Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-31-2013, 10:54 AM #211
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueshifty View Post
Where they end up and how they got there are 2 different things. I can guess the most plausible route described as a sinusoid, but in this particular case I can't prove it. If things exist in a duality then they are taking all routes and once, therefore, the relation to the particle in question is severed because it's now one particle at all points at once. If I measure it then I collapse the wave of probability to a vector (a direct relation to the particle in question).



There is not a contradiction. With the mathematical models, we explain where they end up and if I measure it at any point then it appears to follow a wave-function. Is the actual particle really at the point math predicts it should be at a point in time? You can't know or verify it. You have correlated the point at which the wave function will collapse, but that doesn't mean that's the path the particle follows.

In this case the predictive power is useful, however, it is disconnected from the particle.


So the way I can make the best sense of this in my red-neck mind is this. Take a sheet of paper and draw a nice stack of dots however many high you'd like. Now repeat this pattern with a bunch more columns to the right. Now look at what you should have... a band of dots all the way across the page. Draw a sinusoid over the band of dots. That is what we're taking about. In any column there are a ton of dots, but the ones closest to the sinusoid are the wave form collapse. If I didn't measure it then the particle would exist in all rows simultaneously. So the math is useful as a prediction, but isn't necessarily verifiable


You're imposing an interpretation on the math again. Saying we can predict with great accuracy the eigenstate which a wave function will collapse into means we can predict quantify and describe the fixed state of the particle. It seems to me that this scenario more than satisfies the call for demonstration. The fact vthat a particle collapsed into ONE possible eigenstate after the introduction of a classical observer does not "somehow " invalidate the observed fixed state, just because it could in any number of states before the introduction of an observer.

Umami/F1 if I'm being a *******, let me know.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 10-31-2013, 12:19 PM #212
blueshifty
RIP: Underĝath
 
blueshifty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
You're imposing an interpretation on the math again. Saying we can predict with great accuracy the eigenstate which a wave function will collapse into means we can predict quantify and describe the fixed state of the particle. It seems to me that this scenario more than satisfies the call for demonstration. The fact vthat a particle collapsed into ONE possible eigenstate after the introduction of a classical observer does not "somehow " invalidate the observed fixed state, just because it could in any number of states before the introduction of an observer.

Umami/F1 if I'm being a *******, let me know.
So lets back up. The vector math is easy. The wave isn't. So please explain to me the process we use to derive the equation? The wave function itself is a null hypothesis that we fail to reject. It is impossible to ever prove whether or not our observation methods affected the test, so not only is the wave not factual, it may also be polluting the data set.
__________________
Feedback: Old (+4)
blueshifty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2013, 12:54 PM #213
Carnage88
 
 
Carnage88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Jersey
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueshifty View Post
I already did. I also don't believe "physics is hocus pocus," but I do believe specific schools of thought are... It's also a little presumptuous of you to assume I don't understand physics.



Math demonstrable? It's an interesting question you ask... Many of the "confirmations" that are being made relative to observation are done with inadequate (or impossible) correlation. Can I make the math work to prove that the itunes market place is an indicator of coco bean sales in Africa? Probably. With what margin of error? Math is demonstrable within it's confidence intervals assuming a correlative association is established. I go back to the stock market analogy... Can you make an algorithm that fits with the observed data? Absolutely. Is in an accurate indication of the future of the stock market? No. That's what quantum physics/ mechanics is. It is a predictive math model that is based on observable data that may or may not have any relation to the behavior of quantum particles. The problem is that the behavior of quantum particles (in this case) aren't well known and a high correlation model has yet to be presented. I don't have a problem even with any of that. What I do have a problem with is to project that data infinitely and make the assertions that any of that discounts a divine being. Going back to the double slit experiment. Light behaves as a wave and a particle. So... what influences it's behavior? Science says a "conscience observer" is the answer. If I had a religious objective I could make any assertion about a divine being that I wanted based on that experiment.

My point in this is that the value placed on scientists hypothesis are absolutely NO more credible than any other religion. Most scientists don't believe in any type of "god," so their bias naturally makes it into their theories. Don't believe it? Why wouldn't Einstein speak out against a divine being? (I'm not saying he was Christian either.) Why does Hawkings even bother speaking out against religion when not a shred of evidence discounts the existence of a divine being? Are people really so naive to think personal experiences don't play into these things?
It's fine if you don't want to believe in God or a god... that's your prerogative, but try to use science to try to disprove His/it's existence.
It's interesting I agree with most of what you say in that bias is unavoidable, but highly disagree that scientists hypothesis are therefore equal in credibility to religions; at least scientists use testable measured means to try even if in vain to prove a clear definite end. I don't even see how quantum theory would disprove a God, rather just that it makes him unnecessary.
__________________
Who is more to be pitied, a writer bound and gagged by policemen or one living in perfect freedom who has nothing more to say?
Kurt Vonnegut
Carnage88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2013, 01:27 PM #214
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueshifty View Post
So lets back up. The vector math is easy. The wave isn't. So please explain to me the process we use to derive the equation? The wave function itself is a null hypothesis that we fail to reject. It is impossible to ever prove whether or not our observation methods affected the test, so not only is the wave not factual, it may also be polluting the data set.
How is the wave function a null hypothesis?
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2013, 01:50 PM #215
blueshifty
RIP: Underĝath
 
blueshifty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnage88 View Post
It's interesting I agree with most of what you say in that bias is unavoidable, but highly disagree that scientists hypothesis are therefore equal in credibility to religions; at least scientists use testable measured means to try even if in vain to prove a clear definite end. I don't even see how quantum theory would disprove a God, rather just that it makes him unnecessary.
So the real point is not on first-order theories. The issue I have is on higher-order theories. Again, umami disagreed with me, but the way calculus works is that we have to accept the variables that the formulas are based on. Each step we make puts us further and further away from verifiable data. At it's extremes theoretical physics (which I suppose is how umami would have me classify some of the theories) is so loosely based on anything tangible that it is pretty well just a complete guess. I think where it oversteps in's bounds is when it makes any religious assertions. Nothing in the data says that God is unnecessary if the big bang happened. That is an exclusionary stance and is an EXACT contradiction to Hawkings stance that trying to figure out what happened before the big bang is an aimless endeavor. If you don't know then just say, the math is too complex at this time for us to hypothesis what happened prior to the big bang. Could God have done it? Perhaps. Did the laws of physics do it? I'm not sure, but even still the argument just goes further back to the origins of the laws. The point is that they're not exclusionary.

My opinion is that physics at it's extremes is just the doctrine of atheism, which was the whole point I was trying to make. I didn't really want to get in the debate about any specific test, but someone questioned my knowledge on the topic. I don't claim to be a physicist, but I'm not uncomfortable around calculus and more than that there's a bit of common sense that needs to be applied. The core of my position comes from a general disagreement with the interpretation of data, application of the variables and later, the assertions that are made with ANY theistic implications. There are no theistic implications to science. Period.

Did evolution happen? I don't know. The preponderance of evidence supports that. Did a supernatural being start this process? Again, science can never and will never know. That's left to your own interpretations. The data by itself is not exclusionary. The evidences definitely support the hypothesis, and I personally have no issue accepting the process as fact WITHOUT religious implications.

People accuse religion of being controlling by telling people what to think. When science passes off it's interpretation of data as fact then it's guilty of the exact SAME DOGMA. This lack of substantiated evidence is just exercised faith with atheistic interpretations.

I'm a simple guy... In conveying my idea I may not have done the best job, but I am not trying to make anyone see it my exact way. I just want people to understand that many of these things passed off as fact and with religious implications are not fact at all and furthermore have no religious implications without an individual's interpretation (which is biased).
__________________
Feedback: Old (+4)

Last edited by blueshifty : 10-31-2013 at 02:00 PM.
blueshifty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2013, 01:54 PM #216
blueshifty
RIP: Underĝath
 
blueshifty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1VENOM View Post
How is the wave function a null hypothesis?
Because we're attempting to describe a behavior derived from inferential statistics NOT a direct observation.
__________________
Feedback: Old (+4)
blueshifty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2013, 02:05 PM #217
Umami
AFK IRL
 
Umami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Laniakea
Umami works for a Paintball manufacturer
Umami supports our troops
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueshifty View Post
So lets back up. The vector math is easy. The wave isn't. So please explain to me the process we use to derive the equation?
Just going to point out wavefunctions are vectors in Hilbert space.

One way to develop the wave function from base principles is to quantize a classical Hamiltonian equation for energy. It (and all its required trappings of uncertainty) come from nothing more than the very directly observable quantized nature of matter and conservation of energy.

Just to be clear here, the schroedinger equation comes from nothing more than a fancy version of

E = KE + PE

and quantizing the energy into distinct packets.

The statistical interpretation comes later, and is only relevant to a very specific aspect of the wavefunction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blueshifty View Post
Because we're attempting to describe a behavior derived from inferential statistics NOT a direct observation.
Again, this is not correct beyond the typical statistics you'd do with any experimental observation.
__________________
Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

I am affiliated with Lurker Paintball. My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of LurkerPB.

Last edited by Umami : 10-31-2013 at 02:22 PM.
Umami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2013, 02:33 PM #218
Umami
AFK IRL
 
Umami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Laniakea
Umami works for a Paintball manufacturer
Umami supports our troops
And to add to that point, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is directly based on a framework of classical mechanics, called Poisson brackets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_bracket

When you take a Poisson bracket and quantize energy, it transforms into the quantum commutation relations, which then gives direct rise to the uncertainty principle.

These are very well-established theoretical frameworks for classical mechanics, which then undergo "quantization". The mere act of saying "energy comes in packets" fundamentally gives rise to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blueshifty View Post
People accuse religion of being controlling by telling people what to think. When science passes off it's interpretation of data as fact then it's guilty of the exact SAME DOGMA. This lack of substantiated evidence is just exercised faith with atheistic interpretations.
If you can rigorously show that the mathematical framework presented above is incorrect and demonstrate it with an experiment, you would win a Nobel hands down.

That is not dogma. That is not telling people what to think. It is nothing more than a mathematically rigorous description of reality which is consistent with observation. You will not be burned at the stake for not believing in it. Hell, if you come up with an alternative proposal which has mathematical and experimental consistency you'll be given money to prove it wrong. But your computer would not be possible without it and therefore I'm inclined to believe it is correct to a significant level.
__________________
Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

I am affiliated with Lurker Paintball. My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of LurkerPB.

Last edited by Umami : 10-31-2013 at 02:49 PM.
Umami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2013, 03:36 PM #219
blueshifty
RIP: Underĝath
 
blueshifty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umami View Post
Again, this is not correct beyond the typical statistics you'd do with any experimental observation.
Everything you just said in the last 2 posts supports my statement. Every single mathematical model that is predictive in nature is derived from inferential statistics... fundamentally it has to be (and this ideally, comes from a measured data set, but in the higher-order models they're built on other inferential models). This in the mechanical world I'd call this the tolerance stack up. This is where the probabilistic nature of these models comes from.
__________________
Feedback: Old (+4)

Last edited by blueshifty : 10-31-2013 at 03:45 PM.
blueshifty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2013, 05:44 PM #220
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Is not inferential statistics, though. The calculations are very real quantities and nothing we're discussing is inferred.
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2013, 06:52 PM #221
ironyusa
reappropriating resources
 
ironyusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Dallas, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1VENOM View Post
Is not inferential statistics, though. The calculations are very real quantities and nothing we're discussing is inferred.
You're mislead. The models are not based on a descriptive statistical model. They can't be, by their very nature. All they can hope for is a high correlation.
__________________
The IronyUSA axe may be for sale soon.

New ideas being shown at: inceptionforums.com
ironyusa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2013, 11:07 PM #222
$h@key J0nEZ
Southern By The
 
$h@key J0nEZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Grace Of GOD
__________________

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so.” - Ronald Reagan

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." - Alexander Hamilton
$h@key J0nEZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump