanrga Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 (edited) The statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - L.L Ballentine, Reviews of Modern Physics, 1970, APS. This was the paper which you linked earlier to and it says "Ballentine Ensemble Interpretation" In this paper it makes the assumption that the pure state provides description of certain statistically properties of an similarly prepared ensemble of systems and not the description of an individual system say an electron which is in direct conflict with the Gribbin's statements. Then why don't you just give me a paper of the real modified version of your interpretation and not some old falsified interpretation. If this Ballentine ensemble interpretation has already been falsfied why should we still hold on to it and what is the modified interpretation? Citations please? I will try to explain this to you again. 1) Gribbin statement is about classical ensembles. From the Wiki section entitled "Earlier Classical Ensemble Ideas": However, hopes for turning quantum mechanics back into a classical theory were dashed. Gribbin continues: "There are many difficulties with the idea, but the killer blow was struck when individual quantum entities such as photons were observed behaving in experiments in line with the quantum wave function description. The Ensemble interpretation is now only of historical interest." 2) The statistical interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is a minimalist formulation of quantum mechanics dealing with quantum ensembles. It is not a classical theory. 1) does not apply. 3) The statistical interpretation of Quantum Mechanics has been verified in any experiment. 1) does not apply. It is a minimalist modern approach to quantum mechanics. Ballentine's book is considered by every reviewer as one of the best (some claim it is the best) textbooks to learn the foundations of quantum mechanics: http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/9810241054 http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=276701 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/ You ignore the above points and links and your sole 'argument' is that because (a) someone (a non-scientist!!) has a personal website where the name of a PDF file is "Ballentine_Ensemble_Interpretation_1970.pdf" and (b) someone in Wikipedia uses the term "ensemble interpretation" in a criticism of earlier classical ideas (ideas published before 1930) you conclude that the "Statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics" (published in Rev. Modern Physics) has been falsified. I have read all kind of silly arguments in the internet, and I only can say about the yours: WOW! I didn't had one but two problems with your first post in this thread, one was wave-particle duality is a myth and your other claim that particles behave as particles, you have justified the former claim by supporting your point of view with a physicist who treats wave-particle duality as a misnomer which is fine but you have not yet justified your latter claim and both of your claims were pretty upsetting in the begining. Even the Copenhagen Interpretation is not concerned with the metaphysical implications of the nature of the quantum system itself and only difference between this and the statistical interpretation is that it eliminates the paradoxes like wave-particle duality, heisenberg's uncertainty priniciple of the former. If this interpretation is the shut up and calculate approach then how did you made a statement like particles behave as particles? which is a claim on the physical nature of the quantum system. "Whereof one cannot speak we should remain silent" - Wittenstein Some scientists use the term "myth", others use the term "misconception"; the specific term is of no importance, the point is that wave-particle duality does not exist on quantum mechanics. Yes, particles behave as particles. There is nothing mysterious about that, in fact it is what quantum mechanics says. You have been explained why and I gave you at least a quote from a textbook saying that a particle behaves as a particle. Quantum mechanics is a physical theory and physical theories deal with the physical nature of the systems under study. E.g. we define a particle, which are its physical properties and behaviour; next we perform experiments and check the theory. There is a branch of fundamental physics, particle physics, devoted to this in exclusive. Edited July 15, 2012 by juanrga
immortal Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 I will try to explain this to you again. 1) Gribbin statement is about classical ensembles. From the Wiki section entitled "Earlier Classical Ensemble Ideas": [/indent] 2) The statistical interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is a minimalist formulation of quantum mechanics dealing with quantum ensembles. It is not a classical theory. 1) does not apply. 3) The statistical interpretation of Quantum Mechanics has been verified in any experiment. 1) does not apply. It is a minimalist modern approach to quantum mechanics. Ballentine's book is considered by every reviewer as one of the best (some claim it is the best) textbooks to learn the foundations of quantum mechanics: http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/9810241054 http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=276701 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/ You ignore the above points and links and your sole 'argument' is that because (a) someone (a non-scientist!!) has a personal website where the name of a PDF file is "Ballentine_Ensemble_Interpretation_1970.pdf" and (b) someone in Wikipedia uses the term "ensemble interpretation" in a criticism of earlier classical ideas (ideas published before 1930) you conclude that the "Statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics" (published in Rev. Modern Physics) has been falsified. I have read all kind of silly arguments in the internet, and I only can say about the yours: WOW! This paper below which you cited earlier has been falsified and its interpretation has been falsified and it is only of a historical significance. Repeating your lies again and again doesn't make it true. The assumptions in this paper are in direct conflict with Gribbin's statements. Now if you insist that Gribbin is talking about an earlier ensemble interpretation, my question is where is the new interpretation? Again citations please? In the part of my message that you quote I cite Ballentine well-known textbook (well-known for scientists). The material in that book is derived from papers published in theoretical journals dealing with foundations of physics (your links to basic educative journals and to philosophical journals do not count). One of those papers is http://rmp.aps.org/a...P/v42/i4/p358_1 Notice that is was published in Review of Modern Physics after that Bohr passed away. Notice that this is not the kind of philosophical obscure journal as those that you cited in the past. It is good to work with two or three texts when learning QM. No text is perfect and differences in approach can illuminate the subject from different angles.Ballentine, L., 1998, Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Approach, Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company. This book is not recommended for beginners, and not recommended as a textbook. It is recommended once one has some technical background to deepen understanding of the fundamental concepts of quantum mechanics. On a topic where there is no accepted consensus why do you insist that only your interpretation is right? Why do you insist that only your approach to the problem is right and everyone should just accept it? We know that Ballentine pushed his own interpretation along with explaining the formalisms of QM so just because people enjoy his formalism of QM which he does without any paradoxes doesn't mean that his Statistical Interpretation of QM is right. As shown above it has been falsified. So what is the modified interpretation? Some scientists use the term "myth", others use the term "misconception"; the specific term is of no importance, the point is that wave-particle duality does not exist on quantum mechanics. As everyone can see in the wiki page about wave-particle duality. Some say only wave is real and others say wave-particle duality exists and quite a few say neither exist. So why is your arguments any better than others and if it was so obvious then why there is not an accepted consensus still? Yes, particles behave as particles. There is nothing mysterious about that, in fact it is what quantum mechanics says. You have been explained why and I gave you at least a quote from a textbook saying that a particle behaves as a particle. Quantum mechanics is a physical theory and physical theories deal with the physical nature of the systems under study. E.g. we define a particle, which are its physical properties and behaviour; next we perform experiments and check the theory. There is a branch of fundamental physics, particle physics, devoted to this in exclusive. Particle physicists are not using the term particle in its usual sense and so far you have not defined your quantum ensemble and not even cited a working interpretation to support your arguments. As long as you don't define your interpretation and your definitions properly I have to assume you have no idea what you're talking about when you say particles behave as particles. I don't want reviews because I'm not buying a product. That's why I ignore it. We are talking about science here and it is done in good spirit with good intellectual arguments and your reviews doesn't answer my questions. Is that how you convince someone about your ideas?
juanrga Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 This paper below which you cited earlier has been falsified and its interpretation has been falsified and it is only of a historical significance. Repeating your lies again and again doesn't make it true. The assumptions in this paper are in direct conflict with Gribbin's statements. Now if you insist that Gribbin is talking about an earlier ensemble interpretation, my question is where is the new interpretation? Again citations please? On a topic where there is no accepted consensus why do you insist that only your interpretation is right? Why do you insist that only your approach to the problem is right and everyone should just accept it? We know that Ballentine pushed his own interpretation along with explaining the formalisms of QM so just because people enjoy his formalism of QM which he does without any paradoxes doesn't mean that his Statistical Interpretation of QM is right. As shown above it has been falsified. So what is the modified interpretation? As has been explained to you more several times, the Statistical Interpretation of QM is free of the technical inconsistencies and phylosophical nonsense of earlier interpretations. Everyone who has studied QM at some extension agrees on that this modern approach to QM rocks: http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/9810241054 http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=276701 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/ Your pretension that Ballentine's formulation of QM "has been falsified and it is only of a historical significance" and, therefore, that all of us are lying is hilarious. As everyone can see in the wiki page about wave-particle duality. Some say only wave is real and others say wave-particle duality exists and quite a few say neither exist. So why is your arguments any better than others and if it was so obvious then why there is not an accepted consensus still? And any scientist knows that the Wikipedia is not a reliable academic resource, because it is edited by people with consider himself expert in physics after seeing a Start Treck episode or reading a popular book about philosophy. Particle physicists are not using the term particle in its usual sense and so far you have not defined your quantum ensemble and not even cited a working interpretation to support your arguments. As long as you don't define your interpretation and your definitions properly I have to assume you have no idea what you're talking about when you say particles behave as particles. Particle physicists must be not using the term particle in the sense you use when playing football or cricket. But they are studying electrons, photons, quarks... scientifically. Because you have decided not to learn what is a particle or what is a quantum ensemble cannot be excuse for stopping scientists from continuing their work. I don't want reviews because I'm not buying a product. That's why I ignore it. We are talking about science here and it is done in good spirit with good intellectual arguments and your reviews doesn't answer my questions. Is that how you convince someone about your ideas? I am only correcting the flagrant mistakes and nonsense that you post, whereas giving basic thoughts and references for people who arrives to this thread and really want to learn QM and physics.
immortal Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 As has been explained to you more several times, the Statistical Interpretation of QM is free of the technical inconsistencies and phylosophical nonsense of earlier interpretations. Everyone who has studied QM at some extension agrees on that this modern approach to QM rocks: http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/9810241054 http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=276701 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/ Your pretension that Ballentine's formulation of QM "has been falsified and it is only of a historical significance" and, therefore, that all of us are lying is hilarious. Yes, you don't have intellectual honesty. I'm not here to listen your preaching, claims should be backed up with credible scientific papers not by linking book reviews. Yes that paper which you earlier cited and the interpretation in that paper has been falsified based on Gribbins statements, I have read that paper. This is a mainstream science forum and not a place to preach your myths. If you don't give the correct paper on which your interpretation is based on then there is no common ground to discuss because different interpretations and different papers approach QM with different assumptions and its meaningless to argue without knowing the foundational basis of someone's claims. I never said all of them lying, I said you were lying because you are moving goal posts and not addressing my arguments or my requests. And any scientist knows that the Wikipedia is not a reliable academic resource, because it is edited by people with consider himself expert in physics after seeing a Start Treck episode or reading a popular book about philosophy. This is double standards, then why the heck do you quote from wikipedia talk page to support your claims, by saying this you yourself have admitted that you embrace crackpottery. Particle physicists must be not using the term particle in the sense you use when playing football or cricket. But they are studying electrons, photons, quarks... scientifically. Because you have decided not to learn what is a particle or what is a quantum ensemble cannot be excuse for stopping scientists from continuing their work. When you sarcastically said "quantum particle is a standard term, go and search in google" to an another member I did went and searched for the term and so far it doesn't have an agreed upon definition among physicists and philosophers and I have been asking you politely for its definition and the only thing I got back was a series of personal attacks dodging my questions. Your assumption that I don't reserach and don't learn before posting something is baseless and my posts speaks for itself. I am only correcting the flagrant mistakes and nonsense that you post, whereas giving basic thoughts and references for people who arrives to this thread and really want to learn QM and physics. The falsified papers, the anonymous quotes from crackpots, physicists who rant on their personal blogs belong to you, not to me. Who is posting nonsense now? This place is not about correcting one, its about making the other person silent with sound arguments and you have not made a tiny effort to do that.
juanrga Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) Yes, you don't have intellectual honesty. I'm not here to listen your preaching, claims should be backed up with credible scientific papers not by linking book reviews. Yes that paper which you earlier cited and the interpretation in that paper has been falsified based on Gribbins statements, I have read that paper. This is a mainstream science forum and not a place to preach your myths. If you don't give the correct paper on which your interpretation is based on then there is no common ground to discuss because different interpretations and different papers approach QM with different assumptions and its meaningless to argue without knowing the foundational basis of someone's claims. I never said all of them lying, I said you were lying because you are moving goal posts and not addressing my arguments or my requests. This is double standards, then why the heck do you quote from wikipedia talk page to support your claims, by saying this you yourself have admitted that you embrace crackpottery. When you sarcastically said "quantum particle is a standard term, go and search in google" to an another member I did went and searched for the term and so far it doesn't have an agreed upon definition among physicists and philosophers and I have been asking you politely for its definition and the only thing I got back was a series of personal attacks dodging my questions. Your assumption that I don't reserach and don't learn before posting something is baseless and my posts speaks for itself. The falsified papers, the anonymous quotes from crackpots, physicists who rant on their personal blogs belong to you, not to me. Who is posting nonsense now? This place is not about correcting one, its about making the other person silent with sound arguments and you have not made a tiny effort to do that. I will reply to that what you insist on repeating and will ignore what was corrected before. I will try to give short answers and use plain terms: 1) Insulting others will not hide your mistakes and glaring nonsenses. 2) Gribbin is not talking about the modern statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. He is talking about "Earlier Classical Ensemble Ideas" associated to "classical theory" http://en.wikipedia...._Ensemble_Ideas 3) Ballentine textbook on the modern statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct and it is considered one of best textbooks to learn QM: http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/9810241054 http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=276701 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/ 4) You cannot pretend to cite the Wikipedia as gospel and at the same time write that "any charlatan can claim any nonsense thing". 5) The standard definition of particle has been given. 6) What other poster objected was to the use of the term "quantum particle". The term "quantum particle" is also used in textbooks. One reference was given. 7) Physicists do not have to agree with philosophers about definitions used in physics. 8) The link to a physicist blog was given because another poster was objecting to a phrase and the blog proves that more people use the phrase. 9) Wave particle duality is a "myth" or "misconception". Chose you favourite word. Edited July 16, 2012 by juanrga
pmb Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 You and Aethelwul are saying that the wave-particle duality states that a single particle is a wave. Both of you are plain wrong. Please don't put words into my mouth. I never said any such thing. In my opinion your arguement is flawed in that nobody has suggested that a single particle is a wave, nobody whatsoever, and your arguements are based soley on that false assuption that someone said that particle is a wave. Nobody said that in this thread. Lok for yourself. If what you say is true then you'd be able to give us a post number where it occured. I myself have never said, thought, or implied any such thing. Herein lies the flaw in your argument. In fact in my very first post in this thread, i.e. post #16, I said that I love the way Feynman explains it in his Lectures. In V-II page 1-1 Feynman writes "Quantum mechanics" is the description of the behavior of matter and light in all details and, in particular, of the happenings on an atomic scale. Things on an atomic scale behave like nothing that you have any direct experience about. They do not behave like waves, they do not behave like particles, they do not behave like clouds, or billiard balls, or weights on springs, or like anything that you have ever seen. Newton thought that light was made up of particles, but then it was discovered that it behaves like a wave. Later, however (in the beginning of the twentieth century), it was found that light did indeed sometimes behave like a particle, and then it was found that in many respects it behaved like a wave. So it really behaves like neither. Now we have given up. We say: "It i like neither." Bolding is mine. That means that a particle is not a wave. If you look in Feynman's book QED and check the index then you'll see that Feynman explains the wave-particle duality on pages 23 and 37. What I found relavent is one the wavelike character of electrons on page 84. On page 84 he hits the nail on the head when he writes In 1924 Louis De Broglie found that there was a wavelike character associated with electrons, and soon afterwards, C. J. Davisson and L. H. Germer at Bell Laboratories bombarded a nickel crystal with electons and showed that they, too, bounced off at craxy angles (just like X-rays do), and that these angles could be calculated from De Broglie's formula for the wavelength of an electron. The bolding is mine. This is pecisely what we've all been saying all this time and which you claim is wrong. Feynman clearly said wavelength of an electron. This is what it means for a beam of electrons or an ensemble of them. to have wavelike properties. IT must be the fact that each electron has a wavelike property in order for the Davisson-Germer experiment to demonstrate wavelike characteristics. The term "wave like characteristics" does not mean that a particle is a wave.
Aethelwulf Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Please don't put words into my mouth. I never said any such thing. I second this... not once have I ever said a particle ''is just a wave''. I actually said a particle is both a wave and a particle, I even gave a demonstration of this saying that a particle hits the detector screen as a dot, proving it was a particle... I am getting really sick of Juan.
pmb Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) pmb Sorry that was my fault for not using x as the dummy variable. Replace x by w, with w=(x-vt) Today I followed an ad hoc derivation of Schrodinger's equation. I confirmed what I long knew, i.e. that a wave function of the form [math]\psi(x, t) = Ae^{i(kx - \omega t)}[/math] is a solution to both Schrodinger's equation and the wave equations. Are you familiar with such a derivation? Edited July 16, 2012 by pmb
immortal Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 I will reply to that what you insist on repeating and will ignore what was corrected before. I will try to give short answers and use plain terms: 1) Insulting others will not hide your mistakes and glaring nonsenses. I made mistakes and posted nonsense? Where? Which part? Can you quote them specifically? Do you want to have a healthy debate or continue making my arguments look weak by making personal attacks? People can see what you're doing here. 2) Gribbin is not talking about the modern statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. He is talking about "Earlier Classical Ensemble Ideas" associated to "classical theory" http://en.wikipedia...._Ensemble_Ideas 3) Ballentine textbook on the modern statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct and it is considered one of best textbooks to learn QM: http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/9810241054 http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=276701 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/ I don't go by books, I prefer scientific papers and if this interpretation was so popular and so much accepted I find it hard to believe that there is hardly not a single paper about it. Can you cite papers for your interpretation so that I can understand your arguments better without any confusion. 4) You cannot pretend to cite the Wikipedia as gospel and at the same time write that "any charlatan can claim any nonsense thing". There is a lot of difference between quoting anonymous users and quoting words from respected physicists and scientists. Can't you see that? 5) The standard definition of particle has been given. No, the CERN website doesn't give us the definition of the particle which you're using. Do you care to give us your defintion of the quantum particle? 7) Physicists do not have to agree with philosophers about definitions used in physics. Doing bad philosophy == Doing pseudoscience. 9) Wave particle duality is a "myth" or "misconception". Chose you favourite word. Only crackpots prefer such terms like "myth" for such important concepts which is spread among all the literature of QM.
Aethelwulf Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Today I followed an ad hoc derivation of Schrodinger's equation. I confirmed what I long knew, i.e. that a wave function of the form [math]\psi(x, t) = Ae^{i(kx - \omega t)}[/math] is a solution to both Schrodinger's equation and the wave equations. Are you familiar with such a derivation? I think I do.
juanrga Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Please don't put words into my mouth. I never said any such thing. In my opinion your arguement is flawed in that nobody has suggested that a single particle is a wave, nobody whatsoever, and your arguements are based soley on that false assuption that someone said that particle is a wave. Nobody said that in this thread. You said that a particle is a wave. In fact in my very first post in this thread, i.e. post #16 Your very first post was not #16. Rest of misconceptions corrected before.
pmb Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) I don't go by books, I prefer scientific papers and if this interpretation was so popular and so much accepted I find it hard to believe that there is hardly not a single paper about it. Can you cite papers for your interpretation so that I can understand your arguments better without any confusion. I myself go by books for the basics of physics and this is a well-known fact in quantum mechanics and is quite often addressed in text books. That's why I rely on them so much. Papers don't address basic physics for the most part so its much harder to find such an article. Here is a section from Shankar's QM text (graduate level). From Principles of Quantum mechanics - 2nd Ed. by R. Shankar (graduate level quantum mechanics text), page 113 We found that entities such as the electron are particles in the classical sense in that when detected they seem to carry all their energy, momentum, charge, etc. in localized form: and at the same time that are not particlelike in that assuming they move along definite trajectories leads to conflict with experiment. It appears that each particle has associated with it a wave function [math]\Psi(x, t)[/math], such that [math]|\Psi(x, t)|^2[/math], gives the probability of finding it at a point c at time t. This is called wave-particle duality. That and [math]\lambda = h/p[/math] expresses the wave-particle duality. There is a lot of difference between quoting anonymous users and quoting words from respected physicists and scientists. Can't you see that? He's very selective about what he posts. I guess that's just human behaviour. He never mentioned the wave-particle duality as mentioned by Feynman in QED but posted other comments, which when taken out of context, appears to support his position. No, the CERN website doesn't give us the definition of the particle which you're using. Do you care to give us your defintion of the quantum particle? CERN has better things to do with its website then post basic QM. Or maybe I can find something that juan overlooked (intentionaly?). I'll search the website and see what I find. Edited July 16, 2012 by pmb
juanrga Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 I second this... not once have I ever said a particle ''is just a wave''. I actually said a particle is both a wave and a particle, I even gave a demonstration of this saying that a particle hits the detector screen as a dot, proving it was a particle... I am getting really sick of Juan. Nobody said "just". You are who again put in other words that never said. Very typical. Moreover, you also said that the wave function was real and physical, which is also completely wrong.
hypervalent_iodine Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 ! Moderator Note pmb and juan,Seriously, the personal snipes have to stop. Staff are getting a bit tired of having to babysit the threads you two participate in together and having to warn you both about making personal remarks. Tip: if you can't address the content of the posts without making it in some way personal, might I suggest that you simply don't respond. If you can't do this, you will be facing disciplinary action. Also, Aethwulf, the same goes for you.
pmb Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) You said that a particle is a wave. You're wrong. I already told you that and you simply ignored it. That is not how a cogent argument progresses. Prove me wrong. Reference a post where I said a particle is a wave. Until then stop putting words into my mouth. Edited July 16, 2012 by pmb 1
Recommended Posts