Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386728 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-27 04:52 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-02 12:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 53 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 04:52 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-27 22:01 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 05:02 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-27 22:17 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-27 06:25 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 05:13 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-27 22:28 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 05:40 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-28 11:46 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-28 09:08 +0200
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-28 19:48 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-28 02:59 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-28 20:23 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-28 04:00 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-28 21:46 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-28 05:42 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-29 11:58 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-28 21:11 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-29 14:24 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 04:24 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-29 22:03 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 06:15 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 11:28 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 19:13 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 12:34 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 20:02 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 14:12 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 21:38 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 14:49 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:11 -0500
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-30 11:57 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-01 12:34 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 07:42 -0500
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 07:55 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 10:15 -0500
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 08:43 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 09:09 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 13:29 -0500
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:56 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-02 08:35 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 11:08 -0500
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-04 10:07 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 12:57 -0500
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-02 12:55 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-02 00:06 -0500
Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 20:00 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-28 12:52 +0200
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-28 21:47 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-28 15:19 +0200
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-29 11:59 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-29 06:15 -0700
Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 11:48 +1000
Re: Classical entanglement. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-02 12:06 -0700
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 22:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dthrnrFgvggU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386872 |
On 29/06/2016 9:24 PM, Y wrote: > Neither do elementary particles. The quantizations are "assigned" to > specific states. There is nothing preventing a left spin being > assigned 0 and a right spin being assigned 1. > > -y > The difference is that the magnitude of the particle spin is always the same for that type of particle, and it either has a spin of that magnitude along a particular axis, or it has no spin along that axis, with no intermediate magnitudes possible. The magnitude of the spin of a classical object is infinitely variable. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 06:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc6f2774-8294-4588-a76e-b98f2c3f2e68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386874 |
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 10:03:10 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 29/06/2016 9:24 PM, Y wrote: > > Neither do elementary particles. The quantizations are "assigned" to > > specific states. There is nothing preventing a left spin being > > assigned 0 and a right spin being assigned 1. > > > > -y > > > > The difference is that the magnitude of the particle spin is always the > same for that type of particle, and it either has a spin of that > magnitude along a particular axis, or it has no spin along that axis, > with no intermediate magnitudes possible. > > The magnitude of the spin of a classical object is infinitely variable. > > Sylvia. Hmm. Have a read of this paper. It's interesting. https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0112/0112019.pdf As far as I'm aware the magnitude of the spin is irrelevant, merely that Alice in her local coordinate system with a down spin knows that in a non-local coordinate system of Bob's the spin is up. This is basically what entanglement is. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 11:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtjatlFq7fhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386879 |
On 29/06/2016 11:15 PM, Y wrote: > On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 10:03:10 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else > wrote: >> On 29/06/2016 9:24 PM, Y wrote: >>> Neither do elementary particles. The quantizations are "assigned" >>> to specific states. There is nothing preventing a left spin >>> being assigned 0 and a right spin being assigned 1. >>> >>> -y >>> >> >> The difference is that the magnitude of the particle spin is always >> the same for that type of particle, and it either has a spin of >> that magnitude along a particular axis, or it has no spin along >> that axis, with no intermediate magnitudes possible. >> >> The magnitude of the spin of a classical object is infinitely >> variable. >> >> Sylvia. > > > Hmm. Have a read of this paper. It's interesting. > > > https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0112/0112019.pdf > > As far as I'm aware the magnitude of the spin is irrelevant, merely > that Alice in her local coordinate system with a down spin knows that > in a non-local coordinate system of Bob's the spin is up. > > This is basically what entanglement is. The simple case where Alice and Bob measure the spin of particles in either parallel or orthogonal axes can be modelled using hidden variables. It's not the interesting case. The interesting case is where Alice and Bob measure the spin in axes that are at other angles. In particular, if Alice and Bob measure in axes that are at 30 degrees to each other, then then measurements differ from the parallel case 1 time in 4. But if they measure at 60 degrees, the measurements differ from the parallel case 3 times in 4. This is the situation that cannot be represented by a local model, and it doesn't arise with macroscopic objects. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 19:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c6a062c-afb2-4590-8395-91b8026aba71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386946 |
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 11:28:25 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > The simple case where Alice and Bob measure the spin of particles in > either parallel or orthogonal axes can be modelled using hidden > variables. It's not the interesting case. Every other entanglement experiment involves particles that are emitted from a source. As I understand it, that's the very point since at the source, particles become entangled pursuant to conservation laws. http://davidjarvis.ca/entanglement/entangler.png > The interesting case is where Alice and Bob measure the spin in axes > that are at other angles. In particular, if Alice and Bob measure in > axes that are at 30 degrees to each other, then then measurements differ > from the parallel case 1 time in 4. But if they measure at 60 degrees, > the measurements differ from the parallel case 3 times in 4. This is the > situation that cannot be represented by a local model, and it doesn't > arise with macroscopic objects. > What you're describing is a Bell's inequality test or a GHZ test. These types of outcomes (the wrong ones) happen when we use modern or classical tools or a locality principle to evaluate correlations found between Alice and Bob. In the experimental setup I've shown you, such a principle of locality equally does not apply. There is a lead plate separating Alice and Bob, and this is done to minimize any possible hidden locality variables (eliminating most) excepting perhaps a neutrino (which would be highly unlikely given that peas will not emit such particles). Have a watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zfnvGXpy-g What the experiment I've shown shows is that after an interaction at the source, A and B will make a detection of these classical particles. Neither A and B can assume any locally hidden theories for the correlations they find. i.e. correlation is not necessarily an outcome of causalities arising between A and B. A and B are not propagating information at c towards each other. Of course, one could argue locality at the emission point for any quantum experiment, just as you seem to be arguing locality (an outcome of the peashooters and collision). In some privileged frame, where we can see the entirety of what happens, it's easy to get muddled up. But observer A and observer B know none the better. Simply, a ball flies into their cavity and all A and B can possibly do is make a detection about spin wrt a locally adopted coordinate system. Factoring that A or B adpot randomly chosen axes, the rate of correlations over time should be expected to be 1/2. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 12:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtjepvFqrnkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386949 |
On 30/06/2016 12:13 PM, Y wrote: > In some privileged frame, where we can see the entirety of what > happens, it's easy to get muddled up. But observer A and observer B > know none the better. Simply, a ball flies into their cavity and all > A and B can possibly do is make a detection about spin wrt a locally > adopted coordinate system. Factoring that A or B adpot randomly > chosen axes, the rate of correlations over time should be expected to > be 1/2. And what do you conclude if you find that the actual result is not what was expected, but is higher? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 20:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1625c0cd-a35c-4111-b700-864bbe4e2847@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386950 |
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 12:34:42 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 30/06/2016 12:13 PM, Y wrote: > > > In some privileged frame, where we can see the entirety of what > > happens, it's easy to get muddled up. But observer A and observer B > > know none the better. Simply, a ball flies into their cavity and all > > A and B can possibly do is make a detection about spin wrt a locally > > adopted coordinate system. Factoring that A or B adpot randomly > > chosen axes, the rate of correlations over time should be expected to > > be 1/2. > > And what do you conclude if you find that the actual result is not what > was expected, but is higher? > > Sylvia. Then I would concede defeat. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 14:12 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtjkibFrpfeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386952 |
On 30/06/2016 1:02 PM, Y wrote: > On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 12:34:42 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 30/06/2016 12:13 PM, Y wrote: >> >>> In some privileged frame, where we can see the entirety of what >>> happens, it's easy to get muddled up. But observer A and observer B >>> know none the better. Simply, a ball flies into their cavity and all >>> A and B can possibly do is make a detection about spin wrt a locally >>> adopted coordinate system. Factoring that A or B adpot randomly >>> chosen axes, the rate of correlations over time should be expected to >>> be 1/2. >> >> And what do you conclude if you find that the actual result is not what >> was expected, but is higher? >> >> Sylvia. > > Then I would concede defeat. > > -y > For the particle case, the predicted correlation is Pi/4. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 21:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7849726-0f38-40cd-aea9-64b150fdacf1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386955 |
Which particle, and how did u get pi/4 ? :) -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 14:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtjmmaFs5tuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386957 |
On 30/06/2016 2:38 PM, Y wrote: > Which particle, and how did u get pi/4 ? :) > > -y > Take polarization correlated photons, where measurements of the polarization on parallel axes always found to differ. The probability that they differ for axes an an angle alpha is cos^2(alpha). To get the probability for random angles, we have to integrate that over the range 0 to Pi/2. The integral of cos^2(x) is 1/2 * (x + sin(x) * cos(x)) + constant. At the limits, the sin(x) * cos(x) term is zero, leaving just 1/2 *(Pi/2) - 1/2 * 0 or Pi/4. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 08:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl35q0$7mi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386955 |
On 6/29/2016 11:12 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 30/06/2016 1:02 PM, Y wrote: >> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 12:34:42 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 30/06/2016 12:13 PM, Y wrote: >>> >>>> In some privileged frame, where we can see the entirety of what >>>> happens, it's easy to get muddled up. But observer A and observer B >>>> know none the better. Simply, a ball flies into their cavity and all >>>> A and B can possibly do is make a detection about spin wrt a locally >>>> adopted coordinate system. Factoring that A or B adpot randomly >>>> chosen axes, the rate of correlations over time should be expected to >>>> be 1/2. >>> >>> And what do you conclude if you find that the actual result is not what >>> was expected, but is higher? >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> Then I would concede defeat. >> >> -y >> > > For the particle case, the predicted correlation is Pi/4. > > Sylvia. And guess what the experimental results were? (Aspect et al.) -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 11:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29ae6593-9654-4e4e-8e95-79a092804e46@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386971 |
Couldn't similar results be produced putting conditions on 6digit randomly generated numbers? Maybe 12 digits ? The point of these Bell inequality tests are to certify no hidden variables for the experimental scheme (leaving open the possibility for instantaneous info transfer), yet something doesn't seem quite right. It's not about counter-intuitivity. I mean sure, when any two things interact their future paths are forever correlated. I want to try this with two independent processes that have never possibly interacted. Maybe getting a Bell cert for this classical peashooter rig is insufficient ? I mean, I do want to see a classical system be used to produce a BEV. In the meantime, I'll have a think about what to do with 12 randomly generated digits. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 12:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtm35gFcjv1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386990 |
On 1/07/2016 4:57 AM, Y wrote: > Couldn't similar results be produced putting conditions on 6digit > randomly generated numbers? Maybe 12 digits ? No. By all means try it, but you won't succeed. > > The point of these Bell inequality tests are to certify no hidden > variables for the experimental scheme (leaving open the possibility > for instantaneous info transfer), yet something doesn't seem quite > right. It's not about counter-intuitivity. The point of the experiments is/was to verify quantum mechanics, particularly given that the predictions were an affront to common-sense. Well common-sense is sometimes found wanting, as in this case. Instantaneous information transfer isn't a solution either, because the measurement events can be space-like separated, meaning that they don't occur in a defined order. It's then impossible to say which direction the information transfer should occur. So we've no idea how this comes to pass, only that it does. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 07:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl5og2$16ei$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387009 |
On 6/30/2016 9:34 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> The point of these Bell inequality tests are to certify no hidden >> variables for the experimental scheme (leaving open the possibility >> for instantaneous info transfer), yet something doesn't seem quite >> right. It's not about counter-intuitivity. > > The point of the experiments is/was to verify quantum mechanics, > particularly given that the predictions were an affront to common-sense. > Well common-sense is sometimes found wanting, as in this case. Minor quibble. The point of the experiments is/was to TEST quantum mechanics, particularly given that the predictions were an affront to common sense. As you say well, "something doesn't seem quite right" is a hallmark of common sense and intuition being confronted, and it is hard to shake such suspicions. But that's the point of experiment -- to let nature have the final word on how it really behaves, rather than how we THINK it should behave. > > Instantaneous information transfer isn't a solution either, because the > measurement events can be space-like separated, meaning that they don't > occur in a defined order. It's then impossible to say which direction > the information transfer should occur. > > So we've no idea how this comes to pass, only that it does. > > Sylvia. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 07:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <445c4be6-248c-4564-a146-a3cd331795c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387033 |
Verify rather than test ? Care to elaborate on that one OB ? -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 10:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl61dv$1mo9$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387038 |
On 7/1/2016 9:55 AM, Y wrote: > Verify rather than test ? Care to elaborate on that one OB ? > > -y > Sure. Verify means a check with intent to show the truth of the assertion. Test means a check without bias either way. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 08:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8429dd6b-6353-4003-8ab2-1520188e6ed9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387038 |
I guess you probably mean with a test you can show usefulness or consistency of prediction without asserting that the prediction is naturally "true". One of the things troubling me right from the outset of QM is Einstein's formula for photon energy, i.e. confirmed by photoelectric effect exp. E=hv where linear momentum is defined as p = h/λ So while this relation may have some evidence produced some 100 years ago emitting photons into a metal plate and causing electrons to fly off etc, I find it difficult to accept that a single particle can be regarded as having wave-like properties (without that property being an emergent relation to a larger number of particles) and more so that the energy of this single particle somehow depends on a wave. Has any one photon *ever* been observed to behave as both wave and particle ? See from what I can tell, that would be impossible to verify. Sure any one photon may be a part in a wave of propagating particles and so may pass a test in this regard. But if the thing is itself a wave, then it can't be a part in a wave can it ? It would seem to entail that the photon is not a particle at all but rather just some kind of statistical interference. And then I am reminded that the very thing detecting any particle (from a possible wave) "is" creating interference at the point of detection. I wonder I I I possible therefore, simply to say that photons can be any point on a wave - until they interact with something, and therefore manifest as statistical interference ? The problem is in the detection of such. Supposing a single photon is absorbed into a screen, how is it even possible that this particle be considered to be automatically wavelike ? I am then reminded that even detections such as these are eventually represented graphically by a wave peak, in and amongst other low laying signals. If it is true, that detections necessarily consist of wave data, even for a single particle, then maybe there are no particles at all and rather just lumpy waves ? A bit like a heart rate monitor ? It gets weirder yet. I honestly find classical systems weirder than quantum systems. When I produced the result of my Galton board experiment, my intuition is further convinced that discrete parts may in fact be independent of a wave, but by some process of distribution in large enough numbers can form part of a wave. And then, with recourse to probability I find this unsurprising and non weird. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 09:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7218b5ea-10fe-45a7-bb73-995f28eae140@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387040 |
See OB, I think what you bring up is no minor quibble. It's not wise to do science via cognitive bias. Agreed. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 13:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl6cq2$aff$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387040 |
On 7/1/2016 10:43 AM, Y wrote: > I guess you probably mean with a test you can show usefulness or consistency of > prediction without asserting that the prediction is naturally "true". I'm not sure what you mean by "usefulness". If there are two different theories and theory A says that under a specific set of circumstances, measurable parameter X will have the value 247 +/- 3, and theory B says that under the same set of circumstances, the same measurable parameter will have the value 430 +/- 6, then the thing to do is to make the measurement of that parameter under those circumstances. What you are doing is seeing which theory is more likely to be correctly accounting for how nature behaves, by predicting how it will behave. This is the way, in science, theories are put to test. Now, if the measurement comes out to be 431 +/- 2, then you can be confident that theory A does not correctly account for how nature behaves, and that theory B is much more likely to be the correct explanation of how nature is working. Is this complicated to you? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 17:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f6c926a-7f17-478d-8bca-a738ddbf76dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387048 |
A prediction may be useful as it may help us derive knowledge about a physical system. The entire point of making predictions regards the usefulness in doing so. Which is 'more' accurate between competing theories still doesn't allow us to say anything about nature with certainty. I'm not sure I follow the point in your last post tbh. You seem to be suggesting that predictions do not offer usefulness. I'm not sure I agree. Predictions have utility, which I why in many if not all cases, they're represented by a "function". -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 08:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e6e076c-5c2a-4096-afdf-975fad51aa6a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387074 |
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 10:56:15 AM UTC+10, Y wrote: > A prediction may be useful as it may help us derive knowledge about a physical system. The entire point of making predictions regards the usefulness in doing so. > > Which is 'more' accurate between competing theories still doesn't allow us to say anything about nature with certainty. > > I'm not sure I follow the point in your last post tbh. You seem to be suggesting that predictions do not offer usefulness. I'm not sure I agree. Predictions have utility, which I why in many if not all cases, they're represented by a "function". > > > -y Was referred an interesting paper by someone. Bell inequality violations being certified by classical system now. Gotta check it out. I think classical experiments producing Bell inequality violations are all the rave now. Gotta jump in get your own going before they're all chewed up :) http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.08144 -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web