by use4d 138 Replies latest social current
flyphischer:
Consider: If I indeed would know the concepts for such simplifications, and I would make a lot of students happy, what advantage would it be for myself?
That sounds like you believe in some kind of conspiracy, to keep things complicated. (or maybe I am reading it wrong)
I think it would benifid all. These simplifications would mean that new theories could be vuild easier etc.
Danny
Danny Bloem
As I see it. Every observation can result in a collapse of the quantum wave function. A single photon can. That a more complex sturcture is needed to measure it, does not man anything in my opinion. Whould the collapse of the wave function not have happened if you did not measure this photon?We should not confuse or confound notions, when we discuss QM.
Look at http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html and read e.g. as follows:
"So far the experiments are confirming Einstein's worst fears. Photons, neutrons and even whole atoms act sometimes like waves, sometimes like particles, but they actually have no definite form until they are measured. Measurements, once made, can also be erased, altering the outcome of an experiment that has already occurred. A measurement of one quantum entity can instantaneously influence another far away.This odd behaviour can occur not only in the microscopic realm but even in objects large enough to be seen with the naked eye..."
Note: The OBSERVATION (or = DETECTION) defines the form of e.g. a single photon. If NOT observed, it is behaving like a wave, if observed, it is behaving like a particle (better said: it definitely "becomes" a particle). The latter is called "collapse of the wave function". If it is a complete system consisting of elementary structures, that is interacting with an environment showing "observing features" (also named: sensorium), then the entire systems changes from a "wave-like-behaviour" to "particle-, btw. matter-like-behaviour" (or, what we call the --> "classical world"). This change is called "decoherence" in QM.
Of course, the observing entity (detector) has to show a certain minimal-configuration (or adequate complexity) to serve as detector or observer. Atomic structure can serve. Single particles can certainly not. They can be detected or observed, but they cannot serve as a detector or observer through themselves.
Flyphisher,
As I see it, the collapse of the wave function is not dependend if there is a observer or not. It depends upon the possibility that this information could be known, if you measure it or not.
So in some cases a single elementary particle can in my opinion be enough.
"So far the experiments are confirming Einstein's worst fears. Photons, neutrons and even whole atoms act sometimes like waves, sometimes like particles, but they actually have no definite form until they are measured. Measurements, once made, can also be erased, altering the outcome of an experiment that has already occurred
The key word in the above sentence which is misleading is the word "act". The correct word is "react".
Now, we need to ask: "React to what?"
Ahh, the intrusive and unnatural assault of the scientist's MEASUREMENT DEVICE itself!
As I previously mentioned, anything will react strangely if it is treated unnaturally. The result is evidence of nothing and actually a reflection more of the ACTION against than the REACTION to.
But, this is a subtle point that seems to escape the popularizers who report these things to us blank slates out here.
T.
Danny Bloem
That sounds like you believe in some kind of conspiracy, to keep things complicated. (or maybe I am reading it wrong)
"Conspiracy"is not the right word. Fact is, that the global university system must keep on functioning. That means the number of "paradigmas" has to be zero; or at least very very low. People like Einstein or Planck would not be successful with their important theories (RT; QM) if they were living in our days. Our world today cannot cope with any new paradigma. Consider, that in Einsteins days perhaps 500 dissertations (Ph.D) in physics got written every year, today the number is more than thousandfold. Of course, it is impossible to write 500 000 new dissertations per year, if they had to admit that there someone has found a GUT (great unified theory) which is relatively simple. The entire university system would collapse. And in other scientific branches it is the same problem;-(
Danny Bloem
As I see it, the collapse of the wave function is not dependend if there is a observer or not. It depends upon the possibility that this information could be known, if you measure it or not. So in some cases a single elementary particle can in my opinion be enough.
No, the collapse of wave function is bound on immediate observation btw. measurement. Otherwise, the elementary structures had to have a sort of telepathy-abilities. I do not believe this;-)
flyphisher
There are some threads on this subject and related subjects that were discussed before.
Maybe they are of interest to you:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/94089/1.ashx
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/94587/1.ashx
I think all scientist would like to discover the GUT, and many are working hard on it. Even if this theory will be discovered then there is still enough to write about.
I do not think that we can say that there are no people like Einstein etc, around now. Well, Einstein was very special of course, bu physics has changed. It is no longer individual work, and almost all experiments are done in groups. There are of course still theoretic work done alone, but much more is then used to be is shared and leaned on other works. Things go also more rapid then in the time of Einstein. I do not think you can compare it that easily.
I think each scientist has much more to gain then to lose, in coming up with a big new theory.
Man didn't have a "practical" reason to go to the moon and probably went too many times.
Seeking to know is practical. Knowledge is power. It is the source of deeper insight.
In your latest lunar analogy, I see major flaw. You ignore the "what if" factor completely. No one had ever been to the moon. No one knew what the moon might provide us. What if we found a rich source of platinum on the moon, or another mineral that would eventually serve as fuel for future missions too and from the surface, as well as fuel for earth vehicles?
Human pursuit of "what if" will likely end life on earth, eventually. But the journey toward that end is going to be most interesting. I don't think science can ever stop exploring the "what ifs" and still be called "science." After all, the word means "to know."
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
In your latest lunar analogy, I see major flaw. You ignore the "what if" factor completely.
What if?
That's silly!
The amount of tax-payer dollars spent on scientific pursuits is VERY LIMITED! Searching for platinum is best left for privately funded business interests. The idea of the moon as a __rich source__of any natural resources is laughable.
We (the U.S.) went to the moon for POLITICAL reasons, not scientific ones.
When the Russians appeared to have a major lead in science, space exploration and technology (*appeared, I said*) it became
an enormous propaganda weapon against the west. Kennedy challenged America with fanciful rhetoric to rally to the cause, but, suffice it to say his motives were not the gain of platinum from the moon's surface! (The idea of using the moon as a military base and satellites as spy technology comes to mind.)
Our Federal Government squanders the money it receives from its citizens on every lunatic idea that it can. A limited number of its expenditures is more than a sop thrown to its constituency at a local level. Neither science nor the taxpayer is well-served by WHAT IF scenarios requiring billions and billions of dollars.
So, to be perfectly lucid about what I am saying I'll sum up. Science should not stop exploring, but, it should have priorities about how it applies whatever limited assets (i.e. money) are available. My comment about the moon in my previous post explained that we went TOO MANY TIMES. We went because we could. It was an excuse to keep NASA funding alive.
Our Federal Government, the military and science itself often squanders its time and assets on foolhardy nonsensical investigations without proper controls. There have been projects on E.S.P., remote viewing, UFO's, and a whole host of other quackery. That isn't really what science does best. The lone individual scientific mind is worth any three thinktank collectives.
Einstein's entire theoretical output (of any consequence) happened early in his life. His latter days he was a kind of philsopher-king and celebrity rockstar. When he was alone in the Patent Office in Switzerland he created his legacy in science; not in that silly thinktank he joined in the 50's.
T.
I vote for neverending exploration. In my opinion, not a single visit to the moon was wasted.
I vote for neverending exploration. In my opinion, not a single visit to the moon was wasted
Okay, I'm game. List the trips to the moon, the cost to taxpayers and the "reward" from the trip. Then subtract the deaths, the money unavailabe to other more pressing uses and divide by the witholding tab on your paycheck. I'd be interested to see that.
T.
