by BurnTheShips 57 Replies latest jw friends
Edit: seems like my suspicion was warranted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat
He illustrates the problem, but, that I know of, it has not been satisfactorily dismissed. In human language the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics (which leads to Schrodinger's paradox) is still the most widely accepted view among physicists at the moment because it seems conceptualize best what is happening on the scales at which they are observing.
BTS
Zensim,
The answer is unfortunately it depends. If you take medical experiments then you have to use blind experiments to prevent the prejudices of the scientists from affecting the outcome. In other words other people conduct the experiment without knowing the expected results. If you take more traditional sciences such as chemistry or physics then any experiment has to be repeatable, in other words the experiment is sufficiently well documented to allow anyone to repeat the experiment and receive statistically identical results.
The intention at all levels is to remove the bias inherent in all human endeavour, part of the peer review process is to check the impartiality of any results.
When you get to interpreting the results and arriving at a conclusion it is usually done by formulating a number of experiments to potentially falsify your conclusion rather than just doing a single experiment that proves your hypothesis.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a quantum phenomenon, it only applies at the atomic level due to the dual wave/particle nature of sub-atomic particles. These particles sometimes don't act like solid particles but like waves. The uncertainty principle is inherent in the wave nature of the these particles and is a mathematical problem not one related to either the equipment or experiment or who is or isn''t in the room.
There is a related problem, some experiments give results that appear to be dependant on human observation. These experiments are quantum phenomenon and due again to the dual wave/particle nature of sub-atomic particles. This phenomenon does not extend to the observable world around us.
There is not a full set of laws to describe the quantum world but when they are discovered they will be built on Einstein's laws of relativity which in turn where built on Newton's laws. Any new theory of everything will be fully compatible with both Einstein's and Newton's work.
Scientist can never be certain of anything, although every experiment is designed to not only be neutral but to disprove your conclusion. If you wish to disprove a scientific hypothesis then you can't just throw questions, you have to devise an experiment to falsify that hypothesis or come up with a hypothesis that fits the data more completely.
What we can be sure of is that arrows do not just suddenly fall out of the sky just because someone takes a picture of them.
Apologies for the length of this post
I missed some other interesting comments.
quantum mechanics
deal with a quantitative fringe of Newtonian physics, which cannot be extrapolated beyond their area of validityEven surprising and counter-intuitive "knowledge" of the behaviour or subatomic particles doesn't question the core of Newtonian physics
Quantum mechanics isn't really a fringe of Newtonian physics they just deal with different areas, but you are correct, effects like the uncertainty principle are restricted to the quantum world and do not affect Newtonian physics.
You know how much I enjoy saying this, you're wrong! The uncertainty principle cannot be applied to the macro world, on the scales involved in Newtonian mechanics we can be certain of position and velocity since macro scale things dont act like particles and waves at the same time. That is why arrows dont fall out of the sky and your car works.I am not certain that this is correct, quantum physics is a domain (rather than a fringe) of general physics, but not a Newtonian one. Newtonian physics does not deal with things on the quantum scale-it can't. Maybe I misunderstand. Your French mind gives your English a wonderful richness.
even though everything is made of extremely small particles to which quantum mechanics apply, quantum mechanics doesn't apply to the constructs, precisely because the construct is always more (or something else) than the sum of its "elements".I think it does apply on the macro scale.
You know how much I enjoy saying this, you're wrong!
The Bose-Einstein Condensate is an example of quantum effects on a macro scale. A supercooled fluid has constituent atoms actually "materialize" outside the container walls.
Can we "leverage" this?
I don't know whether or not we can yet buuuuuut:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/04/quantum
Scientists have created a minute cantilever arm on the surface of a silicon chip that they hope will leave the world of classical physics and enter the quantum realm
"Give me a large enough lever and I can move the world"
Burn
As alluded to earlier, I am comfortable with the notion that the time dimension may be purely a function of human consciousness. I hadn't considered that the spatial dimensions might also be an "uncompressing" of a more fundamental context, but why not? It puts certain other experiences into a possible framework.
What degree of consciousness do our individual cells experience? What do they observe?
When we die, does the soul of each cell go to Heaven? Do bad cells go to Hell? Does a liver perceive time?
Or is consciousness seated merely in the brain?
Burn says: I think it [quantum mechanics] does apply on the macro scale.
I'm not sure this is the case. We aren't able to predict planetary motion, etc., from quantum mechanics. Fluid dynamics cannot be extrapolated down to the quantum, and quantum cannot be extrapolated up to mundane fluid dynamics, from a purely mathematical perspective. It jumps a gap.
Tomorrow things may be different.
Bose-Einstein Condensate is an interesting material. But as far as I can see, I'm not sure we can employ quantum mechanics as the explanation for the behavior of this "new phase of matter". BEC has some interesting properties, and indeed can be described by anaolgy as behaving like a macro-level quantum particle, but it may be overstating things to say BEC is quantum at macro level - kind of like saying the room I painted yellow has the sun's rays pouring out of it.
;-)
I'd rather wait to see how BEC's properties become more fleshed out. We've only had some real BEC for, what, about ten years?
My understanding of super-cooled fluids is that their principle attribute is their lack of friction, which allows them to climb their containers; I'm not sure this is what you mean when you say their atoms can "materialize" outside of their containers...that would be news to me. I'm only familer with their ability to "spill", or migrate, but not instaneously disappear from one location and reappear in another.
The quantum computer chip will be an interesting endeavor. It works at very small dimensions. What would it take to make a planetary body behave like a quantum particle?
I'm not sure this is the case. We aren't able to predict planetary motion, etc., from quantum mechanics.
I am not saying this is wrong, but I am not so sure this is right. Newtonian physics are I think, an empirical formula of sorts. Newtonian physics do not truly describe the underlying reality behind phenomena such as planetary motion, but are "accurate enough" under normal circumstances (and simple enough to use) that they can get used with a very close approximation to the truth for these sorts of things. "Good enough for governement work". Under more extreme circumstances, Newtonian physics breaks down. Actually, not even that extreme. Inaccuracies in predicting the transit of Mercury were one of the first things that led people to think that Newtonian physics was missing something.
BTS
Bose-Einstein Condensate is an interesting material. But as far as I can see, I'm not sure we can employ quantum mechanics as the explanation for the behavior of this "new phase of matter". BEC has some interesting properties, and indeed can be described by anaolgy as behaving like a macro-level quantum particle, but it may be overstating things to say BEC is quantum at macro level - kind of like saying the room I painted yellow has the sun's rays pouring out of it.
;-)
I'd rather wait to see how BEC's properties become more fleshed out. We've only had some real BEC for, what, about ten years?My understanding of super-cooled fluids is that their principle attribute is their lack of friction, which allows them to climb their containers; I'm not sure this is what you mean when you say their atoms can "materialize" outside of their containers...that would be news to me. I'm only familer with their ability to "spill", or migrate, but not instaneously disappear from one location and reappear in another.
The quantum computer chip will be an interesting endeavor. It works at very small dimensions. What would it take to make a planetary body behave like a quantum particle?
As I have said, macro effects of quantum properties have been observed before. If human ingenuity in the past is any guide, it will only be a matter of time before we see a practical application.
BTS
Caedes: Thank you for taking the time to explain that to me. I feel horribly out of my depth on this post with the level of scientific discussion going on. Which is good for me - I need to learn to become comfortable with the uncomfortableness of feeling like I am 6yo again and all the grown ups are talking about something I can't understand
There is a tendency for me to run back to what I 'know' and, whilst I trust what I know, there is danger in relying solely on that.
I think what I find difficult is that all of you are talking at a level I can't comprehend, but it is blatantly obvious that you don't all agree. So from my viewpoint - how do I know which person/theory to trust when it comes to science, if I can't even make sense of it in the first place? Obviously none of you are completely right (and maybe all of you are wrong), but for the purpose of me learning more and having some guidance as to which path of thought is the most 'reasonable' - I would need to choose at least one or two of you as a model to learn from.
Which then brings me back to having to trust (again) on my own intution and level of reasonableness. What looks and feels reasonable to me? Who can speak to me in an honest and open manner, speak clearly and speak to me at a level of rationale that is instructive and clarifying?
Bringing us back to the whole point about perception and observing. I observe and eventually choose (with a large element of faith) that which most closely matches my reality, my expected outcome. Which is probably why it is most important for me to know the methodology of scientific study, because my criteria for undertaking more learning is not unlike the the need to test, prove and disprove and then apply to see if it works just for me, or is it equally effective for others. And that is what I have got out of all of this - even if I have barely understood most of it - what is the purpose of scientific enquiry and what are the most reasonable frameworks for conducting enquiry.
"accurate enough" under normal circumstances
I think that's a precise definition of science in general, non? ;-) Science is a descriptive endeavor, constantly refined as more observations (tests, experiements) take place.
Whenever I've read about planetary motion inconsistencies there has often been a heretofore unaccounted variable that needed to be added - that's usually how new bodies are discovered, a variance in an orbit is noted and an object predicted that is later directly observed - but I'd have to read up on the particulars of Mercury, it's been 30 years... There are a lot of bodies out there not yet mapped, each having their own influence...
But the point is well taken. All I can add is that what we know of quantum mechanics is also in the same boat - it is an "accurate enough" description, but with a lot less time to have been as thoroughly explored as Newtonian physics. I suspect as we get more observation time under our belts that we will begin to accumulate variances that will both extend theory and predict direct observations, as we have seen at the macro level.
Thanks for posting this, Burn.
