The state of physics is worse than I thought

[Aventador]

Well I tried to explain you why, but, you know, that’s all I can do.

@obsrvr524

Quantum fields exist only in your mind.

They have also not being falsified when they are measured for, and they are falsifiable. Also, they exist in many other people’s minds too, including some decidedly competent physicists. You have not said anything that significantly, or even, like, unsignificantly, undermines any of their science. You just expressed frustration at the fact that you don’t understand why they formulate things the way they do.

To be fair, the frustration reaches to the very higher levels of physics. There is a reason a solution had not been found until so recently. The readings are fucky. But them’s the readings.

[obsrvr524]

@Aventador

Well I tried to explain you why, but, you know, that’s all I can do.

@obsrvr524

Quantum fields exist only in your mind.

They have also not being falsified when they are measured for, and they are falsifiable. Also, they exist in many other people’s minds too, including some decidedly competent physicists. You have not said anything that significantly, or even, like, unsignificantly, undermines any of their science. You just expressed frustration at the fact that you don’t understand why they formulate things the way they do.

To be fair, the frustration reaches to the very higher levels of physics. There is a reason a solution had not been found until so recently. The readings are fucky. But them’s the readings.

Did you actually read what I posted and asked if you agreed?

I am not at all frustrated by the “science” - I think I understand it better than you. My issue and source of frustration is them promoting magic and fooling the public - they are ideologues playing a political role (whether they know it or not). They lie to and mislead the public.

And you appear to have become one of their pundits.

[Aventador]

@obsrvr524

I am not at all frustrated by the “science” - I think I understand it better than you. My issue and source of frustration is them promoting magic and fooling the public - they are ideologues playing a political role (whether they know it or not). They lie and mislead to the public.

Well you did deny the existence of quantum fields, so let’s get specific here. What do you agree with them on? I also am not a fan of how quantum physics is portrayed, or that the public should have any interest in something most of it cannot even desire to understand. But then, you are also right that I have found myself in the interesting position of employing the flowery poetry I accused them of. Something about the wonder it causes one, and one wants to transmit that wonder in the most digestible way one can imagine.

Give us some clear lines, not general concepts. What do you disagree with and why? doesn’t have to be every single thing, bring us one good concrete one we can sink our teeth into and do science on. Something you agree on would be even better.

[obsrvr524]

@Aventador

@obsrvr524

I am not at all frustrated by the “science” - I think I understand it better than you. My issue and source of frustration is them promoting magic and fooling the public - they are ideologues playing a political role (whether they know it or not). They lie and mislead to the public.

Well you did deny the existence of quantum fields, so let’s get specific here. What do you agree with them on?

Again - did you read that post where I asked if you agreed?

@Aventador

I have found myself in the interesting position of employing the flowery poetry I accused them of. Something about the wonder it causes one, and one wants to transmit that wonder in the most digestible way one can imagine.

Yes that is how cults, religions, and ideologies work - especially in politics. They intise people into wanting to believe the most fascinating part of their narrative (usually about how bad or wrong everyone else is or has always been - people get off on that shit).

@Aventador

Give us some clear lines, not general concepts. What do you disagree with and why? doesn’t have to be every single thing, bring us one good concrete one we can sink our teeth into and do science on. Something you agree on would be even better.

Again if you will read that post - it points out specifically what a “quantum field” actually is.

[Aventador]

I am rather unconvinced, obsrvr, rather unconvinced.

[obsrvr524]

This is that post -

@obsrvr524

Tell me if you agree with this - it is about the QM ontology that you appear to have accepted -

@obsrvr524

But those “particle-waves” only exist in the statistical sense of the QM language (describing objects as the average energy involved and the probability of where they are located). In the physical real world they are either particles or waves - never both. Sometimes the calculated probabilities display a wave of higher and lower probabilities. Once actually measured or observed the “field collapses” into an actual specific location.

A “quantum field” is a mental construct of the probability of where such averaged amounts of energy will be found - a field of probabilities - again - not an actual physical thing - a map of probabilities.

If an atom falls into a sealed container that is shaken a “quantum field” is produced indicating that the atom has been evenly distributed throughout the container - because the probability of the atom existing at any one location is the same as it is for every other location - a homogeneous distribution - of probabilities.

Once the container is opened and the atom seen - the “quantum field collapses” - because now you know exactly where the atom is and the probability goes to 100% for that location.

That “field” was never a physically real entity. It was/is a mathematical construct. It only really exists in the mind. The QM physicists would say that the atom exists in all of those places inside at the same time - nonsense to people thinking in real physical terms.

That kind of thinking can result in interestingly precise calculations (as long as you are dealing with average occurrences). But if you wanted to know where the atom was before you measured where it was - QM is useless.

Something called Schrodinger’s Cat demonstrates how the QM thinks. The cat being in a box but unknown as to whether alive or dead is said to be both alive AND dead - until the box is opened - then the quantum probabilities collapse and the cat becomes either alive or dead. It is an abuse of the language.

No quantum theories are about reality or extra-dimensional portals. They are about the distribution of probability calculations concerning where something is really located - and an abuse of language along the way in saying that it exists in ALL places at once until it is observed - then it magically becomes whatever was observed. It is their own invented ontology but using the same words as a more real physical ontology.

So people get the idea (taught at university) that things instantly change into whatever is observed - mind over matter - magic - instructed to not question it - just accept it.

[obsrvr524]

So what about that post do you disagree?

[Aventador]

@obsrvr524

But those “particle-waves” only exist in the statistical sense of the QM language

They can be interpreted statistically, but they are not statistical.

@obsrvr524

In the physical real world they are either particles or waves

At a very large scale, compared even to photons, which already escape both definitions.

@obsrvr524

Sometimes the calculated probabilities display a wave of higher and lower probabilities. Once actually measured or observed the “field collapses” into an actual specific location.

Not because it was observed per se, but because an instrument was introduced into the system, affecting it, and changing its behaviour.

@obsrvr524

If an atom falls into a sealed container that is shaken a “quantum field” is produced indicating that the atom has been evenly distributed throughout the container

This is a little to vague for one to address. This is why I asked for a little more specificity. More precice language.

@obsrvr524

That “field” was never a physically real entity.

They are, just not in the same way that particles or waves are.

@obsrvr524

It was/is a mathematical construct.

I mean, in a way, this is not entirely unfair. The first thing to be aware of is that the mathematics are not statistical, and the second thing that when you are working on the scales of quantum physics, much smaller than an atom, the readings are so sparse and unclear that most of you can even have about it are mathematical descriptions. You can’t “observe” it in any traditional sense, not because of some philosophical limitation, but because it is so very small.

@obsrvr524

Something called Schrodinger’s Cat demonstrates how the QM thinks.

We went over this already, I will post that below.

@obsrvr524

No quantum theories are about reality or extra-dimensional portals.

You are wrong about reality, but technically right about the extra dimensions. Those were introduced by string theory to address the readings given by quantum mechanics.

@obsrvr524

They are about the distribution of probability calculations concerning where something is really located

Like I said, they can be interpreted that way, but that is not how the math actually works. A very good experiment was done on this, I give you my solemn word that I will track it down and post it

@obsrvr524

then it magically becomes whatever was observed. It is their own invented ontology but using the same words as a more real physical ontology.

It only seems like magic because you are trying to interpret them as observing particles or waves.

@obsrvr524

So people get the idea (taught at university) that things instantly change into whatever is observed - mind over matter - magic - instructed to not question it - just accept it.

Nothing turns into anything in actual quantum mechanics and associated theories, they are, again, simply not studying particles or waves.

[Aventador]

@Aventador

Take Shrodinger’s cat.

The mathematics of quantum mechanics, at least at the time, described a state as both X or Y until it is observed, when it collapses into X or Y. This was a description borne out of necessity, not just to say that you can;t know if it is X or Y until you look, but that you have to assume it is both X and Y for the mathematics to work. Not ‘either X or Y because you don’t know yet,’ but 'both X and Y. ’

Shrodinger gave the image of a box with a cat and a poison capsule that would be broken only if the quantum state was X. And that, until you look to see if the quantum state is X or Y, the cat is both alive or dead. It is an obvious impossibility used to describe limitations in the math. Not even limitations in the theory or the imagery, but the actual math that worked to compute these things. It was used for that reason, because ti worked. The scientists used their imagination to concieve of the situation they were observing, and designed a mathematical system to describe it, that did describe what it did. So the math was good, but the imagery flawed, and the mathematics, though good, was limited. It was never a comment on the imagery or philosophical implications, the philosophical implications were used as an illustratiion of the limitations of the math. It was not a reflection on reality, but a call to improve the math, an illustration of all the work that was ahead if physics was to advance.

[obsrvr524]

@Aventador

@obsrvr524

But those “particle-waves” only exist in the statistical sense of the QM language

They can be interpreted statistically, but they are not statistical.

I don’t know what that means but the “waves” are formed by placing statistical calculations concerning the probable presence at each location spread across a map - they are literally only calculations relating to the locations - not the entity itself. There is nothing physical about the wave other than the ink used to draw the picture.

@Aventador

At a very large scale, compared even to photons, which already escape both definitions.

I agree that a photon is neither wave nor particle. It is actually - physically - a bundle of ultra minuscule EMR that was produced such as to emit the entire bundle in one direction. That has been verified. And it happens for the same reason that lasers work to concentrate light in a single direction (another subject).

@Aventador

@obsrvr524

Sometimes the calculated probabilities display a wave of higher and lower probabilities. Once actually measured or observed the “field collapses” into an actual specific location.

Not because it was observed per se, but because an instrument was introduced into the system, affecting it, and changing its behaviour.

No. That is the scapegoat. It sounds plausible so it makes a good scapegoat but it actually isn’t due to the instrument or the light reflection - BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER A PHYSICAL FIELD. The field was entirely a math made map of possible locations for the item - based on the statistics involved. But once you put new information into the statistics - ALL of the calculations change. That is why they say it is the observation that collapses the field - new knowledge = new calculations.

It was the person doing the mapping of possibilities gaining new information that caused that “field” (of calculations) to “collapse”. There was never any physical field or collapsing.

That is the mind-fuck that people get caught into.

Now when someone’s ideology gets challenged - they usually feel bad and so they react negatively. And I am challenging your ideology - your bubble of belief. So try not to get upset at me. I won’t press it if you just don’t want to go there.

[Aventador]

No, I am not upset. This is my sick idea of fun.

@obsrvr524

not the entity itself.

But even then there is no ‘entity itself.’ We have no descriptions of the ‘entities,’ no ideas for what they are. They are values, picked up by the measurements.

@obsrvr524

I agree that a photon is neither wave nor particle. It is actually - physically - a bundle of ultra minuscule EMR that was produced such as to emit the entire bundle in one direction. That has been verified. And it happens for the same reason that lasers work to concentrate light in a single direction (another subject).

Jesus Christ finally, someone.

@obsrvr524

for the item

Indeed, what item?

@obsrvr524

put new information into the statistics

No, you take measurements to find the new information. You cannot even know what the information would look like that wasn’t measured, that is, you can’t even predict what it would be without measurement. The information only makes sense within the confines of measurement. If you project a hypothetical one, you have to also project the measurement. We don’t have two angles on this thing. Those these new theories are providing new angles, like gravity, which previously was not computable as affecting the system. Anything that gives you information on it has to affect it, somehow.

[Aventador]

What can you know? What you can see. What can you see? Only what you can affect.

That is the paradigm.

[obsrvr524]

@Aventador

@Aventador

Take Shrodinger’s cat.

The mathematics of quantum mechanics, at least at the time, described a state as both X or - AND - Y until it is observed, when it collapses into X or Y. This was a description borne out of necessity, not just to say that you can;t know if it is X or Y until you look, but that you have to assume it is both X and Y for the mathematics to work. Not ‘either X or Y because you don’t know yet,’ but 'both X and Y.

Except that it was in reality NEITHER X or Y in the calculations because it was unknown.

By the way - Schrodinger proposed the mental experiment to demonstrate the absurdity of the ontology. He opposed a quantum ontology.

Shrodinger gave the image of a box with a cat and a poison capsule that would be broken only if the quantum state was X. And that, until you look to see if the quantum state is X or Y, the cat is both alive or AND dead. It is an obvious impossibility used to describe limitations in the math. Not even limitations in the theory or the imagery, but the actual math that worked to compute these things. It was used for that reason, because ti worked. The scientists used their imagination to concieve of the situation they were observing, and designed a mathematical system to describe it, that did describe what it did. So the math was good, but the imagery flawed, and the mathematics, though good, was limited. It was never a comment on the imagery or philosophical implications, the philosophical implications were used as an illustratiion of the limitations of the math. It was not a reflection on reality, but a call to improve the math, an illustration of all the work that was ahead if physics was to advance.

@Aventador

What can you know? What you can see. What can you see? Only what you can affect.

That is the paradigm.

You left out - What you can reason (without which you can’t know anything). And you can logically deduce many things without ever seeing any of it.

[Aventador]

@obsrvr524

You left out - What you can reason (without which you can’t know anything). And you can logically deduce many things without ever seeing any of it.

Hm. But you can only reason on things that are known about, and logic can only take you so far without actual physical verification.

No logic has arguably been more pristine or, indeed, beautiful than Einstein’s, but his conclusions were disproven by physical verification.

And the correction you made in quoting me was correct.

[Aventador]

In order to predict where X will be in the quantum field using logic, using a hypothetical field that isn’t actually there, you have to know what is there. And what is there, is a measurement returned by producing a certain action. Further than this, what is there is not known. There is no theory for what is there, other than strings or information. In real terms, what is actually there is intrinsically linked to what is used to detect it, what it interacts with that reveals it. To ignore the intrinsic nature of this interaction would be to conjecture an entirely different thing, than what is being studied. It is not a particle, it is not a wave, these are the things we do know. and we know this can happen, because we know it happens with photons on that much larger scale where we can verify through different types of measurement.

[Aventador]

It doesn’t mean photons are magic, it just means that they are a more subtle and complicated dynamic than a particle or a wave. Once you look at it closely enough, from enough angles, it stops seeming magical. But it never becomes suddenly clear that it is, in fact, a particle or that it is, in fact a wave, or any of the things previously measured in science. It is simply understood as a new dynamic.

With quantum fields, being so really very small, it causes no confusion in me that arriving at such a detailed level of understanding will take more time, but I also have no trouble realizing that the math is accurate, that it is not a misrepresentation of the behaviour of particles or waves, but a new dynamic that we don’t have enough angles on yet to provide a comfortable image of.

[obsrvr524]

@Aventador

No, I am not upset. This is my sick idea of fun.

@obsrvr524

not the entity itself.

But even then there is no ‘entity itself.’ We have no descriptions of the ‘entities,’ no ideas for what they are. They are values, picked up by the measurements.

Measurements of what? - if not of the proposed entity? The results of all measurements pertaining to a proposed entity IS the entity description. What an entity does is what an entity is.

@Aventador

@obsrvr524

put new information into the statistics

No, you take measurements to find the new information.

How you got the information is irrelevant - there are passive ways to gain information that do not affect the item being monitored. There are experiments involving exactly that issue - designed specifically to ensure that the item had received no change to it as it was monitored - tricky but they found several ways (I think that was one of the double-slit experiments). One of those experiments led to the erasure theory because the information was recorded but not seen until the next day. The theory was that the next day when the data was seen - the history involving the item instantly changed. Entanglement issues are similar in there conflation of language to try to make a ridiculous postulate seem plausible.

And actually I think photons are much less complicated that a particle (but then that is probably because I know what they both actually are).

[Aventador]

Yes, I see. Well,

@obsrvr524

Measurements of what?

So, because you can measure the movements of stars, you can know what they are? Nonsense, you can easily take measures without knowing exactly what it is you are measuring.

You don’t have to propose anything. You just need an instrument that is sensitive on a certain scale that gives consistent readings.

@obsrvr524

And actually I think photons are much less complicated that a particle

To be fair, I can agree, but it did not seem that way to the first people studying them.

@obsrvr524

(but then that is probably because I know what they both actually are).

Yes, indeed, well, good for you.

@obsrvr524

There are experiments involving exactly that issue - designed specifically to ensure that the item had received no change to it as it was monitored - tricky but they found several ways (I think that was one of the double-slit experiments). One of those experiments led to the erasure theory because the information was recorded but not seen until the next day. The theory was that the next day when the data was seen - the history involving the item instantly changed. Entanglement issues are similar in there conflation of language to try to make a ridiculous postulate seem plausible.

Now it is you that is being dishonest in presenting things that are not actually so obscure and complicated as obscure and complicated. Say you want to detect a photon passing through the slits. Tell me, how do you detect it without absorbing the photon? The photon is a measure of the understanding we have of the way it interacts with other things. There were experiments where they went half way, and affected the photons only slightly as they passed to know they had passed, but the photons were affected by it. Simply not enough to stop them or fully absorb them.

[obsrvr524]

@Aventador

So, because you can measure the movements of stars, you can know what they are? Nonsense, you can easily take measures without knowing exactly what it is you are measuring.

No. From the movement alone you don’t know what they are - just look at ancient history. The only thing you know is that they are something that you can see moving. You have to put together ALL of your measurements together in order to know WHAT the item ACTUALLY is - until then all you know is that it is something that behaves as you have measured - so far. And that process involves reasoning - without good reasoning - you know nothing - you can’t even say that it is moving - or even that it exists at all - or that you exist at all. Reasoning is the first thing you have to have.

But another measurement you have already is that the item emits light. And you call whatever it is a “star”. Later you find out that it is very very probably a super big ball of fire.

You don’t have to propose anything. You just need an instrument that is sensitive on a certain scale that gives consistent readings.

@Aventador

@obsrvr524

There are experiments involving exactly that issue - designed specifically to ensure that the item had received no change to it as it was monitored - tricky but they found several ways (I think that was one of the double-slit experiments). One of those experiments led to the erasure theory because the information was recorded but not seen until the next day. The theory was that the next day when the data was seen - the history involving the item instantly changed. Entanglement issues are similar in there conflation of language to try to make a ridiculous postulate seem plausible.

Now it is you that is being dishonest in presenting things that are not actually so obscure and complicated as obscure and complicated.

Please don’t call me “dishonest”.

@Aventador

Say you want to detect a photon passing through the slits. Tell me, how do you detect it without absorbing the photon? The photon is a measure of the understanding we have of the way it interacts with other things. There were experiments where they went half way, and affected the photons only slightly as they passed to know they had passed, but the photons were affected by it. Simply not enough to stop them or fully absorb them.

The totally passive way was to measure the data from the screen then combine that to other things already known - I don’t remember all of those details. The photon was never touched by any observing instrument. It was that data - unseen until the next day - that led to the proposal that the situation involving the photons changed to match the data.

But there was more than even that. There were two copies of the data - the second copy wasn’t seen either - but magically (through the mystery of entanglement) changed instantly to what the other data reflected - OOOooooo -mysterious - huh.

Well you can read it on Wikipedia -

@"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=erasure&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search&ns0=1

Wikipedia[/url]"]Quantum eraser experiment
In quantum mechanics, the quantum eraser experiment is an interferometer experiment that demonstrates several fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics, including quantum entanglement and complementarity. The quantum eraser experiment is a variation of Thomas Young’s classic double-slit experiment…

[obsrvr524]

I need to get back to wife, work, wealth, and health - so - MIJOT until next time.