Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #689172 > unrolled thread
| Started by | will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-06 18:07 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-06-06 16:30 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 68 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-06 18:07 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 18:14 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-06 22:38 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 17:43 -0700
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-07 22:07 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 17:12 -0700
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-08 14:49 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 22:39 -0400
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-07 05:19 +0200
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 05:31 -0400
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-07 12:01 +0200
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 16:32 -0400
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-07 21:58 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 04:12 -0700
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-08 14:38 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-08 02:41 +0200
"Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 11:47 -0700
Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 19:00 +0000
We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 12:25 -0700
Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:35 -0400
Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:52 -0700
Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 18:15 -0700
No truth, Nothing to aspire to ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 18:21 -0700
Re: No truth, Nothing to aspire to ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 22:47 -0400
NO TRUTH. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 20:28 -0700
Re: NO TRUTH. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 05:32 -0400
Harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-07 11:18 -0700
Re: Harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 16:42 -0400
Ben Jacoby takes _pride_ in his randomness, I don't. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-07 14:15 -0700
Re: Ben Jacoby takes _pride_ in his randomness, I don't. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 02:20 -0400
Worshiping Ignorance. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-07 23:36 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 11:42 -0400
" I can choose to do the opposite of what I prefer " -- Ben Jacoby. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-08 10:17 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 01:58 +0000
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 19:55 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 21:37 +0000
EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 14:51 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-06-09 22:01 +0000
To a retard, _everything_ is "random". Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 15:11 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:13 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:52 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 22:54 +0000
People are forever MisQuoting Einstein; I correct them. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 16:40 -0700
Re: People are forever MisQuoting Einstein; I correct them. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:15 +0000
Putting words in Einstein's mouth. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 17:42 -0700
Re: Putting words in Einstein's mouth. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:59 +0000
God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 18:28 -0700
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 01:42 +0000
Mark Twain was a determinist. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 20:16 -0700
Re: Mark Twain was a determinist. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-10 12:48 -0400
Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-10 10:51 -0700
Re: Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 11:02 -0400
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-09 19:37 -0700
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 22:59 -0400
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 03:51 +0000
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-10 12:50 -0400
Mark Twain, Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by nerds Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-10 11:01 -0700
Re: Mark Twain, Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by nerds benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 11:06 -0400
Re: Putting words in Einstein's mouth. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-11 07:02 -0500
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 22:28 -0400
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:53 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:41 -0700
If the truth is your enemy... Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 00:14 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-06-09 06:52 -0400
Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 21:22 +0000
I feel rich, very rich. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 14:39 -0700
Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:32 -0400
Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:30 -0400
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 18:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Can quantum measurement be rejected ? |
| Message-ID | <pf97sk$nhd$1@dont-email.me> |
Gents: My 1st post ... FYI: retired PhD biophysics/polymer science. Searching Web sources I have been unable to find a necessary & sufficient justification for the use of the QUANTUM MEASUREMENT concept. Objectifying/singularizing measurement seems tied to the strange QM identification of variables with maths operators required (??) by uncertainty relations. I do read the issue is still considered OPEN in the realm of QM foundations. So what happens if you reject (ignore etc.) the concept of measurement ( being a "thing") as is done in classical physics ?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 18:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? |
| Message-ID | <pf989h$1932$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #689172 |
will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> wrote: > Gents: > > My 1st post ... FYI: retired PhD biophysics/polymer science. Searching > Web sources I have been unable to find a necessary & sufficient > justification for the use of the QUANTUM MEASUREMENT concept. > Objectifying/singularizing measurement seems tied to the strange QM > identification of variables with maths operators required (??) by > uncertainty relations. I do read the issue is still considered OPEN in > the realm of QM foundations. So what happens if you reject (ignore etc.) > the concept of measurement ( being a "thing") as is done in classical > physics ? > Well you get alternate ways of dealing with the collapse of the wave function. Like Bohmian QM or Everett’s many-worlds hypothesis. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 22:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? |
| Message-ID | <pf9nq3$77u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689174 |
On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 18:14:09 +0000, Odd Bodkin wrote: > will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> wrote: >> Gents: >> >> My 1st post ... FYI: retired PhD biophysics/polymer science. >> Searching Web sources I have been unable to find a necessary & >> sufficient justification for the use of the QUANTUM MEASUREMENT >> concept. Objectifying/singularizing measurement seems tied to the >> strange QM identification of variables with maths operators required >> (??) by uncertainty relations. I do read the issue is still considered >> OPEN in the realm of QM foundations. So what happens if you reject >> (ignore etc.) the concept of measurement ( being a "thing") as is done >> in classical physics ? >> >> > Well you get alternate ways of dealing with the collapse of the wave > function. Like Bohmian QM or Everett’s many-worlds hypothesis. Do I need to read Diracs book to understand why Copenhagen-model requires .. or is expressed in-terms-of a "physical" measurement. My complaint is that the noun MEASUREMENT refers to a group of actions ... it's really a collective verb not a noun (object) and in being bastardized by QM has lost all physical meaning. Yes I kinda understand that "measurement" is supposed to throw a shadow of the (mystery) state- vector onto the set of eigenvectors for that operator. I'm not claiming the math is bad ... I'm asking if it "means anything" beside giving correct predictions ... like a weegee-board. I suspect the answer is NO .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 17:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? |
| Message-ID | <e2ad8fc3-96d4-42dc-a485-0db2dfc599e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689238 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 12:39:01 PM UTC-10, will wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 18:14:09 +0000, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > will <willscrcommypanprofile> wrote: > >> Gents: > >> > >> My 1st post ... FYI: retired PhD biophysics/polymer science. > >> Searching Web sources I have been unable to find a necessary & > >> sufficient justification for the use of the QUANTUM MEASUREMENT > >> concept. Objectifying/singularizing measurement seems tied to the > >> strange QM identification of variables with maths operators required > >> (??) by uncertainty relations. I do read the issue is still considered > >> OPEN in the realm of QM foundations. So what happens if you reject > >> (ignore etc.) the concept of measurement ( being a "thing") as is done > >> in classical physics ? > >> > >> > > Well you get alternate ways of dealing with the collapse of the wave > > function. Like Bohmian QM or Everett’s many-worlds hypothesis. > > Do I need to read Diracs book to understand why Copenhagen-model > requires .. or is expressed in-terms-of a "physical" measurement. My > complaint is that the noun MEASUREMENT refers to a group of actions ... > it's really a collective verb not a noun (object) and in being > bastardized by QM has lost all physical meaning. Yes I kinda understand > that "measurement" is supposed to throw a shadow of the (mystery) state- > vector onto the set of eigenvectors for that operator. I'm not claiming > the math is bad ... I'm asking if it "means anything" beside giving > correct predictions ... like a weegee-board. I suspect the answer is > NO . All measurements of an atom involve a laboratory apparatus with a second atom. It is not possible to complain loud enough to make measurements seem unnecessary. The quantum description of measurements is useful as a stepping stone to a greater wisdom about reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 22:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? |
| Message-ID | <pfcaar$c2m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689260 |
On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 17:43:42 -0700, Alan Folmsbee wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 12:39:01 PM UTC-10, will wrote: >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 18:14:09 +0000, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> > will <willscrcommypanprofile> wrote: >> >> Gents: >> >> >> >> My 1st post ... FYI: retired PhD biophysics/polymer science. >> >> Searching Web sources I have been unable to find a necessary & >> >> sufficient justification for the use of the QUANTUM MEASUREMENT >> >> concept. Objectifying/singularizing measurement seems tied to the >> >> strange QM identification of variables with maths operators >> >> required (??) by uncertainty relations. I do read the issue is >> >> still considered OPEN in the realm of QM foundations. So what >> >> happens if you reject (ignore etc.) the concept of measurement ( >> >> being a "thing") as is done in classical physics ? >> >> >> >> >> > Well you get alternate ways of dealing with the collapse of the wave >> > function. Like Bohmian QM or Everett’s many-worlds hypothesis. >> >> Do I need to read Diracs book to understand why Copenhagen-model >> requires .. or is expressed in-terms-of a "physical" measurement. My >> complaint is that the noun MEASUREMENT refers to a group of actions ... >> it's really a collective verb not a noun (object) and in being >> bastardized by QM has lost all physical meaning. Yes I kinda understand >> that "measurement" is supposed to throw a shadow of the (mystery) >> state- >> vector onto the set of eigenvectors for that operator. I'm not claiming >> the math is bad ... I'm asking if it "means anything" beside giving >> correct predictions ... like a weegee-board. I suspect the answer is >> NO . > > All measurements of an atom involve a laboratory apparatus with a second > atom. It is not possible to complain loud enough to make measurements > seem unnecessary. The quantum description of measurements is useful as a > stepping stone to a greater wisdom about reality. You are telling me ... I think ... to read Diracs book. Because it is useful. Perhaps I will. My question is ... does physics know it to be necessary ? Certainly no use is made of the QM measurement concept in the derivation or application of the Schrodinger Equation to the hydrogen atom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 17:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? |
| Message-ID | <4307cccf-0051-403f-b25a-7a491d30374c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689386 |
On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 12:07:30 PM UTC-10, will wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 17:43:42 -0700, Alan Folmsbee wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 12:39:01 PM UTC-10, will wrote: > >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 18:14:09 +0000, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> > >> > will <willscrcommypanprofile> wrote: > >> >> Gents: > >> >> > >> >> My 1st post ... FYI: retired PhD biophysics/polymer science. > >> >> Searching Web sources I have been unable to find a necessary & > >> >> sufficient justification for the use of the QUANTUM MEASUREMENT > >> >> concept. Objectifying/singularizing measurement seems tied to the > >> >> strange QM identification of variables with maths operators > >> >> required (??) by uncertainty relations. I do read the issue is > >> >> still considered OPEN in the realm of QM foundations. So what > >> >> happens if you reject (ignore etc.) the concept of measurement ( > >> >> being a "thing") as is done in classical physics ? > >> >> > >> >> > >> > Well you get alternate ways of dealing with the collapse of the wave > >> > function. Like Bohmian QM or Everett’s many-worlds hypothesis. > >> > >> Do I need to read Diracs book to understand why Copenhagen-model > >> requires .. or is expressed in-terms-of a "physical" measurement. My > >> complaint is that the noun MEASUREMENT refers to a group of actions ... > >> it's really a collective verb not a noun (object) and in being > >> bastardized by QM has lost all physical meaning. Yes I kinda understand > >> that "measurement" is supposed to throw a shadow of the (mystery) > >> state- > >> vector onto the set of eigenvectors for that operator. I'm not claiming > >> the math is bad ... I'm asking if it "means anything" beside giving > >> correct predictions ... like a weegee-board. I suspect the answer is > >> NO . > > > > All measurements of an atom involve a laboratory apparatus with a second > > atom. It is not possible to complain loud enough to make measurements > > seem unnecessary. The quantum description of measurements is useful as a > > stepping stone to a greater wisdom about reality. > > You are telling me ... I think ... to read Diracs book. Because it is > useful. Perhaps I will. My question is ... does physics know it to be > necessary ? Certainly no use is made of the QM measurement concept in the > derivation or application of the Schrodinger Equation to the hydrogen > atom. You can read books other than Dirac. You speak about the "QM measurement concept" but you never give details like : QM measurement concept using a gas QM measurement concept using tungsten carbide QM measurement concept using light QM measurement concept with a scanning tunneling microscope QM measurement concept with theory only using algebra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 14:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? |
| Message-ID | <pfe51t$jvp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689397 |
On Thu, 07 Jun 2018 17:12:34 -0700, Alan Folmsbee wrote: > On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 12:07:30 PM UTC-10, will wrote: >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 17:43:42 -0700, Alan Folmsbee wrote: >> >> > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 12:39:01 PM UTC-10, will wrote: >> >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 18:14:09 +0000, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> >> >> > will <willscrcommypanprofile> wrote: >> >> >> Gents: >> >> >> >> >> >> My 1st post ... FYI: retired PhD biophysics/polymer science. >> >> >> Searching Web sources I have been unable to find a necessary & >> >> >> sufficient justification for the use of the QUANTUM MEASUREMENT >> >> >> concept. Objectifying/singularizing measurement seems tied to >> >> >> the strange QM identification of variables with maths operators >> >> >> required (??) by uncertainty relations. I do read the issue is >> >> >> still considered OPEN in the realm of QM foundations. So what >> >> >> happens if you reject (ignore etc.) the concept of measurement ( >> >> >> being a "thing") as is done in classical physics ? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Well you get alternate ways of dealing with the collapse of the >> >> > wave function. Like Bohmian QM or Everett’s many-worlds >> >> > hypothesis. >> >> >> >> Do I need to read Diracs book to understand why Copenhagen-model >> >> requires .. or is expressed in-terms-of a "physical" measurement. My >> >> complaint is that the noun MEASUREMENT refers to a group of actions >> >> ... >> >> it's really a collective verb not a noun (object) and in being >> >> bastardized by QM has lost all physical meaning. Yes I kinda >> >> understand that "measurement" is supposed to throw a shadow of the >> >> (mystery) state- >> >> vector onto the set of eigenvectors for that operator. I'm not >> >> claiming the math is bad ... I'm asking if it "means anything" >> >> beside giving correct predictions ... like a weegee-board. I >> >> suspect the answer is NO . >> > >> > All measurements of an atom involve a laboratory apparatus with a >> > second atom. It is not possible to complain loud enough to make >> > measurements seem unnecessary. The quantum description of >> > measurements is useful as a stepping stone to a greater wisdom about >> > reality. >> >> You are telling me ... I think ... to read Diracs book. Because it is >> useful. Perhaps I will. My question is ... does physics know it to be >> necessary ? Certainly no use is made of the QM measurement concept in >> the derivation or application of the Schrodinger Equation to the >> hydrogen atom. > > You can read books other than Dirac. > You speak about the "QM measurement concept" but you never give details > like : > > QM measurement concept using a gas QM measurement concept using tungsten > carbide QM measurement concept using light QM measurement concept with a > scanning tunneling microscope QM measurement concept with theory only > using algebra Alan: Yes my questions are incomplete and I am certainly struggling with the physics. FYI/// I find my self with a few weeks "downtime" and proposed to retry understanding some aspects of QM. Immediately I run into Heisenbergs definition of a QM variable as a maths operator ... & Diracs mathematical definition of a measurement. The justifications for both appear to be heuristic ... and thus why not some other physics to predict random beta-decay and hydrogen atom discrete energy levels ? I am poking around at fundamentals trying not to appear too stupid .. or too gullible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 22:39 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? |
| Message-ID | <lW0SC.95685$7H4.16796@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #689238 |
On 6/6/2018 6:38 PM, will wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 18:14:09 +0000, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> wrote: >>> Gents: >>> >>> My 1st post ... FYI: retired PhD biophysics/polymer science. >>> Searching Web sources I have been unable to find a necessary & >>> sufficient justification for the use of the QUANTUM MEASUREMENT >>> concept. Objectifying/singularizing measurement seems tied to the >>> strange QM identification of variables with maths operators required >>> (??) by uncertainty relations. I do read the issue is still considered >>> OPEN in the realm of QM foundations. So what happens if you reject >>> (ignore etc.) the concept of measurement ( being a "thing") as is done >>> in classical physics ? >>> >>> >> Well you get alternate ways of dealing with the collapse of the wave >> function. Like Bohmian QM or Everett’s many-worlds hypothesis. > > Do I need to read Diracs book to understand why Copenhagen-model > requires .. or is expressed in-terms-of a "physical" measurement. My > complaint is that the noun MEASUREMENT refers to a group of actions ... > it's really a collective verb not a noun (object) and in being > bastardized by QM has lost all physical meaning. Yes I kinda understand > that "measurement" is supposed to throw a shadow of the (mystery) state- > vector onto the set of eigenvectors for that operator. I'm not claiming > the math is bad ... I'm asking if it "means anything" beside giving > correct predictions ... like a weegee-board. I suspect the answer is > NO . > If you are asking if math is more real than reality (which is a very popular view at present) the answer indeed is no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 05:19 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? |
| Message-ID | <pfa878$tpb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689275 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> Wrote in message: > On 6/6/2018 6:38 PM, will wrote: >> > If you are asking if math is more real than reality (which is a very > popular view at present) the answer indeed is no. But if he is asking "Is a crazy theory with correct predictions better than a logical and understandable theory with wrong predictions ?", then the answer indeed is yes. Craziness of theories must match craziness of observable reality. It applies to QM and SR alone, as well as to both combined. -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." Miloš Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 05:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? |
| Message-ID | <qY6SC.264824$Hv4.175285@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #689278 |
On 6/6/2018 11:19 PM, Libor Striz wrote: > benj <benj@nobody.net> Wrote in message: >> On 6/6/2018 6:38 PM, will wrote: > >>> >> If you are asking if math is more real than reality (which is a very >> popular view at present) the answer indeed is no. > > But if he is asking > > "Is a crazy theory with correct predictions better > than a logical and understandable theory with wrong predictions ?", > > then the answer indeed is yes. > > Craziness of theories must match craziness of observable reality. > > It applies to QM and SR alone, as well as to both combined. Which is correct. Which means when the assumptions of your math do not match the observations of reality, you need a new math, not some fantasy to explain your mathematical reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 12:01 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? |
| Message-ID | <pfavqk$l3t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689292 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> Wrote in message: > On 6/6/2018 11:19 PM, Libor Striz wrote: >> benj <benj@nobody.net> Wrote in message: >>> On 6/6/2018 6:38 PM, will wrote: >> >>>> >>> If you are asking if math is more real than reality (which is a very >>> popular view at present) the answer indeed is no. >> >> But if he is asking >> >> "Is a crazy theory with correct predictions better >> than a logical and understandable theory with wrong predictions ?", >> >> then the answer indeed is yes. >> >> Craziness of theories must match craziness of observable reality. >> >> It applies to QM and SR alone, as well as to both combined. > > Which is correct. Which means when the assumptions of your math do not > match the observations of reality, you need a new math, not some fantasy > to explain your mathematical reality. > Learn to read properly, an advice you often provide to others. There is no my math nor my mathematical reality. There are tons of experimental evidence from nuclear physics to relativistic quantum chemistry. -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." Miloš Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 16:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? |
| Message-ID | <tDgSC.143884$wG5.60553@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #689297 |
On 6/7/2018 6:01 AM, Libor Striz wrote: > benj <benj@nobody.net> Wrote in message: >> On 6/6/2018 11:19 PM, Libor Striz wrote: >>> benj <benj@nobody.net> Wrote in message: >>>> On 6/6/2018 6:38 PM, will wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>> If you are asking if math is more real than reality (which is a very >>>> popular view at present) the answer indeed is no. >>> >>> But if he is asking >>> >>> "Is a crazy theory with correct predictions better >>> than a logical and understandable theory with wrong predictions ?", >>> >>> then the answer indeed is yes. >>> >>> Craziness of theories must match craziness of observable reality. >>> >>> It applies to QM and SR alone, as well as to both combined. >> >> Which is correct. Which means when the assumptions of your math do not >> match the observations of reality, you need a new math, not some fantasy >> to explain your mathematical reality. >> > Learn to read properly, > an advice you often provide to others. Good advice for everyone. > There is no my math nor my mathematical reality. You misinterpret. I do not mean "your math" as in your personal mathematics, but "your math" referring to one considering the traditional theories of physical science. Point is simple. If your measurements (reality) does not agree with your theories (math) then the theories are wrong. If your measurements do not agree with the basic assumptions of one's (OK?) math then One's (OK?) math is wrong and one needs a new kind of math with different assumptions. > There are tons of experimental evidence from nuclear physics to > relativistic quantum chemistry. Lots of measurements are good, but that only makes theories correct if it agrees with theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 21:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? |
| Message-ID | <pfc9pp$c2m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689364 |
On Thu, 07 Jun 2018 16:32:02 -0400, benj wrote: > On 6/7/2018 6:01 AM, Libor Striz wrote: >> benj <benj@nobody.net> Wrote in message: >>> On 6/6/2018 11:19 PM, Libor Striz wrote: >>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> Wrote in message: >>>>> On 6/6/2018 6:38 PM, will wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> If you are asking if math is more real than reality (which is a very >>>>> popular view at present) the answer indeed is no. >>>> >>>> But if he is asking >>>> >>>> "Is a crazy theory with correct predictions better than a logical and >>>> understandable theory with wrong predictions ?", >>>> >>>> then the answer indeed is yes. >>>> >>>> Craziness of theories must match craziness of observable reality. >>>> >>>> It applies to QM and SR alone, as well as to both combined. >>> >>> Which is correct. Which means when the assumptions of your math do not >>> match the observations of reality, you need a new math, not some >>> fantasy to explain your mathematical reality. >>> >> Learn to read properly, >> an advice you often provide to others. > > Good advice for everyone. > >> There is no my math nor my mathematical reality. > > You misinterpret. I do not mean "your math" as in your personal > mathematics, but "your math" referring to one considering the > traditional theories of physical science. > > Point is simple. If your measurements (reality) does not agree with your > theories (math) then the theories are wrong. > > If your measurements do not agree with the basic assumptions of one's > (OK?) math then One's (OK?) math is wrong and one needs a new kind of > math with different assumptions. > >> There are tons of experimental evidence from nuclear physics to >> relativistic quantum chemistry. > > Lots of measurements are good, but that only makes theories correct if > it agrees with theory. Benji: We are conflicting ... and I will try I explain the conflict. I am willing ( trying ) to reject the word/concept measurement as a single physical object. You can say lots about a measurement, but there is no number or function that maps to a measurement; it's a complex bit of non- linear stuff. It's a process with no single/unique/concrete outcome. Just think of all the parts to a light-scattering machine. The only true physical objects are such entities as mass, speed, time(?) ... and product quantities like Youngs Modulus, momentum temperature etcetc ... we extract these physical values from an experiment ( non object ) by use of POINTERS & digit-readouts & a few other exotics perhaps. This is the POV of classical physics, where we say "I have measured an electrons magnetic moment using a solenoid ..." or whatever. The pointer output of a measurement maps onto an external reality ... which I believe Copenhagen rejects for QM analysis. So again my question ... as you say BOHM and MANY WORLDS hold to a realist physics: is it possible otherwise to have both QM and realistic physics W/O the measurement concept ? Or am I mixing up something basic and spewing nonsense ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 04:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? |
| Message-ID | <d72bed9d-b891-4641-b371-89bf2bb3cd2e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689382 |
On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 5:58:19 PM UTC-4, will wrote: > On Thu, 07 Jun 2018 16:32:02 -0400, benj wrote: > > > > Point is simple. If your measurements (reality) does not agree with your > > theories (math) then the theories are wrong. > > > > If your measurements do not agree with the basic assumptions of one's > > (OK?) math then One's (OK?) math is wrong and one needs a new kind of > > math with different assumptions. > > > >> There are tons of experimental evidence from nuclear physics to > >> relativistic quantum chemistry. > > > > Lots of measurements are good, but that only makes theories correct if > > it agrees with theory. > > Benji: We are conflicting ... and I will try I explain the conflict. I am > willing ( trying ) to reject the word/concept measurement as a single > physical object. You can say lots about a measurement, but there is no > number or function that maps to a measurement; it's a complex bit of non- > linear stuff. It's a process with no single/unique/concrete outcome. > Just think of all the parts to a light-scattering machine. The only true > physical objects are such entities as mass, speed, time(?) ... and > product quantities like Youngs Modulus, momentum temperature etcetc ... > we extract these physical values from an experiment ( non object ) by use > of POINTERS & digit-readouts & a few other exotics perhaps. This is the > POV of classical physics, where we say "I have measured an electrons > magnetic moment using a solenoid ..." or whatever. The pointer output of > a measurement maps onto an external reality ... which I believe > Copenhagen rejects for QM analysis. So again my question ... as you say > BOHM and MANY WORLDS hold to a realist physics: is it possible otherwise > to have both QM and realistic physics W/O the measurement concept ? Or > am I mixing up something basic and spewing nonsense ? There is becoming a new understanding of measurement that I saw recently. I will try to find the link to the article, but the basic point seemed to be that there is nothing special about a measurement. What does a measurement boil down to? A photon striking an electron Basically any fundamental particle interacting with another. Because of this, Schrodinger's cat thought experiment is no longer a paradox of superpositions dead and alive. We cannot truly isolate the cat from the rest of the universe. There are quantum interactions (measurements) continually happening. I don't know if that helps. I must admit I don't understand it. And I think many do not understand this. The only other thing I could suggest is to post in the sci.physics.research group. That one is moderated, so much less noise and much more thoughtful and experienced posters who can respond. HTH, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 14:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? |
| Message-ID | <pfe4dl$jvp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689448 |
On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 04:12:07 -0700, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 5:58:19 PM UTC-4, will wrote: >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2018 16:32:02 -0400, benj wrote: > > >> > Point is simple. If your measurements (reality) does not agree with >> > your theories (math) then the theories are wrong. >> > >> > If your measurements do not agree with the basic assumptions of one's >> > (OK?) math then One's (OK?) math is wrong and one needs a new kind of >> > math with different assumptions. >> > >> >> There are tons of experimental evidence from nuclear physics to >> >> relativistic quantum chemistry. >> > >> > Lots of measurements are good, but that only makes theories correct >> > if it agrees with theory. >> >> Benji: We are conflicting ... and I will try I explain the conflict. I >> am willing ( trying ) to reject the word/concept measurement as a >> single physical object. You can say lots about a measurement, but there >> is no number or function that maps to a measurement; it's a complex bit >> of non- >> linear stuff. It's a process with no single/unique/concrete outcome. >> Just think of all the parts to a light-scattering machine. The only >> true physical objects are such entities as mass, speed, time(?) ... >> and product quantities like Youngs Modulus, momentum temperature >> etcetc ... we extract these physical values from an experiment ( non >> object ) by use of POINTERS & digit-readouts & a few other exotics >> perhaps. This is the POV of classical physics, where we say "I have >> measured an electrons magnetic moment using a solenoid ..." or >> whatever. The pointer output of a measurement maps onto an external >> reality ... which I believe Copenhagen rejects for QM analysis. So >> again my question ... as you say BOHM and MANY WORLDS hold to a realist >> physics: is it possible otherwise to have both QM and realistic physics >> W/O the measurement concept ? Or am I mixing up something basic and >> spewing nonsense ? > > There is becoming a new understanding of measurement that I saw > recently. I will try to find the link to the article, but the basic > point seemed to be that there is nothing special about a measurement. > > What does a measurement boil down to? > A photon striking an electron Basically any fundamental particle > interacting with another. > > Because of this, Schrodinger's cat thought experiment is no longer a > paradox of superpositions dead and alive. > We cannot truly isolate the cat from the rest of the universe. > There are quantum interactions (measurements) continually happening. > > I don't know if that helps. I must admit I don't understand it. And I > think many do not understand this. > > The only other thing I could suggest is to post in the > sci.physics.research group. That one is moderated, so much less noise > and much more thoughtful and experienced posters who can respond. > > HTH, > ed I have read-of this new interpretation ... constant interactions == constant measurement == semi-classical world since ( supposedly ) all wave-functions are constantly being collapsed out of every quantum-like flakey super-position. This "water-bath" model of reality is favored by Arnold Neumaier: http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/0810.1019v2 ... I find his physics really really hard to grasp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 02:41 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? |
| Message-ID | <pfcjca$8ta$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689364 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> Wrote in message: > On 6/7/2018 6:01 AM, Libor Striz wrote: Nothing to disagree with. -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." Miloš Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 11:47 -0700 |
| Subject | "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.6--11.47am.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689172 |
"Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities; it tells you the likelihood of something you might bet on, like a poker game; the details, the real cause, is unknown.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 19:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. |
| Message-ID | <pf9b11$1e0v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #689176 |
<Jeff-Relf.Me @.> wrote: > "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities; > it tells you the likelihood of something you might bet on, > like a poker game; the details, the real cause, is unknown. > Nonsense, Jeff. Cause and effect is fully supported in QM. I think you’re confusing determinism with causality. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 12:25 -0700 |
| Subject | We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.6--0.25pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689179 |
You ("Odd" [sic]) replied ( to me ):
> > "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities;
> > it tells you the likelihood of something you might bet on,
> > like a poker game; the details, the real cause, is unknown.
>
> Cause and effect is fully supported in QM.
> I think you’re confusing determinism with causality.
No, it's SemiRandom, like a poker game... place your bets.
_Everyone_ is enslaved, there is no free will.
We simply prefer the LeastBad "option",
and we can't change what we prefer.
We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth.
How and What we consume is what makes us different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 16:35 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. |
| Message-ID | <IAXRC.95714$4M6.88109@fx27.iad> |
| In reply to | #689197 |
On 6/6/2018 3:25 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> You ("Odd" [sic]) replied ( to me ):
>>> "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities;
>>> it tells you the likelihood of something you might bet on,
>>> like a poker game; the details, the real cause, is unknown.
>>
>> Cause and effect is fully supported in QM.
>> I think you’re confusing determinism with causality.
>
> No, it's SemiRandom, like a poker game... place your bets.
>
> _Everyone_ is enslaved, there is no free will.
> We simply prefer the LeastBad "option",
> and we can't change what we prefer.
>
> We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth.
> How and What we consume is what makes us different.
>
Rolf, your universe as a mechanical device theory is totally bogus.
One may have a preference but even if it is predetermined you don't have
to follow it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web