Hidden Variables

[LjSpike]

Ok, im not an expert in this topic (i'll confess that) but i've done some reading about it, the delayed choice double-slit and the double-slit etc.
In the double slit, we either measure the photon as wave-like or particle-like, it then behaves like whatever we are measuring it as, even if we know it hit the photo-detection plate, as long as we don't look at the white dot, it can end up with it causing a particle-like outcome by triggering the telescopes behind after the photo-detection plate is removed without being looked at before it hits the telescopes.

(do correct me if i made a mistake somewhere up there.)

It sounds to me like theres a very very simple explaination, and i'll probably look like a right fool saying this, but...
Isn't it just behaving like a particle and a wave at the same time?

we're measuring just the wave-like property, or the particle-like property each time, even randomly, and changing our mind while it travels through free space. Now that very simply makes me think its either behaving like a wave and particle at the same time as stated above, or that its interacting with other objects in the space of the experiment, for example removing a photon from the foil, the foil photon behaving particle like and the other behaving wave-like or visa versa, or intercepting an energy wave of one form or another, or passing through the photodetection plate as a wave, then after that transforming into a particle-like state?

[Strange]

 

It sounds to me like theres a very very simple explaination, and i'll probably look like a right fool saying this, but...

Isn't it just behaving like a particle and a wave at the same time?

 

Yes.

 

That is certainly one way of looking at it. It might be slightly more accurate to say it has some properties in common with waves and some properties in common with discrete objects ("particles") and if we measure one of those properties it looks more wave-like or particle-like, depending what we measure.

 

I would say it is wrong to think of it as flipping between particle and wave, depending on what we measure.

[Hybr1d]

 

Yes.

 

That is certainly one way of looking at it. It might be slightly more accurate to say it has some properties in common with waves and some properties in common with discrete objects ("particles") and if we measure one of those properties it looks more wave-like or particle-like, depending what we measure.

 

I would say it is wrong to think of it as flipping between particle and wave, depending on what we measure.

 

I agree with this, and this is the general mechanism behind the superposition reducing to a single eigenstate upon measurement.

One of two ways for quantum systems to evolve over "time", the other being the equally probabilistic Schrodinger equation.

 

Ok, im not an expert in this topic (i'll confess that) but i've done some reading about it, the delayed choice double-slit and the double-slit etc.

In the double slit, we either measure the photon as wave-like or particle-like, it then behaves like whatever we are measuring it as, even if we know it hit the photo-detection plate, as long as we don't look at the white dot, it can end up with it causing a particle-like outcome by triggering the telescopes behind after the photo-detection plate is removed without being looked at before it hits the telescopes.

 

(do correct me if i made a mistake somewhere up there.)

 

It sounds to me like theres a very very simple explaination, and i'll probably look like a right fool saying this, but...

Isn't it just behaving like a particle and a wave at the same time?

 

we're measuring just the wave-like property, or the particle-like property each time, even randomly, and changing our mind while it travels through free space. Now that very simply makes me think its either behaving like a wave and particle at the same time as stated above, or that its interacting with other objects in the space of the experiment, for example removing a photon from the foil, the foil photon behaving particle like and the other behaving wave-like or visa versa, or intercepting an energy wave of one form or another, or passing through the photodetection plate as a wave, then after that transforming into a particle-like state?

 

Hello LjSpike,

 

You've asked an excellent question, although I'm not entirely certain as to why you chose to call this topic "Hidden Variables" as these have been proven to be false beyond a shadow of a doubt. Bell's theorem directly proves that "no physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics." Local realism is a relic of a time that has now since passed. Determinism is the belief that needs to be discarded, as reality is fundamentally indeterminate. I argued in my last post on this site, and also within a thread you posted in titled "Is the future predetermined?". I answered with the only scientifically logical position, and then thoroughly explained why that is.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Hybr1d

[LjSpike]

 

I agree with this, and this is the general mechanism behind the superposition reducing to a single eigenstate upon measurement.

One of two ways for quantum systems to evolve over "time", the other being the equally probabilistic Schrodinger equation.

 

 

Hello LjSpike,

 

You've asked an excellent question, although I'm not entirely certain as to why you chose to call this topic "Hidden Variables" as these have been proven to be false beyond a shadow of a doubt. Bell's theorem directly proves that "no physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics." Local realism is a relic of a time that has now since passed. Determinism is the belief that needs to be discarded, as reality is fundamentally indeterminate. I argued in my last post on this site, and also within a thread you posted in titled "Is the future predetermined?". I answered with the only scientifically logical position, and then thoroughly explained why that is.

Well, I named it hidden variables because I came across this while looking at hidden variables, anyway, the hidden variables aren't fully disproved (though I don't like the idea of them in this experiment), only the local ones were disproved.

Anyway, Do you know a good link to this nice Schrodinger equation so I can have a look at?

[swansont]

 

I would say it is wrong to think of it as flipping between particle and wave, depending on what we measure.

 

I agree. That's a "bridge" explanation to begin to wean students from purely classical thinking, but it still evokes/invokes classical behavior. One has to remember that it's still an analogy, and analogies fail at some point. We measure behavior that we associate with particles or waves, but it's not a classical particle or wave.

 

It would be like saying that a platypus exhibits duck/beaver duality. It's not a duck part of the time and a beaver part of the time, even though they share common attributes. It's a different beast.

 

(related: this awesome Venn diagram)

[Hybr1d]

Well, I named it hidden variables because I came across this while looking at hidden variables, anyway, the hidden variables aren't fully disproved (though I don't like the idea of them in this experiment), only the local ones were disproved.

Anyway, Do you know a good link to this nice Schrodinger equation so I can have a look at?

Non-local hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics have been en masse experimentally ruled out, and the window is getting smaller and smaller. If you had taken the time to read my links and put your cognitive bias aside you may have come to the same conclusion. Also as I stated before whether or not you like the idea of something has no place in science. Disputing a scientifically verified supposal, or a supposal made through non-biased ratiocination simply because you don't want it to be true is morally vacuous, and disingenuous. At this point we can be relatively certain that underlying reality is indeterminate, predicated on experimental evidence at the quantum scale. This has nothing to do with a "conscious" observer, but rather random processes.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Hybr1d

[LjSpike]

Non-local hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics have been en masse experimentally ruled out, and the window is getting smaller and smaller. If you had taken the time to read my links and put your cognitive bias aside you may have come to the same conclusion. Also as I stated before whether or not you like the idea of something has no place in science. Disputing a scientifically verified supposal, or a supposal made through non-biased ratiocination simply because you don't want it to be true is morally vacuous, and disingenuous. At this point we can be relatively certain that underlying reality is indeterminate, predicated on experimental evidence at the quantum scale. This has nothing to do with a "conscious" observer, but rather random processes.

 

Ok, I'll look through the generic what could be considered as insults in that reply. Hunches are the basis of science, and hunches are an opinion. Scientists then try to find a way to backup their opinion, and other scientists try to disprove it, rather than saying "oooh well its an opinion right here so we can't be bothered to do anything with any of it". Galileo had a hunch that everything didn't orbit the earth, as he didn't like the idea everything orbited the earth, because it didn't explain Mar's orbit, he then found evidence to prove his opinion, which was still disputed for a long time, but doing calculations and so on, to suggest that earth isn't the centre of the universe. He then eventually proved it by predicting lots of locations of planets in the sky. Also, Non-local hidden variables aren't ruled out, they're just said to be unlikely, but still possible. You want to critise me for going away from science, well, then don't go away from science and make things up.

 

Now back on topic, randomness isn't necessarily things being...completely well, random.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

Read through ALL of paragraph one.

Individual events may be unpredictable, say the roll of a dice. But 7 will normally occur twice as often as 4. If we can predict things that happen in the future, then the universe is not random. Simple as, its just not random.

If the very fabric of the universe, particles themselves behaved randomly, then matter can be created and disappear, randomly, because if its random, it doesn't follow any rules. That'd also mean energy could likely be created and destroyed, as energy and matter are interchangeable when anti-matter is added into the equation. It'd also mean storms would magically appear and disappear. God! Even creationism is a more solid explanation for events then complete and utter randomness. At least creationism attempts to actually explain the issue with something.

 

The fact that we can predict things, shows the universe is not random. The fact we can only predict some things, shows it must be an exceptionally complex set of rules it follows. So unless you want to dispute that matter and energy are constant, then randomness begins to fall apart at the seams. The butterfly over in the amazon in our lovely butterfly effect theory, alternates the state of that proton, neutron or electron we're observing under our microscope.

 

Also I did read some of your links, but you gave me a mighty mass of them to digest ok? Also, one of your links comments:

"However, because of experimental limitations, all experiments to date required additional assumptions to obtain a contradiction with local realism, resulting in loopholes."

 

So we can't go concrete on all the experiments here. They require assumptions, such as that we have to presume the laws of nature are correct, and you know the rules of this site, that when we start suggesting that the laws of nature are wrong, that we wander into the depths of pseudoscience and skepticality.

And bells theorem has to also make an assumption like stated above, because it has to presume that were correct in our observations of the experiments, and our understanding of quantum mechanics as a whole. Though presuming its correct it ONLY eliminates local hidden variables.

[puppypower]

 

I agree with this, and this is the general mechanism behind the superposition reducing to a single eigenstate upon measurement.

One of two ways for quantum systems to evolve over "time", the other being the equally probabilistic Schrodinger equation.

 

 

Hello LjSpike,

 

You've asked an excellent question, although I'm not entirely certain as to why you chose to call this topic "Hidden Variables" as these have been proven to be false beyond a shadow of a doubt. Bell's theorem directly proves that "no physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics." Local realism is a relic of a time that has now since passed. Determinism is the belief that needs to be discarded, as reality is fundamentally indeterminate. I argued in my last post on this site, and also within a thread you posted in titled "Is the future predetermined?". I answered with the only scientifically logical position, and then thoroughly explained why that is.

 

 

If you compare a continuous universe to a quantum universe, a continuous universe has unlimited states even between two quantum states. A quantum universe actually loads the dice, compared to a continuous universe, making the universe far more deterministic. A random model is not rational but is a regression to before the age of reason, when the universe was assumed random. The alchemist assumed lead could turn into gold as one of many random states. Later it was learned atomic dice are loaded; deterministic, and this can't happen with a simple roll of the dice.

[Hybr1d]

 

Ok, I'll look through the generic what could be considered as insults in that reply. Hunches are the basis of science, and hunches are an opinion. Scientists then try to find a way to backup their opinion, and other scientists try to disprove it, rather than saying "oooh well its an opinion right here so we can't be bothered to do anything with any of it". Galileo had a hunch that everything didn't orbit the earth, as he didn't like the idea everything orbited the earth, because it didn't explain Mar's orbit, he then found evidence to prove his opinion, which was still disputed for a long time, but doing calculations and so on, to suggest that earth isn't the centre of the universe. He then eventually proved it by predicting lots of locations of planets in the sky. Also, Non-local hidden variables aren't ruled out, they're just said to be unlikely, but still possible. You want to critise me for going away from science, well, then don't go away from science and make things up.

 

Now back on topic, randomness isn't necessarily things being...completely well, random.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

 

Galileo didn't dispute scientifically verified facts to assert his own preconceived notions about the world and it's interworkings were correct, and in fact he did the exact opposite.

 

Also, "Randomness" as you call it has nothing to do with anything I had previously said we were discussing probability. I already stated that the means of which we derive the probabilities are deterministic, as in the Schrodinger equation, or the Born rule. However the results of these equations are experimentally verified to be probabilistic and as such, random.

 

 

The fact that we can predict things, shows the universe is not random. The fact we can only predict some things, shows it must be an exceptionally complex set of rules it follows. So unless you want to dispute that matter and energy are constant, then randomness begins to fall apart at the seams. The butterfly over in the amazon in our lovely butterfly effect theory, alternates the state of that proton, neutron or electron we're observing under our microscope.

 

This demonstrates to me that you simply aren't able to comprehend quantum probabilities, or how they work. Your entire post reenforces the fact that people aren't willing to part with their intial beliefs about the way the universe works, or came to be. Yes, everything is random, no that isn't ridiculous and the issues you presented are non exist in quantum theory. You evidently have no idea what you're are talking about.

 

If you compare a continuous universe to a quantum universe, a continuous universe has unlimited states even between two quantum states. A quantum universe actually loads the dice, compared to a continuous universe, making the universe far more deterministic. A random model is not rational but is a regression to before the age of reason, when the universe was assumed random. The alchemist assumed lead could turn into gold as one of many random states. Later it was learned atomic dice are loaded; deterministic, and this can't happen with a simple roll of the dice.

 

This is so full of subjective illogical reasoning for determinism it seems to me that you are unable to accept how quantum mechanics actually works. The universe was never assumed to be random. Human beings naturally assume everything must be a cause of a cause, ad infinitum. Due to this kind of reasoning this led many to believe in an all powerful deity, or numerous deity, depending on the society in question.

 

I read what you said as "I don't like the fact that quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, so I will purposely obfuscate a bunch of incoherent "facts" that I personally believe about fundamental reality, because probability makes me feel uneasy.

 

I'm done trying to rationalize with irrational people so this is my last rebuttal in this thread.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Hybr1d

[LjSpike]

 

Galileo didn't dispute scientifically verified facts to assert his own preconceived notions about the world and it's interworkings were correct, and in fact he did the exact opposite.

 

Also, "Randomness" as you call it has nothing to do with anything I had previously said we were discussing probability. I already stated that the means of which we derive the probabilities are deterministic, as in the Schrodinger equation, or the Born rule. However the results of these equations are experimentally verified to be probabilistic and as such, random.

 

 

 

This demonstrates to me that you simply aren't able to comprehend quantum probabilities, or how they work. Your entire post reenforces the fact that people aren't willing to part with their intial beliefs about the way the universe works, or came to be. Yes, everything is random, no that isn't ridiculous and the issues you presented are non exist in quantum theory. You evidently have no idea what you're are talking about.

 

 

This is so full of subjective illogical reasoning for determinism it seems to me that you are unable to accept how quantum mechanics actually works. The universe was never assumed to be random. Human beings naturally assume everything must be a cause of a cause, ad infinitum. Due to this kind of reasoning this led many to believe in an all powerful deity, or numerous deity, depending on the society in question.

 

I read what you said as "I don't like the fact that quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, so I will purposely obfuscate a bunch of incoherent "facts" that I personally believe about fundamental reality, because probability makes me feel uneasy.

 

I'm done trying to rationalize with irrational people so this is my last rebuttal in this thread.

Well good day then.

You do seem very incapable to try and accept any view aside from your own though.

Gallileo disputed (at that time) scientifically and universally accepted facts.