Philosophy Now Forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7v5NtV8v6I
This lecture is from The Royal Institution. So it must be true, and all those Discovery Channel-like documentaries about the subject are all plain wrong.

----

A lot of people like to speak about the wierdness of quantum mechanics. Saying something like:

"Particles can instantanously affect each other over vast distances" (Entanglement)

or:

"A particle can behave as both a wave and a particle - simultanously".

None of those makes any sense.

Instead, the particle-wave duality is dependent on the way we measure it. If we measure it in some way A it will behave like a particle.
If we measure it like B it will behave like a wave.

The entanglement is neither particles affecting each other over vast distances or the same particle in different places at once;
Rather, it is a non-local system of information which consists of both these particles properties (spin up or down), and you cannot affect one and instantanously affect the other, rather you have this system sharing these values up and down for each particle. Each particle is local, but its properties - information - is linked in a system as a whole. If you measure it, it will give you either up or down (not both) at 50-50 chance for each spin property, so you cannot use it to send signals faster than light, due to the probabilistic nature.

Entanglement is simply put, information about properties of the entire system - as a whole - and when you measure one of the particles, you collapse the system into definite states.

This is the correct description of quantum mechanics.

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm Entanglement is simply put, information about properties of the entire system - as a whole - and when you measure one of the particles, you collapse the system into definite states.

If by 'definite' you mean a probability density function. Sure...

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm A lot of people like to speak about the wierdness of quantum mechanics. Saying something like:

"Particles can instantanously affect each other over vast distances" (Entanglement)

.../...

Entanglement is simply put, information about properties of the entire system - as a whole

This is the correct description of quantum mechanics.

It's interesting to watch our human language and concepts move between small-focus and larger-focus. From the small focus, things may appear to affect other things -- whereas from a larger focus, it's all humming and moving in collaboration. The smaller focus gives us the illusion of some sort of control? The larger focus reveals a state of BEING?

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm This is the correct description of quantum mechanics.

On the surface yes (a description of a part of QM), but the Nobel prize goes to the one who can explain/demsonstrate how and why that can possibly be so.

Beyond the nonsensical hand-wavings like "measure", "dependent", "behave", "collapse", "property", "information", "system", "local", "probabilistic", "definite" etc., what's really going on here?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:43 pm Beyond the nonsensical hand-wavings like "measure", "dependent", "behave", "collapse", "property", "information", "system", "local", "probabilistic", "definite" etc., what's really going on here?

So you want somebody to explain QM in terms of concepts you are more familiar with?

God forbid you had to develop new concepts and train your mind to think in new ways about reality in order to understand it.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:54 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:43 pm Beyond the nonsensical hand-wavings like "measure", "dependent", "behave", "collapse", "property", "information", "system", "local", "probabilistic", "definite" etc., what's really going on here?

So you want somebody to explain QM in terms of concepts you are more familiar with?

God forbid you had to develop new concepts and train your mind to think in new ways about reality in order to understand it.

As I said before, you have abso-fucking-lutely no idea about this topic, and what I'm commenting on. You are an idiot.

As for the video, I watched the first 14 minutes, the speaker doesn't even begin to understand the depth of idiocy of dismissing Feynman's idea and replacing it with his own quantum information non-explanation.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:04 pm As I said before, you have abso-fucking-lutely no idea about this topic, and what I'm commenting on. You are an idiot.

That's rich from somebody who thinks "measure", "dependent", "behave", "collapse", "property", "information", "system", "local", "probabilistic", "definite" is hand-waving.

I bet if you just tried just a little harder you will understand QM with an abacus.

The whole point of studying mind-bending mathematics in order to do physics is so that you can develop a mathematical/conceptual intuition which very few are born with.

And if you are one of them gifted ones, you would be simplifying our mathematics rather than insulting those who endure them.

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm A lot of people like to speak about the wierdness of quantum mechanics. Saying something like:

"Particles can instantanously affect each other over vast distances" (Entanglement)

or:

"A particle can behave as both a wave and a particle - simultanously".

None of those makes any sense.

It does make sense, it's very simple!

In less than 10 years I will explain the mystery and the whole world shall witness!

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7v5NtV8v6I
This lecture is from The Royal Institution. So it must be true, and all those Discovery Channel-like documentaries about the subject are all plain wrong.

----

A lot of people like to speak about the wierdness of quantum mechanics. Saying something like:

"Particles can instantanously affect each other over vast distances" (Entanglement)

or:

"A particle can behave as both a wave and a particle - simultanously".

None of those makes any sense.

Instead, the particle-wave duality is dependent on the way we measure it. If we measure it in some way A it will behave like a particle.
If we measure it like B it will behave like a wave.

The entanglement is neither particles affecting each other over vast distances or the same particle in different places at once;
Rather, it is a non-local system of information which consists of both these particles properties (spin up or down), and you cannot affect one and instantanously affect the other, rather you have this system sharing these values up and down for each particle. Each particle is local, but its properties - information - is linked in a system as a whole. If you measure it, it will give you either up or down (not both) at 50-50 chance for each spin property, so you cannot use it to send signals faster than light, due to the probabilistic nature.

Entanglement is simply put, information about properties of the entire system - as a whole - and when you measure one of the particles, you collapse the system into definite states.

This is the correct description of quantum mechanics.

Fallacy of Authority for both, the Royal Institution and Discovery Channels.

The "way" in which we measure it, is still subject to the same nature observed and we are left with a dualism between atomism and holism in observation. So the particle and the wave existing simultaneously at one time (I present an argument for this in the particle/wave dualism as "timezones within timezones" thread) still necessitates a common bond of linearism where the particle and the wave are effectively "linear space as time".

A. The particle as an individual entity is always premised in a linearism where it moves from point A to point B.

B. The wave as an extension from a point G to point H, is always relegated to existing as a line relative to a much larger or smaller wave.

C. The particle and the wave are the same through linear space.

D. Cycling back to point A, the particle exists as a wave between points A and point B as it observes multiple positions of the particle through a larger time frame. Time, effectively, exists as a process of expansion and contraction between states with this expansion and contraction necessitating it as fundamentally dualistic.

E. Cycling back to point B, a particle (existing as a wave in itself at the smaller level relative to time) necessitates all wave functions as existing between a Point X and Point Y effectively equating to one point as point Z where point Z, as a particle (with all particles relativistically existing as point space in themselves relative to a larger phenomenona), projects from one point to another in linear time.

F. The particle exists as a wave and the wave exists as a particle, both through linear space as the progression of time while simultaneously existing a ratios of each other because of this very same nature where each is a ratio of the other, a line within a line, due to this nature of linear time itself.


So a particle functioning in the same manner as another particle "x" distance away, may show the properties of a field where the particles are a localization of a field, but this does not change the fact multiple fields are observed and we are left with a dualism between the particle and wave again with the multiple fields effectively acting as particles, or "parts of", relative to each other. So even the logic of the above, relative to the physicists presentation, is not entirely stable.


If the fundamental nature of QM is "measurement", then by default we are left with its roots being derived in a system of logic rooted in contradiction at the aristotelian level. The root problem of physics is one of measurement, and while physics may help give definition and expansion to this problem it will always be limited to a form of probabilism as its foundation.

Weird is seeing it spelt 'wierd'.

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7v5NtV8v6I
This lecture is from The Royal Institution. So it must be true, and all those Discovery Channel-like documentaries about the subject are all plain wrong.

----

A lot of people like to speak about the wierdness of quantum mechanics. Saying something like:

"Particles can instantanously affect each other over vast distances" (Entanglement)

or:

"A particle can behave as both a wave and a particle - simultanously".

None of those makes any sense.

Instead, the particle-wave duality is dependent on the way we measure it. If we measure it in some way A it will behave like a particle.
If we measure it like B it will behave like a wave.

The entanglement is neither particles affecting each other over vast distances or the same particle in different places at once;
Rather, it is a non-local system of information which consists of both these particles properties (spin up or down), and you cannot affect one and instantanously affect the other, rather you have this system sharing these values up and down for each particle. Each particle is local, but its properties - information - is linked in a system as a whole. If you measure it, it will give you either up or down (not both) at 50-50 chance for each spin property, so you cannot use it to send signals faster than light, due to the probabilistic nature.

Entanglement is simply put, information about properties of the entire system - as a whole - and when you measure one of the particles, you collapse the system into definite states.

This is the correct description of quantum mechanics.

GM nor Relativity (they contadict in most ways) is the "Right" picture.

why, because we lack understaning of a Unified Theory............80 yrs and counting.

get back to me when "we" revise Math/understanding about what is happening inside Event Horizons.

1-10-100 (or never) centuries hence.