Is the MJ Car Bonnet image a miracle ...
First Prev
of 17
Next Last

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#325 Mar 18, 2012
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
The probability wave is the electron's probability wave and it is both places. You are very inconsistent in your thinking; at one point you agreed with the article I linked which says the probability waves are real and this gives rise to the many-world hypotheses. Now you are talking like the probability wave is not real but some phantom, mathematical abstract, or spirit. So, is the probability wave real or not? Whether the wavefunction is real or not the electron is said to be in two places until it is observed; a position held by leading physicists.
The probability wave is real. When have I said anyrhing different? It determins the probabiliy of detecting an electron at a detectr. It is sloppy use of language to say that the electron is on both places: no measurement detects an elecron in both places. What *is* detected in the interference of the probabiliy wave.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#326 Mar 18, 2012
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
The probability wave is the electron's probability wave and it is both places. You are very inconsistent in your thinking; at one point you agreed with the article I linked which says the probability waves are real and this gives rise to the many-world hypotheses. Now you are talking like the probability wave is not real but some phantom, mathematical abstract, or spirit. So, is the probability wave real or not? Whether the wavefunction is real or not the electron is said to be in two places until it is observed; a position held by leading physicists.
Peraps I should clarify what happens in he bomb detector.

Le's assume, for the sake of specificiy, that 20% of bombs are usable.

Clasically, 50% of the photons go the path away from the bomb. half of these set off detector A and half set off detector B. The other 50% of the photons go past the bomb. Now, 20% of thiese will have a usable bomb, which will explode leaving nothing at the detector The other 80% will have duds, and the photon will trigger A half the time and B half the time.

The result: clasically,, 25+30=45% of the time, A will be triggered. Similarly, 45% of the time, B will trigger. In both cases, there will be no explosion. Finally, 10% of the time (half of 30%) the bomb will explode and no detector will be triggered.

In QM, A will *always* be triggered when there is a dud (80% of the time). If there is a usable bomb, there is no constructive interference so A will trigger half the time, and B half the time. So A triggers 90% of the time and B triggers 10%. Whenver B triggers, there is a usable bomb that did not explode. Of the 90% of the time that A triggers, 10% will also have an explosion from a bomb.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#327 Mar 19, 2012
Where there are 30's, read 20's above.
Paul WV

United States

#328 Mar 19, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The probability wave is real. When have I said anyrhing different? It determins the probabiliy of detecting an electron at a detectr. It is sloppy use of language to say that the electron is on both places: no measurement detects an elecron in both places. What *is* detected in the interference of the probabiliy wave.
So are you not in agreement with the Copenhagen Interpretation which holds the wave function is not real?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#329 Mar 19, 2012
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
So are you not in agreement with the Copenhagen Interpretation which holds the wave function is not real?
The Copenhagen Interpretation holds that to talk about *anything* other than measured results should be avoided. So, an electron is not 'real' in the Copenhagen Interpretation until and unless it is measured. I do not go so far.

So, once again, the wave function is as real as *anything* at the quantum level. In the way that I use the term 'real', both electrons and wave functions are real. My definition differs from that of the Copenhagen interpretation in that I allow things to be real even if not directly measured as long as they have measurable effects. At this point, it is a matter of semantics, which is why I asked you for *your* definition of the term 'real'.
Paul WV

United States

#330 Mar 19, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Copenhagen Interpretation holds that to talk about *anything* other than measured results should be avoided. So, an electron is not 'real' in the Copenhagen Interpretation until and unless it is measured. I do not go so far.
So, once again, the wave function is as real as *anything* at the quantum level. In the way that I use the term 'real', both electrons and wave functions are real. My definition differs from that of the Copenhagen interpretation in that I allow things to be real even if not directly measured as long as they have measurable effects. At this point, it is a matter of semantics, which is why I asked you for *your* definition of the term 'real'.
I would use real in the same sense the Copenhagen Interpretation does.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#331 Mar 19, 2012
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
I would use real in the same sense the Copenhagen Interpretation does.
So then an electron isn't real unless it is being measured? In which case the electron *isn't* in both boxes since it is meaningless to say where it is at all unless there is a specific measurement for its position. That is consistent, but leads to the question of how so many un-real things can produce something real like a chair.
Paul WV

Beckley, WV

#332 Mar 19, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
So then an electron isn't real unless it is being measured? In which case the electron *isn't* in both boxes since it is meaningless to say where it is at all unless there is a specific measurement for its position. That is consistent, but leads to the question of how so many un-real things can produce something real like a chair.
So you "are" saying the electron is in two places until it is observed.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#333 Mar 19, 2012
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
So you "are" saying the electron is in two places until it is observed.
No. I am saying that it has no definite position: it only has probabilities of being in various positions. These probabilities are given by the wave function.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#334 Mar 19, 2012
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
So you "are" saying the electron is in two places until it is observed.
*YOU* are the one that claimed it was in both boxes, not me. The wave function is in both boxes and there is a probability for the electron to be in both boxes, but the position is not determined.
Paul WV

Beckley, WV

#335 Mar 19, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
*YOU* are the one that claimed it was in both boxes, not me. The wave function is in both boxes and there is a probability for the electron to be in both boxes, but the position is not determined.
Now that we agree the wave function is "real" we can throw out the Copenhagen Interpretation and go from there. Now you lean towards the many-world hypotheses and I lean more towards a conscious observer creates reality hypotheses. Where there is experimental evidence giving my position an edge over your position there is none for yours.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#336 Mar 20, 2012
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that we agree the wave function is "real" we can throw out the Copenhagen Interpretation and go from there. Now you lean towards the many-world hypotheses and I lean more towards a conscious observer creates reality hypotheses. Where there is experimental evidence giving my position an edge over your position there is none for yours.
I gave an example above with the bomb detector. Consciousness has nothing to do with the end results; only the presence of something interacting with the probability wave. Also, all the work on quantum coherence, which is used in making quantum computers (such as we have so far). Again, consciousness is not the determining variable, but interaction with a complex enough environment (in a way that the interaction can't be 'undone').

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#337 Mar 20, 2012
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that we agree the wave function is "real" we can throw out the Copenhagen Interpretation and go from there. Now you lean towards the many-world hypotheses and I lean more towards a conscious observer creates reality hypotheses. Where there is experimental evidence giving my position an edge over your position there is none for yours.
Care to give the experimental evidence for your position? Be specific.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#338 Mar 25, 2012
.... cricket... cricket....

... the silence from the godbot crowd is deafening.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#339 May 17, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations?
Hey what have you been up to?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 17
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 6 min Thinking 348
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 8 min Thinking 551
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 54 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 10,351
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 1 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 445
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 20,298
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 9 hr ChristineM 21,405
News A Strong Muslim Identity Is the Best Defense Ag... 10 hr naman 10
More from around the web