Philosophy Now Forum

Blaggard wrote: ...

Cerveny wrote:...one must imagine that electron is a state of aether thus a moving "electron" pulls aether into side slit...

No not at all, and that makes no sense. If you want to elaborate though I am all ears, but I think you might of missed the fundamentals in assuming there is some extraneous ether like force.
...

Once again:
Aether = physical (empty) space, the most perfect form/existence of the matter.
Elementary particles = defects in the (perfect, periodic) structure of the physical space.
The Universe does not expand, it crystallizes from the future - something like 3D (non-amorphous) printing.
When elementary particle permeates (is replicated) through the slot, it loses the periodicity of the substrate (of history) and begins to form it again ...

cerveny like the way you see the aether i think its correct.at first i pictured you as some sort of bearded time traveling professor from the later half of the 19th centry. possibly wereing a monical .regs jackles.

@Cerveny well all that is idle speculation, but you are welcome to believe any ideas you like, pardon me if the scientist in me says, prove it or stfu. There's no such thing as empty space or a perfect vacuum, even if you tried to create one in a lab particles would spotaneously pop into existence to populate the void, which means wherever there is energy there is matter. The most perfect form of matter, is a philosophical term, which has no meaning in science. It's like saying something is beautiful science doesn't deal in subjective aesthetic ideals.

@ jackles it doesn't go fuzzy, it just doesn't have a particle like aspect unless we go looking for it, it doesn't go anything, it is what it is a warticle whatever that is, is also unknown, and maybe even unknowable. A wave has infinite extent, its affects no matter how tiny can be felt across the universe, is it surprising then that its extent can pass through two slits at the same time? Perhaps what is surprising is that it passes through both slits and just one slit at random, with a 50/50 incidence. Or at least when we measure the path information ie where it traveled by placing a detector at the slit it appears to be a particle. The ultimate irony, if you place two detectors at the slit, expecting it to be a wave and pass through both it behaves like a particle, if you just measure where it hits the screen, expecting it to be a particle you get interference fringes over time showing it is a wave.

This is where interpretation comes in, what is it that we can't measure, a wave that has an extent but is dimensionless which collapses to a point if we try and measure it. On the surface it makes no sense, it can't be magic, it is definitely something but uncertainty robs us of knowing what it is. Is the moon still there if we are not looking at it, the answer to Einsteins satire of quantum mechanics literally would be yes of course, the moons existence we must assume is independent of my knowing it is there. In quantum mechanics, depending on our ontology or interpretation, we might say it does not exist as y until we measure x, observation determines its existence and x is not = to y. Or we can even go so far as to say observation is existence, depends how you interpret it. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? Intuitively you would say yes, but actually the answer is no, the definition of sound is something heard by a consciousness so no it is not quiet but it does not make any sound. You could quite validly also say that the sound is undefined, or you could even say that it doesn't make any noise at all, all would be valid interpretational analogies of quantum mechanics interpretation, which is all of course philosophy.

jackles wrote:cerveny like the way you see the aether i think its correct.at first i pictured you as some sort of bearded time traveling professor from the later half of the 19th centry. possibly wereing a monical .regs jackles.

Blaggard wrote:@Cerveny well all that is idle speculation, but you are welcome to believe any ideas you like, pardon me if the scientist in me says, prove it or stfu. There's no such thing as empty space or a perfect vacuum, even if you tried to create one in a lab particles would spotaneously pop into existence to populate the void, which means wherever there is energy there is matter. The most perfect form of matter, is a philosophical term, which has no meaning in science. It's like saying something is beautiful science doesn't deal in subjective aesthetic ideals...

The "scientist" may want for me the "evidence" after he unifies QM with TR, after he measures the gravitational constant of matter/antimatter, after he explains what dark matter/energy is, after he removes the divergences/singularities from his model, after he explains the increasing of negentropy, after...
I am only seeking a logical model of the Universe ...
PS: The ideal crystal does not exists too and there is no one to deny theory of solids...

well if we look at the situation as regards the event it has a definite start point and we as observers are as it where joining in the event at some place in the future of that start point.and does our mind as an observer intereact with that start point some how interfering with the flow causing the wave function to collapse.

Cerveny wrote:

Blaggard wrote:@Cerveny well all that is idle speculation, but you are welcome to believe any ideas you like, pardon me if the scientist in me says, prove it or stfu. There's no such thing as empty space or a perfect vacuum, even if you tried to create one in a lab particles would spotaneously pop into existence to populate the void, which means wherever there is energy there is matter. The most perfect form of matter, is a philosophical term, which has no meaning in science. It's like saying something is beautiful science doesn't deal in subjective aesthetic ideals...

The "scientist" may want for me the "evidence" after he unifies QM with TR, after he measures the gravitational constant of matter/antimatter, after he explains what dark matter/energy is, after he removes the divergences/singularities from his model, after he explains the increasing of negentropy, after...
I am only seeking a logical model of the Universe ...
PS: The ideal crystal does not exists too and there is no one to deny theory of solids...

A god of the gaps argument, well I would expect better.

jackles wrote:well if we look at the situation as regards the event it has a definite start point and we as observers are as it where joining in the event at some place in the future of that start point.and does our mind as an observer intereact with that start point some how interfering with the flow causing the wave function to collapse.

The million dollar question.

Model, with whom I work, is able to give logical answers to most of today's problems of physics. And this is the reason why I like it :)
As for the "measurement" in QM, which is really unfortunate term - it is rather generally the "interaction / reaction / response / resonance" of system, it is something like a blowing the whistle - you can get a (discrete) answer - tone... If the blowing is stronger, you get the next harmonic ... Every interaction in QM "defines" the state of the system and creates / fixes new element to the history, Planck time layer ... As a response is not generally predictable so the "future" is not deterministic... God does not play the dice, he/she/they build it (;maybe he/she is distributed;)

well described cervny followed that.its like heisenburges principle controls and keeps everything in order.order cant observe order.

As you encourage me, I am to remind another extremely / inspiring view: Imagine, then, Universe as a cooling, growing, condensing 4D sphere, ie its surface is our "now" - 3D space. The inside is the history of the universe and the outside is (from our view) "not-causal", a timeless world, "the future", kingdom of ideas/God, (that had been here even before "tiny Bang"). Such surface may not be completely smooth - somewhere the time can run a little faster or slower. Then the "surface tension" ie tension in "membrane" of "now" is just the Energy. The energy, that maintains a more or less constant speed of the time. Any local time difference (the deformation of Universe surface) generates the "back pressure" that it is trying to smooth...

Just another note: I believe that the brain can both detect and generate appropriate time waves (and use it for communication and forecast...) The consciousness is just the feeling of it.

To raise imagination: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntQ7qGilqZE

put it this way uncertainty started with the big bang.or did it start with the first observer in the bang event.

an observer looking at the detector in the light experiment causes heisenbergs uncertainty because looking is not part of the nonlocal cause of the location.where as not looking is part of being part of the nonlocal cause just by being a part of general projected existance.so yes it could be said that not looking is subconsciouse where as looking brings in local consciousness to an otherwise nonlocal projection.

The thing is, Arising, Blaggard gave a good analogy of measurement. It involves ripples in a pond. You cannot detect anything without affecting it, it's yer basic Heisenberg. If you pass a wavefront through two slits, it will interfere. If you measure that wave at one or other slit, it will not emerge the same wave.

Arising_uk wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc

That's an interesting documentary Arising I watched it from start to finish, I do however have some contentions with the way he is interpreting the quantum erazer experiment, but the problem would be in trying to explain what they are to people who don't really understand the contentions themselves. EPR contradicted by Bells Theorem, and it would all get a little muddy trying to discuss it. So let me just say I advise you watch the video but I know there are contentions with the interpretations made on interpretations therein. If you remotely get why then you are where science is now. Suffice to say though he raises some very good points, but he loses the plot a little in the contentions he makes, 1) things are going faster than light, not a necessary conclusion, if they are entangled hence information if it it is correspondent needs to be faster than light. As the experiment Quantum erazor aptly demonstrates in fact the mesurement time, ie the time it takes for an observer to measure the information precludes ftl. And I could digress but this is probably all a little more than most people would understand. So I will just say, yes very good points, and you are missing some very good points. I am not saying Copenhagen is right but you are missing some more intrinsically important interpretation issues out when you make these a priori claims. What you wont be told is that this guy has no more idea what philosophical issue will resolve all the paradoxes, regardless of his claims. If he could do what he claims he'd of just won 5 Nobel prizes and a chufty badge. So we must remember he doesn't have a clue either. Pinch of salt.

I could suggest people look at Bells-Aspect and read from there, the trouble is if you never really got this video, that lab experiment is going to be mathematically incomprehensible too. But let me cut it short. Yes Copenhagen is a flawed interpretation, it is well known, it is only as flawed as all the others though. We take it as the leading interpretation for only one reason, and one reason alone, it is indistinguishable from all the others, and if you use any of the others all the same paradoxes appear in them that do in Copenhagen interpretation (CI) which is something you wont find mentioned on the interpretation blogs of most philosophers of science. We are hence in science as it regards the philosophy of collapse, does it, does it not, does it need to, we're just stuck. We just don't know how to resolve it. Feynman didn't say I don't understand quantum mechanics for a laugh to make everyone feel better. He didn't say shut up an calculate is my favourite interpretation just because it means you look at results not interpretation issues. He said it because he doesn't understand it, no one does. Let's not be polite about it we are out of our depth. So far out of our depth that it's not even funny. These interpretation issues are philosophical problems though. We know that the science works, we don't know how and why the system does what it does. The dirty little secret is not what QM doesn't tell you. It's that it fully admits the interpretation issues in philosophy are flawed, it however as science must do can only tell you what happens, not why or how as the theory now stands.

End of the day though it's nice to see scientists standing up and going wtf, this is not right. That probably doesn't go on much at university level education but just about everyone who persues a career is indeed saying wtf, that's just weird. Welcome to modern physics, we are all confused, get over it.

Don't you think it's a little more healthy though when someone like Feynman, a Nobel prize winner and oft touted foreman of quantum mechanics, stands up and honestly admits he doesn't understand it. Gotta be progress when the luminaries in the 20th and now the 21st century are all being honest about their lack of knowledge. 500 years ago some man in a dress was telling us absolutes because some other man in a dress said so. It's progress methinks.