romansh

According to the article ... the proponents and some observers feel that if this Bohmian theory had come first then quantum mechanics might never have taken hold. But reading through the article, the theory is still a work in progress.

Apparently, like I said before, the predictions this theory makes are very very similar to those of quantum mechanics?

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

Og

I will take a glance at this, but I have never heard of this before. Things like quantum tunneling are harnessed to create tunneling electron microscopes and quantum theory describes the probabilistic decay of materials that we call half life. Quantum computers exist that take advantage of these bizarre predictions of QM to allow for problem solutions to drop out of a pool of probabilities... It's bizarre stuff but is entirely in match with observation.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
Satchitananda - True Being, Pure Consciousness, and Bliss
Tat Tvam Asi - Thou art That.
You & I, no distinction.
Mettā & Namaste

Og

According to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation

Bohmian Mechanics is a hidden variable theory. Basically that what we see as random is due to the some complex variables that we can't track.

I believe that the problem with these predictions is that the behavior of these complex random variables would be indistinguishable from randomness. Observations of quantum mechanical processes provide highly accurate approximations to predicted probability distributions.

I recommend checking out Bell's Inequality linked from the above wikipedia article and read the overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_inequality

I wouldn't be such a strong proponent of throwing determinism out the window if quantum mechanics wasn't so damn effective at describing the universe as we see it.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
Satchitananda - True Being, Pure Consciousness, and Bliss
Tat Tvam Asi - Thou art That.
You & I, no distinction.
Mettā & Namaste

Nick Treklis

Cause and effect. Everything is a the result of infinite causes stretching back endlessly into time. Now, although this means that everything is determined, it also makes any predictions we make inherently uncertain because of the infinite magnitude of the causal web of nature. At best all we can ever do is make an educated guess about what the future holds.

Og,

Quantum mechanics does not refute that all phenomena are deterministic. First off, quantum mechanics is a theory based on empirical observation making it inherently unreliable in an ultimate sense. All science can ever come up with are theories that can never be proved absolutely true. Quantum theory is just another in a long line of theories to come about certain aspects of nature. Even the quantum realm produces patterns that can be predicted and repeated. So even though scientists haven't been able to isolate specific causes for these events, the fact that these experiments are repeatable and demonstrable is enough for one to reasonably assume there are in fact causes, although unknown for the time being, to these events. Not to mention the fact that we can observe these events, isolate them, and make distinctions between "the quantum realm" and other realms absolutely means they are caused events and therefore entirely deterministic.

Og

Quantum processes (such as the emission of photons) are indeterminent processes. If I take a radiation detector and measure something with a half life over a period in which it has a 50/50 chance of emitting a photon (i.e. probability of dropping to a lower energy level) and then base an action off the result of that emission, I have broken the causal chain (if you could even say that one existed in the first place).

The world that we see ALL is the product of quantum mechanical interactions on a massive scale where probabilities average out to produce what seem to be coherent phenomena. The notion of a deterministic chain of events just doesn't match observation.

Strike that.... It matches pre-scientific/pre-QM observations because we didn't have the instruments to measure such effects. It matches the observations that people would make given that they lived in ignorance of quantum phenomena. But given what we know today, an unbroken causal chain into the future is false. The only reason to make such a stance is because of theories constructed out of ignorance. I'm not saying that our current theory may not be equally constructed out of ignorance, but it certainly casts determinism out the window.


Correct. Nor do scientists make attempts to prove their theories. In fact they try to do the opposite.... The whole process of science is an attempt to disprove theories. What remains after the exercise of science, must contain the truth. I'd tack on "but its the best we have" after "inherently unreliable" in your above statement.

I recommend going up to my post above and clicking the link to read about bell's theorem. Stepping into the realm of hidden variable theory has some pretty interesting consequences.

There is no distinction between the quantum realm and some other realm. Quantum mechanics is a description of the interactions of matter.... PERIOD. It tends to have issues when you get up towards black holes.. Hence the continuing search for a unified theory (something like string theory) but that's a ways off. Hopefully the new colider in europe will open some insights on this one.

I'll restate this because it's important. Quantum mechanics is a description of the behavior of matter. All matter. There's no realm where it doesn't apply (except in the above case where you have to move to general relativity).

Bottom line is that its the best that we have. Whatever the truth is, determinism doesn't mesh with it. Schroedinger's cat is the classic thought experiment that illustrates the reality of this. I recommend following up on this. The state of the cat is literally NOT determined.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
Satchitananda - True Being, Pure Consciousness, and Bliss
Tat Tvam Asi - Thou art That.
You & I, no distinction.
Mettā & Namaste

Nick Treklis

I don't see how this proves causality to be false. If anything it confirms causality because the photon emission is the cause of you taking one particular action over another meaning the entire scenario is completely deterministic and at the same time unpredictable from the point of the observer.

Observation is entirely subjective, but I'm not speaking about the nature of things from the point of observation. I'm using logic to reach absolute certainty about the nature of reality.

Well like I said, I'm not using theories or observations based on empirical data like science does. Logic is the only tool we have when it comes to realizing absolute truth. Of course this doesn't mean scientific theories aren't beneficial or worth while, it just means science is inadequate when it comes to absolute certainty.

If science is done with a pure heart I agree, but I think it's naive to say that all scientists only attempt disprove theories. Science is just as likely to be corrupted by money and status as any other aspect of humanity is. Millions are spent each year trying to prove theories true because of special interests, and many more scientists spend their lives trying to prove their theories right for no reason except to gain prominence in the scientific community.

Quantum mechanics is the study of all matter yes, but it studies it at the quantum, i.e. subatomic level. That's why it is called quantum mechanics and not matter mechanics. Quantum mechanics is useful in it's particular area of study, but it doesn't help me test how hot something is, how far away it is, or what its mass is, and it certainly can't toss out determinism with absolute certainty. This would imply that quantum theory is in fact not a theory at all, but absolutely true. And I think we both agree that is absolutely false.


All Schroedinger's cat does is show the inherent limitations of quantum theory when it is applied beyond the subatomic level. Which if it is applied beyond that level means that something can be two different things simultaneously violating the law of identity, or A=A. It certainly doesn't discredit the fact that all finite phenomena have been infinitely determined.

Og

But the causal chain only goes back to the emission of the photon. Not "the result of infinite causes stretching back endlessly into time"...

You're saying that photon counters, silicon transistors, and other experimental apparatus for measurement of quantum phenomena represent subjective measurements? Again, check Bell's theorem before going down the path of hidden variable theory.

You should review the uncertainty principle (another one of those pesky observation based products of science) before banging your head against a wall while seeking absolute certainty.

There's nothing naive about my statements. The nature of science prevents corruption by money/status/etc. If you falsify your data, you can/will be thrown out of the scientific community. If you do not show well documented controls and a well thought out process of experiment development, your paper will not be published.

It's a negative feedback control system. All of the practitioners of science regulate science independently and compete. All of them attempt to destroy their colleagues' work and in the process, prevent corruption of individuals and leave only well supported work standing.

Most scientists I know let the observation do the direction. They develop strong theories because of a volume of work on a topic that gives them an understanding of the mechanics of a system. It's got nothing to do with working to prove a theory right.

Ever heard of Spectroscopy? Semiconductors? These (and many others) are quantum properties of bulk materials. Want to know what something is made of? Look at it's emission spectrum. Quantum mechanics scales up to properly describe the bulk properties of matter (one of the requisites for a theory).

Mass? Number of atoms * atomic weight of each. There are certainly shortcuts for mass measurement, but if you want to be extremely accurate, you use strict quantum theory. Just because you use a shortcut (like comparing it to another mass on a scale or displacing water with it), doesn't mean that you're in some other "realm" of physics.

No. It says that the state of the system is undefined and is described by a probability distribution (i.e. it has a probability associated with each of a spectrum of states). In fact, the system is all of these states weighted with a given probability. This is the meaning of the spherical and other odd-shaped "orbitals" of electrons. They are probability functions. It's not that the particle "exists somewhere in there and we just don't know it." What's the case is that the particle is described by that probability distribution function and it's behavior is indeterminant.

A=A does not apply ultimately. There is no exact and absolute identity of a particle. Uncertainty principle makes this clear. If it did, you couldn't get quantum tunneling or state transitions (which produce spectroscopy and semiconductors).

Don't let what you call "logic" drive you down some path that doesn't match observation. Proofs are based on axioms. The axioms are assumed to be true by definition. But they can never be proved absolutely to be true. That requires science and science doesn't even go that far.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
Satchitananda - True Being, Pure Consciousness, and Bliss
Tat Tvam Asi - Thou art That.
You & I, no distinction.
Mettā & Namaste

Nick Treklis

There's an uncountable number of causes that contributed to that particular photon emission. The fact that the one photon was previously formed together with the rest of that element in the past, that fact the sun didn't explode incinerating the entire solar system, the fact that another galaxy didn't turn into a giant monster and eat up our galaxy, and of course the fact that that photon is in fact that photon and not anything else in the universe. Indeed everything else in the universe besides that photon is a past cause to it's current state of being. Even the photons past state of being is a cause of its present state of being. Just because the photon is emitted in a way that we can't observe a billiard ball type chain reaction causing it does not mean it wasn't caused.

Absolutely. That equipment is designed the observe the universe in one particular way which leaves out all the other numerous ways in which the universe could potentially be viewed. It's the same way our bodies have evolved to only allow so much information to be picked up by our sense, such as sound, sight, touch, taste, and scent. The Totality can not be viewed in its entirety, in fact it can't be viewed at all. It's objectively formless, all we can do is view infinitely small pieces of it with our senses and the equipment we invent, and even then that equipment only relays the information back to us in a way that our senses can perceive it. Part of being a conscious being means we are inherently limited when viewing the physical universe. If we were constantly being bombarded with an infinite amount of information in infinitely small increments of time for eternity we would not be conscious. One would need a mind that was essentially Nature itself, but as you can see this is logically impossible.

I stopped banging my head a while ago. There are many things I am absolutely certain of as you should be able to tell from my respones in our discussion.

For most sciences there is not a direct public demand for them in every day life. Many sciences require government subsidies for the continued existence. Think about the cult of man made global warming. These scientists are running in circles trying to prove that man is causing the warming of our planet when in fact Earth has gone through many warming and cooling periods. And the thing is, the carbon cycle follows suit with the climate, not the other way around. Any scientist that disagrees with the man made global warming theory is ostracized and considering a loony, but the real motivation for this behavior is that their institutions and continued research rely on the special interest dictated government money that is given to them for the specific purpose of proving the man made global warming theory true. To this day they have done nothing of the sort.

And like I said, all of this quantum measurement is done at the sub atomic, i.e quantum level, hence the label Quantum Mechanics.

What this shows is that people are taking quantum mechanics and trying to apply it on a universal level which will always lead to illogical conclusions such as an object being two different objects simultaneously. Like I said earlier, just because we can't currently observe a billiard ball type chain reaction going on doesn't mean there aren't causes, such as the examples I provided. Quantum theory ought to remain in it's particular scientific niche otherwise it begins to lose its meaning.

A, which can be substituted with any phenomena will always equal A in any scenario based on what the observer is currently witnessing. It is a logical impossibility for it to be otherwise. Although if you think you have a legitimate example I'd love to hear it. FYI Shroedinger's cat is not a legitimate example. As I've already logically proved it isn't the result of a logical proof demonstrated through quantum mechanics, but a result of quantum mechanics being streched beyond its limits into areas where it can only produce illogical and incoherent conclusions.

So how did you achieve absolute certainty that these axioms can never be proved absolutely true? Either we accept this axiom at face value and come to terms with fact that it is absolutely true, or we recognize that it is a walking contradiction and therefore meaningless which means it is absolutely false, in turn showing us the real Absolute Truth of the matter. Any way you slice it this logically proves the existence of Absolute Truth that can be understood by us through the use of logic.

Og

I guess all I can do is say that you are misrepresenting the current understanding of physics.

No. A photon is a conversion of potential energy in an atom into a wave/particle bit of free energy. The electron drops through a number of Quantized energy levels and converts that energy into a photon where the energy lost by the electron is proportional to the frequency of the photon. The "photon" didn't exist before it was emitted. And in any case, I wasn't talking about the existence of the photon. I was talking about the EVENT of it's emission from the atom. This EVENT is indeterminant per quantum theory. I was basing my action on the outcome of the EVENT. I was not basing my action on the photon.

There's a difference.

Yet you imply that every event and object is the product of an infinite string of causality culminating in that exact moment. Wouldn't you say that a flower or a person or a snowflake or a speck of sand is an expression of the universe in its entirety (given your proposition of hard determinism)?

In any case, I think you're implying that there are some other events that can't be described by electro-weak, strong nuclear, and gravitational forces. I think these forces offer a fairly clean basis set that gives us a universal understanding of what's going on in the universe

Are you indicating that there are phenomena that can't be described by these formulations? If so, what are they? If not, why do you think that our measurements are subjective in light of the fact that we have a grasp of such tools?

Which special interest government money would this be? Do you know anything about the NSF and NIH funding committees? They are NOT political appointees. They are practicing and respected members of the scientific community and I know several of them.

My PhD adviser has spoken before congress about the value of pure research. It leads us into fields that we wouldn't otherwise explore and connects us to solutions that nature has found to problems that we wouldn't have otherwise discovered.

What is it, SPECIFICALLY, about the data presented by the scientific community on climate change that you don't agree with? Why do you think these scientists allegedly fabricated this stance. Do you not think it's an odd correlation that climate change follows the industrial revolution and dramatic outpouring of carbon into the atmosphere? Do you honestly think that we don't have a waste/energy problem in the world?

First off, sub-atomic is not synonymous with "Quantum"... Quantum refers to quantized states available to subatomic particles due to their wave/particle duality and how they become bound in atoms. It describes quantized energy states available to all subatomic particles.

Second off, all measurements, including your senses, are quantum processes in your opinion then. There can be NO questions asked that aren't answered via measurements using quantum processes. Your eyes, for example, convert photons into membrane potentials using quantum processes (absorption of photons). Anywhere you have sound/taste/smell signals transduced, you're having molecules respond to these metrics and the molecular behavior is governed by quantum phenomena.

Measurement of spectra of various materials (i.e. crystals or stars) is done with CCD cameras or other photo-detectors which are macroscopic devices which take advantage of quantum mechanical properties of matter.

Your definition of quantum here as synonymous with "Subatomic" is probably the source of your misunderstanding of quantum physics.

Again... Bell's theorem effectively deconstructs hidden variable theory.

"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."

I recommend reading the article. Quantum Theory is a collection of observed phenomena. Your hard determinism theory just plain doesn't hold water!

Ok.. What is an electron in the 1s orbital of a monatomic hydrogen atom? I'll give you the answer to speed things up. It is a cloud of probability in a sphere around the atom describe by a neat little basis set of functions which I think are called airey functions (if I remember correctly). It is in energy state with quantum number 1.

So A is a probability distribution function and has no determinant meaning at any given point. Again, you're using logical axioms that are based on macroscopic observation versus the counterintuitive things going on at the subatomic level.

But the macroscopic world is a grand collection of atomic particles. A single penny, for example, has a random chance (for the purpose of this discussion, assume truly random) of heads or tails. But a billion pennies flipped a billion times will produce almost exactly 50/50 results. It will not be 55/45 or 75/25 or any other combination. It will be extremely sharply defined at 50/50. That's what is called "Mass Action." It's the basis for the function of our bodies and most processes that involve macroscopic object interactions.

But in the end, quantum phenomena DO underly it all. Just because we can take shortcuts due to the ensemble behavior of 10^23 particles or more doesn't mean that quantum mechanics isn't responsible for all behaviors of systems.

Nope. Don't work that way either. I don't have absolute certainty that they can't be proven. I just know (through repeatable observation that you can participate in) that the uncertainty principle holds. The closer you try to get to absolute, the more something else (and equally fundamental) about your object of focus blurs.

Your little trick of semantics does little more than illustrate the limitations of the english language. I prefer mathematics as the language in which to verbalize the search for truth.

Furthermore, I don't see how the contradictory sound of "there are absolutely no absolutes" proves that there is absolute truth. What if someone says "it seems that there are no absolutes." ? Does that negate your "logical" conclusion that there are, in fact, absolute truths?

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
Satchitananda - True Being, Pure Consciousness, and Bliss
Tat Tvam Asi - Thou art That.
You & I, no distinction.
Mettā & Namaste

shadowind

A=A simply says something is what it is.
can we know what something is though?
an axiom is like a starting point.
if an axiom is with in our perception. it simply means we're experiencing something that can not be subdivided and explained, it simply is. if its something like "there is(n't) a god" then its a starting point. however we are limited in our abilitys, we have a reference point. it acts like a filter. X saying that X is correct is as much proof as saying "i'm right becuse i say so" all axioms have to prove themselfs is nothing. they are what simply are for a sake of a argument or they are what we are too igorant to explain or they are a fundamental and i have to help my brother move in...

__________________
remember "for mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescirbe to oursleves is liberty"-rousseau: the concept of the general will "if we can not reconcile all opions, then let us endeavour to unite all hearts."-?"to be is to be perceived"-? "‘We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know’-Robert G. Ingersoll