determinism or indeterminism

[Strange]

If quantum effects/fundamental particles are not caused by anything then the universe is not caused by anything? You think the universe appeared out of 'thin air'?

 

 

The fact that some things may not have a cause does not mean that nothing has a cause.

 

How do you know it is impossible for there to be effects without cause?

 

 

 

And you think probabilistic math explains the nature of the universe...

 

It certainly works. Whether it describes the nature of the universe is something else.

[Itoero]

The fact that some things may not have a cause does not mean that nothing has a cause.

 

How do you know it is impossible for there to be effects without cause?

It's a lot more then 'some' things. Isn't the (observable) universe made by fundamental particles/quantum effects?

 

It certainly works. Whether it describes the nature of the universe is something else.

The math explains the seemingly random behavior. It explains our current 'idea' of the nature of the universe.

[Eise]

If quantum effects/fundamental particles are not caused by anything then the universe is not caused by anything?

 

Quantum effects are caused by something. But not precisely. QM's laws of nature have probabilistic character, i.e. they predict probability distributions.

 

And you think probabilistic math explains the nature of the universe...

 

I think that nature behaves probabilistically, because that is what physics says, based on sound theories and experiments. You on the other hand, stand outside physics, picking up a few things you do not understand, and then proclaim that the physicists have it completely wrong.

 

In the end, historically they immediately accepted the absurd notion that QM laws are probabilistic without hesitation.

(Oh, shit, where are the irony tags?)

[Itoero]

I think that nature behaves probabilistically, because that is what physics says, based on sound theories and experiments. You on the other hand, stand outside physics, picking up a few things you do not understand, and then proclaim that the physicists have it completely wrong.

 

In the end, historically they immediately accepted the absurd notion that QM laws are probabilistic without hesitation.

(Oh, shit, where are the irony tags?)

The math shows our idea concerning reality it does not say anything concerning ultimate reality. So you know what the physicists think?

[Strange]

It's a lot more then 'some' things. Isn't the (observable) universe made by fundamental particles/quantum effects?

 

 

So what. That doesn't prove that everything must have a cause.

[Itoero]

So what. That doesn't prove that everything must have a cause.

If you think the universe is not caused by anything then everything does not need to be caused.

Science is like a search. By saying there is no hidden reality, you've called the end of that search for this particular subject.

[dimreepr]

If you think the universe is not caused by anything then everything does not need to be caused.

Science is like a search. By saying there is no hidden reality, you've called the end of that search for this particular subject.

 

Gongrat's, that's almost a master class of a fallacious argument, nice try.

Edited January 10, 2017 by dimreepr

[Itoero]

Gongrat's, that's almost a master class of a fallacious argument, nice try.

Which fallacy?

[dimreepr]

Which fallacy?

 

Strawman and non-sequitur for a start

[Itoero]

Strawman and non-sequitur for a start

Yes but why?

What of it is a fallacy?

"If you think the universe is not caused by anything then everything does not need to be caused.

Science is like a search. By saying there is no hidden reality, you've called the end of that search for this particular subject."

[dimreepr]

Yes but why?

What of it is a fallacy?

"If you think the universe is not caused by anything then everything does not need to be caused.."

 

That's a non-sequitur because the start of the universe doesn't impinge on causality, which is also why it's a strawman

[Itoero]

That's a non-sequitur because the start of the universe doesn't impinge on causality, which is also why it's a strawman

Thanks for using the word 'impinge'....first time I hear it.

What do you mean with the start of the universe?

[dimreepr]

It doesn't matter how the universe started for causality to be true, despite correlation.

[Itoero]

It doesn't matter how the universe started for causality to be true, despite correlation.

Correlation does not imply causation but that does not mean the correlation is not caused by anything.

[Itoero]

The holographic principle states that gravity in a three-dimensional volume can be described by quantum mechanics on a two-dimensional surface surrounding the volume.

In particular, the three dimensions of the volume should emerge from the two dimensions of the surface.

It seems that quantum entanglement provides the two dimensional information that builds (three-dimensional)space time.

http://www.ipmu.jp/en/node/2174

 

Bell's theorem debunks local hidden variables in the three-dimensional, Newtonian world.

Local causes for quantum effects are imo present in the two-dimensional world.

 

If we ever empirically prove a hidden reality which causes the observable quantum effects and explain the probabilistic math, then we will also have the means to prove a quantum gravity model.

[Mordred]

Unfortunately Itoero you don't understand how entanglement works if you did you would realize hidden variables are 100% unnecessary. There is no communication required between two entangled superposition particles. The quantum correlation function generated when the entangled particles are first created see to that

[Itoero]

Unfortunately Itoero you don't understand how entanglement works if you did you would realize hidden variables are 100% unnecessary. There is no communication required between two entangled superposition particles. The quantum correlation function generated when the entangled particles are first created see to thats

So in your opinion only causal relations demand hidden variables. Why? Edited January 13, 2017 by Itoero

[Mordred]

there is no hidden variable. There isn't any need for a hidden variable.

 

Have someone place two different colored balls into a bag. To anyone else that has not opened the bag the balls are in superposition. There is however only two possibilities for which color ball each person recieves.

 

Once one person opens either bag the superposition correlation function collapses. The other bag must be in the opposite state.

 

Same thing applies to creating entangled particle pairs. When they are created the must follow numerous conservation laws. Conservation of spin/charge/lepton number/parity etc. This forms your correlation function.

 

Once either particle is measured the superposition collapses. The other particle must be the opposite spin.

 

No hidden variable required just application of the conservation laws themself and the correct understanding of superposition.

 

It is the superposition itself that is

indeterministic. Treat the bag holder as the observer and the bag itself as the system state. The bag holder cannot detetmine which ball he is holding until he or the other bag holder examines his bag. That is the correct meaning of an indeterministic system state.

 

With particles it gets more complex as particles are not balls but field excitations. This is why all quantum numbers are wavefunctions including the correlation wavefunction.

 

With correct understanding of excitations even wave particle duality itself is no mystery.

 

Read this article.

 

"There is no particles there is only fields "

 

https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_148435658654413&key=6afc78eea2339e9c047ab6748b0d37e7&libId=ixwjkyqa010009we000MAki55j4ju&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fthreads%2Fthe-vacuum-fluctuation-myth-comments.892500%2Fpage-7&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D9%26ved%3D0ahUKEwiNgcSLubfRAhWogVQKHRtBBLEQFgg1MAg%26url%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Farxiv.org%252Fpdf%252F1204.4616%26usg%3DAFQjCNEqAKaDGcbyMG2ax22sA9BakBSaTQ%26sig2%3DOLrYE7fyEIHsA3zMw400rQ&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fthreads%2Fthe-vacuum-fluctuation-myth-comments.892500%2Fpage-6&title=The%20Vacuum%20Fluctuation%20Myth%20-%20Comments%20%7C%20Page%207%20%7C%20Physics%20Forums%20-%20The%20Fusion%20of%20Science%20and%20Community&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26amp%3Bsourc...G2ax22sA9BakBSaTQ%26amp%3Bsig2%3DOLrYE7fyEIHsA3zMw400rQ

 

In essence were stuck with the term particle due to previous historical understanding. The very term particle is a nisnomer. The very term Superposition didn't originate from QM. It originated from statistical mechanics itself. The vast majority of every formula in QM is probablistic in nature. This is precisely what seperates QM from the classical views. QM is based upon probabilities which requires statistical mechanics.

 

As far as a particle state is concerned the only states that equates to a real particle must haveva mimimum of a quanta of energy. A state state can be observered. A virtual particle is not observable. You require a collection of virtual particles whose sum of energies within a finite volume to cause any action/interferance etc. Individually virtual particles cannot cause action as they are too short lived due to having insufficient energy (less than a quanta)

Edited January 14, 2017 by Mordred

[Eise]

Thanks for the article you linked, Mordred. Very enlightening.

[Itoero]

Have someone place two different colored balls into a bag. To anyone else that has not opened the bag the balls are in superposition. There is however only two possibilities for which color ball each person recieves.

 

Once one person opens either bag the superposition correlation function collapses. The other bag must be in the opposite state.

I do like colored balls, especially red ones.

But that's a very lousy comparison. In your example, opening the bag (the correlation)ends the correlation...that's impossible.

You end correlation by interacting with one of the balls, not by interacting with the bag.

 

In your example, first you have one bag and then you have two bags...

 

No hidden variable required just application of the conservation laws themself and the correct understanding of superposition.

Because there are laws that seem to explain things, hidden variables are not necessary? hehe

 

It is the superposition itself that is

indeterministic. Treat the bag holder as the observer and the bag itself as the system state. The bag holder cannot detetmine which ball he is holding until he or the other bag holder examines his bag. That is the correct meaning of an indeterministic system state.

You again make a lousy comparison. The bag represents correlation, you can't end correlation by examining it. You can't examine the quantum correlation. You can only examine the particles.

 

You can only know entanglement is there by measuring a particle, you can only measure the footprint entanglement leaves.

 

Bell's theorem debunks theories concerning local hidden variables.

If hidden variables are 100% unnecessary then Bell's theorem is 100% unnecessary? And those inequalities are a waste of time in your opinion?

Edited January 14, 2017 by Itoero

[Mordred]

I highly suggest you actually study statistical mechanics. In particular the very term Superposition. Before you try to tackle the connection coefficient in entanglement. As it stands your argument above is baseless. Your literally arguing against QM without the slightest understanding of QM. It would be impossible for you to understand Bells inequalities unless you understand basic QM.

 

Superposition is a sum of all possible states/vectors/spinors in regards to spin etc

 

In physics and systems theory, the superposition principle, also known as superposition property, states that, for all linear systems, the net response at a given place and time caused by two or more stimuli is the sum of the responses which would have been caused by each stimulus individually

 

 

 

Thanks for the article you linked, Mordred. Very enlightening.

your welcome Edited January 14, 2017 by Mordred

[Itoero]

I highly suggest you actually study statistical mechanics. In particular the very term Superposition. Before you try to tackle the connection coefficient in entanglement. As it stands your argument above is baseless. Your literally arguing against QM without the slightest understanding of QM. It would be impossible for you to understand Bells inequalities unless you understand basic QM

Why don't you reply on anything I say?

 

-Your comparison with the bags and balls don't make any sense.

You collapse the correlation by interacting with the balls, not the bag.

-Bells theorem debunks our theories concerning local hidden variables, but you claim hidden variables are 100%unnecessary so that makes bells theorem 100%unnecessary.

-Why do you evoke superposition? A quantum superposition refers to two or more quantum states which are added together and form a new valid quantum state. It's related but not the same as entanglement.

And superposition is not necessary a sum of all states.

 

Plz answer those points, prove you have some understanding.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Itoero

[dimreepr]

prove you have some understanding.

 

I tried to resist, but the irony field went off the charts.

[Mordred]

Went off my charts as well considering I provided the literal definition from wiki.

 

Tell me can you not be bothered to even google a terminology?

 

Well here is a simple QM application

 

https://www.miniphysics.com/principle-of-superposition.html

 

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/superposition

 

That took less than 30 seconds

 

Now google Superposition correlation function

 

https://www.google.ca/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-samsung&source=android-browser&q=superposition+correlation+function&gfe_rd=cr&ei=EKt6WKuIKOjs8wfSwJ1A

 

All possible states not all states.

 

Greens function is also involved though moreso in your creation/annihilation operators. (Part of the Feyman diagrams incoming/outgoing legs) Particles are complex objects that simply cannot be properly described by heuristic views. For example read Prof Strasslers site in regards to a proton.

 

He mentions that a proton is literally a cloud of quarks and gluons in a bound state. Just a mere 7 of those quarks lead to 22,543 possible outbound legs on a feyman diagram. So we use S-matrix to simplify this into approximations.

 

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/largehadroncolliderfaq/whats-a-proton-anyway/

 

So tell me how deterministic is the mere act of smashing two protons together, when you have trillions of quarks and gluons involved? Go ahead predict the scattering path each quark and gluon takes from smashing two protons together. Yet its even more complex as individual quarks will not remain seperate but form new bound states ie other particles

 

Hopefully you know what a function is in mathematics.

 

Now electrons are either spin up or spun down. You only have those two possibilities. When you generate two entangled particles via a decay conservation of spin states the total spin must sum to zero.

 

While in superposition you don't know the spin of either. Once you measure the spin of one. The other must be the opposite.

 

There is other quantum numbers that can also be entangled. The most commonly referred to example though is spin.

 

Charge can also be entangled in matter/antimatter examples. Which also involves conservation of charge.

 

The thing is you keep arguing the universe is deterministic but have absolutely no idea just how complex a particle really is welcome to the world of QM/QFT At the very best you can only determine an approximation, not an absolute

Spinors are also complex they are neither scalar,vector, nor tensors. So even spin isn't possible to accurately determine but can only be approximated

 

like I stated learn whats really involved before drawing conclusions. Anyone claiming the universe is deterministic has no clue of the complexities involved. We can't even determine all the possible scattering of two protons colliding The mere act of greater momentum increase of a proton ie at the LHC greatly enhances the complexities involved

Edited January 15, 2017 by Mordred

[Itoero]

Why don't you want to reply?

 

-Your comparison with the bags and balls don't make any sense.

You collapse the correlation by interacting with the balls(particles), not the bag(correlation).

-Bells theorem debunks our theories concerning local hidden variables, but you claim hidden variables are 100%unnecessary so that makes bells theorem 100%unnecessary.

-Why do you evoke superposition? A quantum superposition refers to two or more quantum states which are added together and form a new valid quantum state. It's related but not the same as entanglement.

And superposition is not necessary a sum of all states.

-If you believe that fundamental particles/quantum effects don't require hidden

variables then you think nothing causes them...then nothing caused the universe?

 

The thing is you keep arguing the universe is deterministic but have absolutely no idea just how complex a particle really is

Complexity is your argument? That speaks volumes