|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 26, 2018 12:01:43 GMT -5
First paragraph. Without saying specifically, Carroll is probably addressing all the "What the bleep do we know"? Depoke Chopra -Amit Goswami quantum consciousness nonsense. This all came from John von Neumann and Wigner who posed that consciousness is what collapses the wave function. Then the ~belief~ that the classical world does not exist apart from a conscious observer came from that. (Einstein asked the incredulous question, Do! You! Mean! to! Say! The! Moon! Doesn't! Exist! If! I! Am! Not! Looking! At! It!? (David Peat wrote a very good book on entanglement called Einstein's Moon). Carroll is just saying we are past that kind of nonsense. He is basically saying this universe has been around 13.8 billion years without conscious observers being necessary. He also says specifically an instrument, for example a camera, acts just as well as a conscious observer, to collapse the wave function. I can't quote the whole book, Carroll is very sensible. The Schrodinger wave equation. First of all, it was later shown that the Schrodinger equation and Heisenberg's matrix mechanics are equivalent. Carroll and the What Is Real ? book both say the Schrodinger equation shows the world moves along deterministically, as long as there is no measurement. What the Schrodinger equation shows, for example, is the probability of where you will find an electron, if you collapse the wave function via a measurement. I don't see any contradiction, but like I said previously, I didn't know the Schrodinger wave equation, itself, was 'operated' deterministically. The ~movement~ from quantum to classical, via measurement, understanding that, is everything, I agree. First of all, to say that Schrodinger's equation is deterministic is more wishful thinking, it's just word magic. The distinction that matters is that quantum events are ultimately, in Carrol's words, "random". This is as distinct from a clockwork that could be predicted -- in it's entirety -- from initial conditions and natural laws the way that Einstein, and before him, Laplace, envisioned the Universe. Currently, the vogue in the popular literature is to make no distinction between "random" and "stochastic", but, strictly and technically speaking, a "random" process is one with a uniform probability distribution (a constant). White noise, for instance. Event's aren't random, they are predictable, but the prediction is of tendencies, not specific events. You can say that the electron is most likely to be close to the point that's a straight line from the aperture, but you can't say exactly where, and you can't say that the uncertainty is due entirely to a physical process. We can answer the question of what was around to observe the creation of the Universe, with "the Universe". That works, sure. But it's wishful thinking to declare that "the Universe" is a physical machine, that can be described entirely in physical terms. The mystery remains, and some people can still get confused by thinking of consciousness in either entirely personal, or, entirely impersonal terms. The old debate was never resolved, which is why Schrodinger's cat still makes a great koan. And matrix mechanics only simplifies to Schrodinger's equation in one particular, special case. If I was up on the math I could explain in detail what that means. Right now, I'm not, but I'd hate to refrain from disabusing you of the notion that it's otherwise. www.quora.com/Is-the-Schr%C3%B6dinger-equation-deterministicphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/130007/is-the-mechanics-of-the-wave-function-in-the-quantum-mechanics-deterministicThis video states it very clearly in the first minute.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 26, 2018 18:25:15 GMT -5
First of all, to say that Schrodinger's equation is deterministic is more wishful thinking, it's just word magic. The distinction that matters is that quantum events are ultimately, in Carrol's words, "random". This is as distinct from a clockwork that could be predicted -- in it's entirety -- from initial conditions and natural laws the way that Einstein, and before him, Laplace, envisioned the Universe. Currently, the vogue in the popular literature is to make no distinction between "random" and "stochastic", but, strictly and technically speaking, a "random" process is one with a uniform probability distribution (a constant). White noise, for instance. Event's aren't random, they are predictable, but the prediction is of tendencies, not specific events. You can say that the electron is most likely to be close to the point that's a straight line from the aperture, but you can't say exactly where, and you can't say that the uncertainty is due entirely to a physical process. We can answer the question of what was around to observe the creation of the Universe, with "the Universe". That works, sure. But it's wishful thinking to declare that "the Universe" is a physical machine, that can be described entirely in physical terms. The mystery remains, and some people can still get confused by thinking of consciousness in either entirely personal, or, entirely impersonal terms. The old debate was never resolved, which is why Schrodinger's cat still makes a great koan. And matrix mechanics only simplifies to Schrodinger's equation in one particular, special case. If I was up on the math I could explain in detail what that means. Right now, I'm not, but I'd hate to refrain from disabusing you of the notion that it's otherwise. www.quora.com/Is-the-Schr%C3%B6dinger-equation-deterministicphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/130007/is-the-mechanics-of-the-wave-function-in-the-quantum-mechanics-deterministicThis video states it very clearly in the first minute. Right, it's wishful thinking word magic. From wiki: "a deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state." Schrodinger's equation specifies a probability distribution, so the state of the system it describes varies over time in such a way that that it's state can't be determined strictly by initial conditions and a set of rules. The very probabilities the equation generates are a statement of .. "well, the quantum thingy might be here, or, it could be over there... ". If it were deterministic, the equation would definitively determine the quantity it was specifying. It most certainly (** cough cough **) .. doesn't. Dude, all these peeps you favor have in common that they want to re-establish conceptual material realism. In this case, their efforts clearly carry the scent of desperation. Don't let their credentials dazzle you.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 27, 2018 11:15:35 GMT -5
Right, it's wishful thinking word magic. From wiki: "a deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state." Schrodinger's equation specifies a probability distribution, so the state of the system it describes varies over time in such a way that that it's state can't be determined strictly by initial conditions and a set of rules. The very probabilities the equation generates are a statement of .. "well, the quantum thingy might be here, or, it could be over there... ". If it were deterministic, the equation would definitively determine the quantity it was specifying. It most certainly (** cough cough **) .. doesn't. Dude, all these peeps you favor have in common that they want to re-establish conceptual material realism. In this case, their efforts clearly carry the scent of desperation. Don't let their credentials dazzle you. The Schrodonger equation is where the classical world and the quantum world meet. All things have a Schrodinger wave, and it's always changing. The present state determines what follows, and then that-present state detrrmines what follows. That's how the classical world works. Yes, the Schrodinger equation gives probabilities concerning the quantum world. Everything moves along smoothly, until you decide to do a measurement. The measurement ends the Schrodinger wave, this is the collapse of the wave function, IOW, no more Schrodinger wave. You have left the deterministic world and entered the quantum domain. Depending on the experiment you do, the measurement you make, you *locate* a quantum aspect, you take a snapshot. This is like a photo finish. In *real time* (the Schrodinger wave) you can't tell which horse won the race, so you do a quantum experiment, you take a photo. This gives a definite location of the horses noses (collapsing the wave function), but in the quantum world this simultaneously is the end of the Schrodinger wave. You have to begin again, new Schrodinger equation. IOW, the Schrodinger equation doesn't tell us about the quantum world, it gives a play by play of the horserace in the classical world, deterministically (it's a gradual unfolding, in the classical world one horse doesn't jump ahead in the blink of an eye and take the lead, no quantum horse jumping). The Schrodinger equation gives the probability of which horse won the race, which nose is ahead, a measurement/snapshot collapses the probability to an actuality.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 27, 2018 21:43:18 GMT -5
Right, it's wishful thinking word magic. From wiki: "a deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state." Schrodinger's equation specifies a probability distribution, so the state of the system it describes varies over time in such a way that that it's state can't be determined strictly by initial conditions and a set of rules. The very probabilities the equation generates are a statement of .. "well, the quantum thingy might be here, or, it could be over there... ". If it were deterministic, the equation would definitively determine the quantity it was specifying. It most certainly (** cough cough **) .. doesn't. Dude, all these peeps you favor have in common that they want to re-establish conceptual material realism. In this case, their efforts clearly carry the scent of desperation. Don't let their credentials dazzle you. The Schrodonger equation is where the classical world and the quantum world meet. All things have a Schrodinger wave, and it's always changing. The present state determines what follows, and then that-present state detrrmines what follows. That's how the classical world works. Yes, the Schrodinger equation gives probabilities concerning the quantum world. Everything moves along smoothly, until you decide to do a measurement. The measurement ends the Schrodinger wave, this is the collapse of the wave function, IOW, no more Schrodinger wave. You have left the deterministic world and entered the quantum domain. Depending on the experiment you do, the measurement you make, you *locate* a quantum aspect, you take a snapshot. This is like a photo finish. In *real time* (the Schrodinger wave) you can't tell which horse won the race, so you do a quantum experiment, you take a photo. This gives a definite location of the horses noses (collapsing the wave function), but in the quantum world this simultaneously is the end of the Schrodinger wave. You have to begin again, new Schrodinger equation. IOW, the Schrodinger equation doesn't tell us about the quantum world, it gives a play by play of the horserace in the classical world, deterministically (it's a gradual unfolding, in the classical world one horse doesn't jump ahead in the blink of an eye and take the lead, no quantum horse jumping). The Schrodinger equation gives the probability of which horse won the race, which nose is ahead, a measurement/snapshot collapses the probability to an actuality. Of course the equation is about the "quantum world". The probabilities it generates are the very essence of it. That the equation determines those probabilities is the wishful-thinking-word-magic. The reality the equation models, is not deterministic, it's stochastic.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 28, 2018 12:38:48 GMT -5
The Schrodonger equation is where the classical world and the quantum world meet. All things have a Schrodinger wave, and it's always changing. The present state determines what follows, and then that-present state detrrmines what follows. That's how the classical world works. Yes, the Schrodinger equation gives probabilities concerning the quantum world. Everything moves along smoothly, until you decide to do a measurement. The measurement ends the Schrodinger wave, this is the collapse of the wave function, IOW, no more Schrodinger wave. You have left the deterministic world and entered the quantum domain. Depending on the experiment you do, the measurement you make, you *locate* a quantum aspect, you take a snapshot. This is like a photo finish. In *real time* (the Schrodinger wave) you can't tell which horse won the race, so you do a quantum experiment, you take a photo. This gives a definite location of the horses noses (collapsing the wave function), but in the quantum world this simultaneously is the end of the Schrodinger wave. You have to begin again, new Schrodinger equation. IOW, the Schrodinger equation doesn't tell us about the quantum world, it gives a play by play of the horserace in the classical world, deterministically (it's a gradual unfolding, in the classical world one horse doesn't jump ahead in the blink of an eye and take the lead, no quantum horse jumping). The Schrodinger equation gives the probability of which horse won the race, which nose is ahead, a measurement/snapshot collapses the probability to an actuality. Of course the equation is about the "quantum world". The probabilities it generates are the very essence of it. That the equation determines those probabilities is the wishful-thinking-word-magic. The reality the equation models, is not deterministic, it's stochastic. I will go back and read it again, but if I said the equation determines the probabilities (that's obviously an oxymoron) then of course that's wrong. None of the people quoted said that. I found another quote by David Z Albert...shortly. Edit: read it again. It didn't say or imply what you said I said. I will keep giving quotes until you say uncle. (But this is an interesting case of the prejudice of self distorting...).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 28, 2018 14:30:32 GMT -5
Right, it's wishful thinking word magic. From wiki: "a deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state." Schrodinger's equation specifies a probability distribution, so the state of the system it describes varies over time in such a way that that it's state can't be determined strictly by initial conditions and a set of rules. The very probabilities the equation generates are a statement of .. "well, the quantum thingy might be here, or, it could be over there... ". If it were deterministic, the equation would definitively determine the quantity it was specifying. It most certainly (** cough cough **) .. doesn't. Dude, all these peeps you favor have in common that they want to re-establish conceptual material realism. In this case, their efforts clearly carry the scent of desperation. Don't let their credentials dazzle you. (C) Dynamics. Given the state of any physical system at any "initial" time (given, that is, the vector which represents the state of that system at that time), and given the forces and constraints to which that system is subject, there is a prescription whereby the state of that system at any later time (that is, the vector at any later time) can, in principle, be calculated. There is, in other words, a dynamics of the state vector; there are deterministic laws about how the state vector of any given system, subject to given forces and constraints, changes with time. Those laws are generally cast in the form of an equation of motion, and the name of that equation, for nonrelativistic systems, is the Schrodinger equation". pgs 33, 34 Quantum Mechanics and Experience by David Z Albert, 1992, Harvard University Press
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 28, 2018 19:25:15 GMT -5
Of course the equation is about the "quantum world". The probabilities it generates are the very essence of it. That the equation determines those probabilities is the wishful-thinking-word-magic. The reality the equation models, is not deterministic, it's stochastic. I will go back and read it again, but if I said the equation determines the probabilities (that's obviously an oxymoron) then of course that's wrong. None of the people quoted said that. I found another quote by David Z Albert...shortly. Edit: read it again. It didn't say or imply what you said I said. I will keep giving quotes until you say uncle. (But this is an interesting case of the prejudice of self distorting...). That's exactly what they're saying, although you don't want to see it. Yes or no: is the output of the Schrodinger's equation a set of probabilities? This is a simple truth: the Schrodinger equation determines the probability of each of the possible states of the system it models. The quantum system is constrained by its quantum nature, and that much is predictable. For example, if the system is a bound electron, the position can't be arbitrary, but is, instead, constrained by the energy level the electron is in relative to the atom that binds it. Also, the probabilities can, and are, determined (as in, calculated) by the equation. However, the Albert quote makes it sound as though the quantum equations of motion are as deterministic as the Newtonian equations of motion, but this is precisely the deceptive wishful-thinking word magic in question. What is Albert referring to -- exactly -- by his words "the state of that system at any later time"? The state calculated by the Schrodinger equation isn't a physical state that you can perceive, it is a description of the likelihood of finding the system in one of the many possible physical states you might be able to perceive it in should you make an observation. Don't be dazzled by their credentials. Other people who understand the math as well as they do are the mainstream, and they explain it all very clearly. From the Schrodinger Equation wiki: In classical mechanics, a particle has, at every moment, an exact position and an exact momentum. These values change deterministically as the particle moves according to Newton's laws. Under the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, particles do not have exactly determined properties, and when they are measured, the result is randomly drawn from a probability distribution. The Schrödinger equation predicts what the probability distributions are, but fundamentally cannot predict the exact result of each measurement. This is the accepted meaning of the word "deterministic" in the physical science of mechanics. These peeps that want to pretend that the current state of that science doesn't describe a stochastic "quantum reality" are running a wishful-thinking word-magic game on you. Quantum states are not deterministic, they are stochastic. You can tell this because they are described in terms of probabilities of sets of physical states, rather than in terms of a single, physical state.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 29, 2018 8:20:35 GMT -5
I will go back and read it again, but if I said the equation determines the probabilities (that's obviously an oxymoron) then of course that's wrong. None of the people quoted said that. I found another quote by David Z Albert...shortly. Edit: read it again. It didn't say or imply what you said I said. I will keep giving quotes until you say uncle. (But this is an interesting case of the prejudice of self distorting...). That's exactly what they're saying, although you don't want to see it. Yes or no: is the output of the Schrodinger's equation a set of probabilities? This is a simple truth: the Schrodinger equation determines the probability of each of the possible states of the system it models. The quantum system is constrained by its quantum nature, and that much is predictable. For example, if the system is a bound electron, the position can't be arbitrary, but is, instead, constrained by the energy level the electron is in relative to the atom that binds it. Also, the probabilities can, and are, determined (as in, calculated) by the equation. However, the Albert quote makes it sound as though the quantum equations of motion are as deterministic as the Newtonian equations of motion, but this is precisely the deceptive wishful-thinking word magic in question. What is Albert referring to -- exactly -- by his words "the state of that system at any later time"? The state calculated by the Schrodinger equation isn't a physical state that you can perceive, it is a description of the likelihood of finding the system in one of the many possible physical states you might be able to perceive it in should you make an observation. Don't be dazzled by their credentials. Other people who understand the math as well as they do are the mainstream, and they explain it all very clearly. From the Schrodinger Equation wiki: In classical mechanics, a particle has, at every moment, an exact position and an exact momentum. These values change deterministically as the particle moves according to Newton's laws. Under the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, particles do not have exactly determined properties, and when they are measured, the result is randomly drawn from a probability distribution. The Schrödinger equation predicts what the probability distributions are, but fundamentally cannot predict the exact result of each measurement. This is the accepted meaning of the word "deterministic" in the physical science of mechanics. These peeps that want to pretend that the current state of that science doesn't describe a stochastic "quantum reality" are running a wishful-thinking word-magic game on you. Quantum states are not deterministic, they are stochastic. You can tell this because they are described in terms of probabilities of sets of physical states, rather than in terms of a single, physical state. I do not disagree with your last paragraph, never have (that's the first thing you learn studying QM). None of the guys I quoted disagree with your last paragraph. You don't understand what I've been saying (I can only guess you have not read the quotes in full). The Schrodinger equation is doing double duty. It gives the "evolving" deterministic state of whatever it represents, classically (it does what your second underlining In your wiki quote says, and, see the last video), and when and only when a MEASUREMENT is made, it gives the probability, quantumly. Edit: This link should be more helpful concerning Carroll's and the What Is Real? guy's point, the initial question sets it out (How can a system be both deterministic and non deterministic at the same time?). Specifically answered at 27, 8 and 6. (Again, the key factor in making a dividing line [between what's deterministic and what's not] is making a measurement. physics.stackexchange.com/questions/400162/what-exactly-is-deterministic-in-schr%C3%B6dingers-equation
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 29, 2018 13:03:29 GMT -5
That's exactly what they're saying, although you don't want to see it. Yes or no: is the output of the Schrodinger's equation a set of probabilities? This is a simple truth: the Schrodinger equation determines the probability of each of the possible states of the system it models. The quantum system is constrained by its quantum nature, and that much is predictable. For example, if the system is a bound electron, the position can't be arbitrary, but is, instead, constrained by the energy level the electron is in relative to the atom that binds it. Also, the probabilities can, and are, determined (as in, calculated) by the equation. However, the Albert quote makes it sound as though the quantum equations of motion are as deterministic as the Newtonian equations of motion, but this is precisely the deceptive wishful-thinking word magic in question. What is Albert referring to -- exactly -- by his words "the state of that system at any later time"? The state calculated by the Schrodinger equation isn't a physical state that you can perceive, it is a description of the likelihood of finding the system in one of the many possible physical states you might be able to perceive it in should you make an observation. Don't be dazzled by their credentials. Other people who understand the math as well as they do are the mainstream, and they explain it all very clearly. From the Schrodinger Equation wiki: This is the accepted meaning of the word "deterministic" in the physical science of mechanics. These peeps that want to pretend that the current state of that science doesn't describe a stochastic "quantum reality" are running a wishful-thinking word-magic game on you. Quantum states are not deterministic, they are stochastic. You can tell this because they are described in terms of probabilities of sets of physical states, rather than in terms of a single, physical state. I do not disagree with your last paragraph, never have (that's the first thing you learn studying QM). None of the guys I quoted disagree with your last paragraph. You don't understand what I've been saying (I can only guess you have not read the quotes in full). The Schrodinger equation is doing double duty. It gives the "evolving" deterministic state of whatever it represents, classically (it does what your second underlining In your wiki quote says, and, see the last video), and when and only when a MEASUREMENT is made, it gives the probability, quantumly. Edit: This link should be more helpful concerning Carroll's and the What Is Real? guy's point, the initial question sets it out (How can a system be both deterministic and non deterministic at the same time?). Specifically answered at 27, 8 and 6. (Again, the key factor in making a dividing line [between what's deterministic and what's not] is making a measurement. physics.stackexchange.com/questions/400162/what-exactly-is-deterministic-in-schr%C3%B6dingers-equation Incorrect, once the measurement is made the probabilities of the other possibilities are precluded. Is the state described by the equation a classical system, or, instead, a superposition of possible classical systems? To describe that state as "deterministic" is just plain silly. I understand the math and the physics just fine, thanks. Our disagreement is over the linguistics and the underlying metaphysics. If you agree that quantum states are stochastic rather than deterministic, but then also say that an equation that describes quantum states is deterministic, you've contradicted yourself.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 29, 2018 14:43:32 GMT -5
I do not disagree with your last paragraph, never have (that's the first thing you learn studying QM). None of the guys I quoted disagree with your last paragraph. You don't understand what I've been saying (I can only guess you have not read the quotes in full). The Schrodinger equation is doing double duty. It gives the "evolving" deterministic state of whatever it represents, classically (it does what your second underlining In your wiki quote says, and, see the last video), and when and only when a MEASUREMENT is made, it gives the probability, quantumly. Edit: This link should be more helpful concerning Carroll's and the What Is Real? guy's point, the initial question sets it out (How can a system be both deterministic and non deterministic at the same time?). Specifically answered at 27, 8 and 6. (Again, the key factor in making a dividing line [between what's deterministic and what's not] is making a measurement. physics.stackexchange.com/questions/400162/what-exactly-is-deterministic-in-schr%C3%B6dingers-equation Incorrect, once the measurement is made the probabilities of the other possibilities are precluded. Is the state described by the equation a classical system, or, instead, a superposition of possible classical systems? To describe that state as "deterministic" is just plain silly. I understand the math and the physics just fine, thanks. Our disagreement is over the linguistics and the underlying metaphysics. If you agree that quantum states are stochastic rather than deterministic, but then also say that an equation that describes quantum states is deterministic, you've contradicted yourself. I've never said that (my horse race analogy was a little sloppy). All I've been saying over and over is what Becker said in What Is Real? the second post page 1. I've given several quotes to support that. I'll give the blurbs supporting the book, your argument is with all of them.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 29, 2018 15:42:24 GMT -5
Incorrect, once the measurement is made the probabilities of the other possibilities are precluded. Is the state described by the equation a classical system, or, instead, a superposition of possible classical systems? To describe that state as "deterministic" is just plain silly. I understand the math and the physics just fine, thanks. Our disagreement is over the linguistics and the underlying metaphysics. If you agree that quantum states are stochastic rather than deterministic, but then also say that an equation that describes quantum states is deterministic, you've contradicted yourself. I've never said that (my horse race analogy was a little sloppy). All I've been saying over and over is what Becker said in What Is Real? the second post page 1. I've given several quotes to support that. I'll give the blurbs supporting the book, your argument is with all of them. The point currently at issue is, and has been, since five days ago here: What is the rationale for referring to Schrodinger's equation as deterministic when it's explicitly defined in terms of a probability function? ... whether or not Schrodinger's equation is deterministic. Yes, I understand who my disagreement is with, and who my agreement is with. I think all of these authorities you've quoted referring to Schrodinger's equation as deterministic, are wrong. If you're now saying that Schrodinger's equation isn't deterministic, then, fine, we agree.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 29, 2018 17:41:35 GMT -5
I've never said that (my horse race analogy was a little sloppy). All I've been saying over and over is what Becker said in What Is Real? the second post page 1. I've given several quotes to support that. I'll give the blurbs supporting the book, your argument is with all of them. The point currently at issue is, and has been, since five days ago here: What is the rationale for referring to Schrodinger's equation as deterministic when it's explicitly defined in terms of a probability function? ... whether or not Schrodinger's equation is deterministic. Yes, I understand who my disagreement is with, and who my agreement is with. I think all of these authorities you've quoted referring to Schrodinger's equation as deterministic, are wrong. If you're now saying that Schrodinger's equation isn't deterministic, then, fine, we agree. I'm not taking back what I said (which I have been unable to get across to you).. Let me ask another question, then are you saying the Schrodinger equation has nothing to do with the classical world? (the deterministic world). Carroll makes the point I've been trying to show you. "Quantum mechanics, at least the way we teach it to physics majors taking their first college courses in the subject, says there are two completely different ways that the state of a system evolves over time. One kind of evolution happens when we're not observing the system. Then there's an equation that the wave function obeys-the Schrodinger equation. [Carroll gives the equation in its most simple form]. It's quite beautiful in its way. The symbol ___ represents the quantum state. The left-hand side of the equation asks "How is the state cganging over time?" The right-hand side provides the answer, by doing a certain operation on the state itself. It's parallel to Newton's famous "force equals mass times acceleration," in which forces determine how the system changes through time. Evolution according to the Schrodinger equation is very much like the evolution of a state in classical mechanics. It is smooth, reversible, and completely deterministic. If that were all we had to the story, quantum mechanics wouldn't be a problem. But there is also an entirely different way the quantum state can evolve, according to the textbook treatment: namely, when it is observed. ...The collapse is sudden, and the evolution is nondeterministic-knowing what the state was before, you can't perfectly predict what the state will be afterward. All you have are probalities". pgs 164, 165 The Big Picture, Sean Carroll, 2016 The latter case is what we agree upon. The first case is what I've not been able to get across to you, which I didn't know about (or recognize) until reading What Is Real? "TWO completely different ways", the whole point, the operative phrase (concerning our conversation). The other guys I've been quoting are not wrong.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 29, 2018 20:36:56 GMT -5
The point currently at issue is, and has been, since five days ago here: ... whether or not Schrodinger's equation is deterministic. Yes, I understand who my disagreement is with, and who my agreement is with. I think all of these authorities you've quoted referring to Schrodinger's equation as deterministic, are wrong. If you're now saying that Schrodinger's equation isn't deterministic, then, fine, we agree. I'm not taking back what I said In that case then, the comment about self-contradiction on your part stands as it was written. (which I have been unable to get across to you).. Let me ask another question, then are you saying the Schrodinger equation has nothing to do with the classical world? (the deterministic world). Carroll makes the point I've been trying to show you. "Quantum mechanics, at least the way we teach it to physics majors taking their first college courses in the subject, says there are two completely different ways that the state of a system evolves over time. One kind of evolution happens when we're not observing the system. Then there's an equation that the wave function obeys-the Schrodinger equation. [Carroll gives the equation in its most simple form]. It's quite beautiful in its way. The symbol ___ represents the quantum state. The left-hand side of the equation asks "How is the state cganging over time?" The right-hand side provides the answer, by doing a certain operation on the state itself. It's parallel to Newton's famous "force equals mass times acceleration," in which forces determine how the system changes through time. Evolution according to the Schrodinger equation is very much like the evolution of a state in classical mechanics. It is smooth, reversible, and completely deterministic. If that were all we had to the story, quantum mechanics wouldn't be a problem. But there is also an entirely different way the quantum state can evolve, according to the textbook treatment: namely, when it is observed. ...The collapse is sudden, and the evolution is nondeterministic-knowing what the state was before, you can't perfectly predict what the state will be afterward. All you have are probalities". pgs 164, 165 The Big Picture, Sean Carroll, 2016 The latter case is what we agree upon. The first case is what I've not been able to get across to you, which I didn't know about (or recognize) until reading What Is Real? "TWO completely different ways", the whole point, the operative phrase (concerning our conversation). The other guys I've been quoting are not wrong. Kindly disabuse yourself of the fallacy that you have anything to teach here. You're characterizing a metaphysical disagreement as an inability to understand on the part of the person who doesn't agree with you. I could, in turn, characterize that in many different ways, but I'll refrain, for the sake of polity. "Reversible"? Seriously? wowThe point is that the evolution over time described by the Schrodinger equation isn't something you ever directly perceive, it's just a mathematical construct. The system models effects that can be precisely specified over time, but it does so in terms of probabilities. To call an equation that generates probabilities "deterministic" is just plain foolish. The mechanics of quantum objects is stochastic. Einstein was wrong. Get over it.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2018 11:02:12 GMT -5
I'm not taking back what I said In that case then, the comment about self-contradiction on your part stands as it was written. (which I have been unable to get across to you).. Let me ask another question, then are you saying the Schrodinger equation has nothing to do with the classical world? (the deterministic world). Carroll makes the point I've been trying to show you. "Quantum mechanics, at least the way we teach it to physics majors taking their first college courses in the subject, says there are two completely different ways that the state of a system evolves over time. One kind of evolution happens when we're not observing the system. Then there's an equation that the wave function obeys-the Schrodinger equation. [Carroll gives the equation in its most simple form]. It's quite beautiful in its way. The symbol ___ represents the quantum state. The left-hand side of the equation asks "How is the state changing over time?" The right-hand side provides the answer, by doing a certain operation on the state itself. It's parallel to Newton's famous "force equals mass times acceleration," in which forces determine how the system changes through time. Evolution according to the Schrodinger equation is very much like the evolution of a state in classical mechanics. It is smooth, reversible, and completely deterministic. If that were all we had to the story, quantum mechanics wouldn't be a problem. But there is also an entirely different way the quantum state can evolve, according to the textbook treatment: namely, when it is observed. ...The collapse is sudden, and the evolution is nondeterministic-knowing what the state was before, you can't perfectly predict what the state will be afterward. All you have are probalities". pgs 164, 165 The Big Picture, Sean Carroll, 2016 The latter case is what we agree upon. The first case is what I've not been able to get across to you, which I didn't know about (or recognize) until reading What Is Real? "TWO completely different ways", the whole point, the operative phrase (concerning our conversation). The other guys I've been quoting are not wrong. Kindly disabuse yourself of the fallacy that you have anything to teach here. You're characterizing a metaphysical disagreement as an inability to understand on the part of the person who doesn't agree with you. I could, in turn, characterize that in many different ways, but I'll refrain, for the sake of polity. "Reversible"? Seriously? wowThe point is that the evolution over time described by the Schrodinger equation isn't something you ever directly perceive, it's just a mathematical construct. The system models effects that can be precisely specified over time, but it does so in terms of probabilities. To call an equation that generates probabilities "deterministic" is just plain foolish. The mechanics of quantum objects is stochastic. Einstein was wrong. Get over it. So you are saying there are not " two* completely different ways the state of a system evolves over time"? OK, noted. And "the way we teach it to physics majors taking their first college courses" means nothing? Two*, two*, two*, two*..... TWO*(By reversible he talking about the other way the system evolves).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2018 11:10:38 GMT -5
I'm not taking back what I said In that case then, the comment about self-contradiction on your part stands as it was written. (which I have been unable to get across to you).. Let me ask another question, then are you saying the Schrodinger equation has nothing to do with the classical world? (the deterministic world). Carroll makes the point I've been trying to show you. "Quantum mechanics, at least the way we teach it to physics majors taking their first college courses in the subject, says there are two completely different ways that the state of a system evolves over time. One kind of evolution happens when we're not observing the system. Then there's an equation that the wave function obeys-the Schrodinger equation. [Carroll gives the equation in its most simple form]. It's quite beautiful in its way. The symbol ___ represents the quantum state. The left-hand side of the equation asks "How is the state cganging over time?" The right-hand side provides the answer, by doing a certain operation on the state itself. It's parallel to Newton's famous "force equals mass times acceleration," in which forces determine how the system changes through time. Evolution according to the Schrodinger equation is very much like the evolution of a state in classical mechanics. It is smooth, reversible, and completely deterministic. If that were all we had to the story, quantum mechanics wouldn't be a problem. But there is also an entirely different way the quantum state can evolve, according to the textbook treatment: namely, when it is observed. ...The collapse is sudden, and the evolution is nondeterministic-knowing what the state was before, you can't perfectly predict what the state will be afterward. All you have are probalities". pgs 164, 165 The Big Picture, Sean Carroll, 2016 The latter case is what we agree upon. The first case is what I've not been able to get across to you, which I didn't know about (or recognize) until reading What Is Real? "TWO completely different ways", the whole point, the operative phrase (concerning our conversation). The other guys I've been quoting are not wrong. Kindly disabuse yourself of the fallacy that you have anything to teach here. You're characterizing a metaphysical disagreement as an inability to understand on the part of the person who doesn't agree with you. I could, in turn, characterize that in many different ways, but I'll refrain, for the sake of polity. "Reversible"? Seriously? wowThe point is that the evolution over time described by the Schrodinger equation isn't something you ever directly perceive, it's just a mathematical construct. The system models effects that can be precisely specified over time, but it does so in terms of probabilities. To call an equation that generates probabilities "deterministic" is just plain foolish. The mechanics of quantum objects is stochastic. Einstein was wrong. Get over it. The two different ways. physics.stackexchange.com/questions/376582/how-is-schr%C3%B6dinger-evolution-experimentally-verified
|
|