|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2018 11:14:11 GMT -5
In that case then, the comment about self-contradiction on your part stands as it was written. 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. That's a giraffe. I will keep giving quotes until you say uncle. Rather than follow the invitation into another circular round of dialog I'll just agree to disagree as previously outlined. If you hear "uncle" in that you're tone deaf. It's the sound of an adult pair of shoes on the polished floor.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2018 11:49:56 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. Section 2. paragraph 6. www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/(Pleases just read the *%#* (&^%^ paragraph).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2018 11:50:46 GMT -5
Here's a nice simple video that tries to ameliorate the difficulties in the interpretation of the Schrodinger wave function and it's relation to probabilities. The only difficult math concept is integration and here it is merely a manner used to calculate the area under a function(psi squared) between two points on the x axis.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2018 11:54:55 GMT -5
So you are saying there are not " two* completely different ways the state of a system evolves over time"? OK, noted. That's a giraffe. I will keep giving quotes until you say uncle. Rather than follow the invitation into another circular round of dialog I'll just agree to disagree as previously outlined. If you hear "uncle" in that you're tone deaf. It's the sound of an adult pair of shoes on the polished floor. Everywhere I look everybody says the Schrodinger equation shows how the world evolves deterministically (as well as what you are saying). The last link is by Steven Weinberg.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2018 11:56:21 GMT -5
Here's a nice simple video that tries to ameliorate the difficulties in the interpretation of the Schrodinger wave function and it's relation to probabilities. The only difficult math concept is integration and here it is merely a manner used to calculate the area under a function(psi squared) between two points on the x axis. Thanks, laughter and I don't disagree on that part (involving probabilities).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2018 12:04:39 GMT -5
It's really OK to admit that there is something you didn't know/don't know. I'm not saying you are incorrect, you are not incorrect, but there is something you didn't know/don't know. Everybody is all good with not-knowing, until they run into the real thing.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2018 20:30:37 GMT -5
It's really OK to admit that there is something you didn't know/don't know. I'm not saying you are incorrect, you are not incorrect, but there is something you didn't know/don't know. Everybody is all good with not-knowing, until they run into the real thing.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 31, 2018 12:37:49 GMT -5
It's really OK to admit that there is something you didn't know/don't know. I'm not saying you are incorrect, you are not incorrect, but there is something you didn't know/don't know. Everybody is all good with not-knowing, until they run into the real thing. My second post corrected (fine tuned) the last paragraph of the OP. When I read that in What Is Real? I simply said, I didn't know that.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 1, 2018 3:55:53 GMT -5
My second post corrected (fine tuned) the last paragraph of the OP. When I read that in What Is Real? I simply said, I didn't know that. he ain't never saaaay nuttin' mon'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 1, 2018 12:20:55 GMT -5
Here's a nice simple video that tries to ameliorate the difficulties in the interpretation of the Schrodinger wave function and it's relation to probabilities. The only difficult math concept is integration and here it is merely a manner used to calculate the area under a function(psi squared) between two points on the x axis. Where was this guy when I was in school? The bullet he drew the squiggle through .. "the particle was at c all along": that's what the experimental test of Bell's theorem ruled out. Relating this back to my wonk out: the narrow band of uncertainty around x after measurement, that's the uncertainty of the classical measurement problem, which is a scalar function of precision. What the tensor's of matrix mechanics capture in their expression, that Schrodinger's equation doesn't, is that the narrower this band then the wider the distribution in the resulting Ψ of momentum after your collapse of x-Ψ. Werner was in his early 20's living in Bohr's attic when he made his breakthrough, and the more I think about it, the more it cracks me up that he called what he was encountering with the data the "p-q swindle". Like I said already, the Universe definitely has a sense of humor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2018 15:49:18 GMT -5
Here's a nice simple video that tries to ameliorate the difficulties in the interpretation of the Schrodinger wave function and it's relation to probabilities. The only difficult math concept is integration and here it is merely a manner used to calculate the area under a function(psi squared) between two points on the x axis. Where was this guy when I was in school? The bullet he drew the squiggle through .. "the particle was at c all along": that's what the experimental test of Bell's theorem ruled out. Relating this back to my wonk out: the narrow band of uncertainty around x after measurement, that's the uncertainty of the classical measurement problem, which is a scalar function of precision. What the tensor's of matrix mechanics capture in their expression, that Schrodinger's equation doesn't, is that the narrower this band then the wider the distribution in the resulting Ψ of momentum after your collapse of x-Ψ. Werner was in his early 20's living in Bohr's attic when he made his breakthrough, and the more I think about it, the more it cracks me up that he called what he was encountering with the data the "p-q swindle". Like I said already, the Universe definitely has a sense of humor. He's quite clear. Has 57 videos on QM. They are good. I ran into him while looking to clarify one of Susskind's lectures. The bottom line is there's a qualitative difference in say solving an SHM equation and the clarity of the underlying physical dynamics versus Schrodinger. Classical Physics set the bar and expectations really high. There's a similar type of inprecision in applying Science methodology to say human behavior.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 1, 2018 17:25:59 GMT -5
Where was this guy when I was in school? The bullet he drew the squiggle through .. "the particle was at c all along": that's what the experimental test of Bell's theorem ruled out. Relating this back to my wonk out: the narrow band of uncertainty around x after measurement, that's the uncertainty of the classical measurement problem, which is a scalar function of precision. What the tensor's of matrix mechanics capture in their expression, that Schrodinger's equation doesn't, is that the narrower this band then the wider the distribution in the resulting Ψ of momentum after your collapse of x-Ψ. Werner was in his early 20's living in Bohr's attic when he made his breakthrough, and the more I think about it, the more it cracks me up that he called what he was encountering with the data the "p-q swindle". Like I said already, the Universe definitely has a sense of humor. He's quite clear. Has 57 videos on QM. They are good. I ran into him while looking to clarify one of Susskind's lectures. The bottom line is there's a qualitative difference in say solving an SHM equation and the clarity of the underlying physical dynamics versus Schrodinger. Classical Physics set the bar and expectations really high. There's a similar type of inprecision in applying Science methodology to say human behavior. It only seems unclear if we expect what we abstract as the components of physical reality to behave in the same way that our minds overlay what our senses present about that reality. The baseball is real .. the sound it makes when it hits either the catcher's mitt or the bat .. that's as real as real gets, in terms of what moves, in terms of what comes and goes. The vibrations of each sound are different, but the movement itself, is undeniable. To model the arc of the ball with an equation, and say that this is determined by a set of conditions at the pitcher's arm and hand at the time of the pitch is a conceptual overlay. This isn't to dismiss the overlay as useless, just to see it for what it is: not real. The reality of the hit or the ball or the strike is in the totality of the arc, and everything that led up to that arc, and everything that follows.
Also, we could model the vibrations of each sound with a construct similar to an SHM, and we could even use that to simulate and reproduce the real sounds. But until the electrons wiggle the woofer and the tweeter, the numbers remain silent. And even then though, this word "real", we're not done with it, because there's still another use for it, so the word has to do double-duty. There's a greater, underlying "reality" to all the movement of coming and going. This is the timeless eternity of changelessness, and unlike the reality of the senses, intellect can only ever obscure what is meant by that use of the word in this other case. And all this, even as the tool of intellect reveals the scale of the universe of movement, hinting at that underlying greater reality, with the sheer relative volume of the literal void that appears to envelope it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2018 11:52:08 GMT -5
He's quite clear. Has 57 videos on QM. They are good. I ran into him while looking to clarify one of Susskind's lectures. The bottom line is there's a qualitative difference in say solving an SHM equation and the clarity of the underlying physical dynamics versus Schrodinger. Classical Physics set the bar and expectations really high. There's a similar type of inprecision in applying Science methodology to say human behavior. It only seems unclear if we expect what we abstract as the components of physical reality to behave in the same way that our minds overlay what our senses present about that reality. The baseball is real .. the sound it makes when it hits either the catcher's mitt or the bat .. that's as real as real gets, in terms of what moves, in terms of what comes and goes. The vibrations of each sound are different, but the movement itself, is undeniable. To model the arc of the ball with an equation, and say that this is determined by a set of conditions at the pitcher's arm and hand at the time of the pitch is a conceptual overlay. This isn't to dismiss the overlay as useless, just to see it for what it is: not real. The reality of the hit or the ball or the strike is in the totality of the arc, and everything that led up to that arc, and everything that follows.
Also, we could model the vibrations of each sound with a construct similar to an SHM, and we could even use that to simulate and reproduce the real sounds. But until the electrons wiggle the woofer and the tweeter, the numbers remain silent. And even then though, this word "real", we're not done with it, because there's still another use for it, so the word has to do double-duty. There's a greater, underlying "reality" to all the movement of coming and going. This is the timeless eternity of changelessness, and unlike the reality of the senses, intellect can only ever obscure what is meant by that use of the word in this other case. And all this, even as the tool of intellect reveals the scale of the universe of movement, hinting at that underlying greater reality, with the sheer relative volume of the literal void that appears to envelope it.
You might enjoy this video. It is a partial solution to Schrodinger, but if you did any KE + PE (T + V) problems you'll appreciate this. The good stuff starts around after 19:25 or so. It's a simple partial differential equation(before 19 minutes is review of partial differential solutions) and the potential energy component varies with the context of its application just like classical physics-- electricity, gravity etc.
.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 13, 2018 7:32:04 GMT -5
It only seems unclear if we expect what we abstract as the components of physical reality to behave in the same way that our minds overlay what our senses present about that reality. The baseball is real .. the sound it makes when it hits either the catcher's mitt or the bat .. that's as real as real gets, in terms of what moves, in terms of what comes and goes. The vibrations of each sound are different, but the movement itself, is undeniable. To model the arc of the ball with an equation, and say that this is determined by a set of conditions at the pitcher's arm and hand at the time of the pitch is a conceptual overlay. This isn't to dismiss the overlay as useless, just to see it for what it is: not real. The reality of the hit or the ball or the strike is in the totality of the arc, and everything that led up to that arc, and everything that follows.
Also, we could model the vibrations of each sound with a construct similar to an SHM, and we could even use that to simulate and reproduce the real sounds. But until the electrons wiggle the woofer and the tweeter, the numbers remain silent. And even then though, this word "real", we're not done with it, because there's still another use for it, so the word has to do double-duty. There's a greater, underlying "reality" to all the movement of coming and going. This is the timeless eternity of changelessness, and unlike the reality of the senses, intellect can only ever obscure what is meant by that use of the word in this other case. And all this, even as the tool of intellect reveals the scale of the universe of movement, hinting at that underlying greater reality, with the sheer relative volume of the literal void that appears to envelope it.
You might enjoy this video. It is a partial solution to Schrodinger, but if you did any KE + PE (T + V) problems you'll appreciate this. The good stuff starts around after 19:25 or so. It's a simple partial differential equation(before 19 minutes is review of partial differential solutions) and the potential energy component varies with the context of its application just like classical physics-- electricity, gravity etc.
.
I remember this topic .. I actually studied it on my own the summer before I took the class to get a leg up. In honor of you taking the time to share it I commit to watching it and getting back up on this curve .. but it'll take awhile.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 12:42:36 GMT -5
My son was asked to be in a play. I told him to go ahead, that it would be fun. I used to hang out with thespians in college. Actually, it was more like stalking. I knew where they would tend to congregate in the student union and I would pretend to be studying and listen to them play roles and joke around. It was amazing to me to have such confidence and freedom. My son suffers from the same social anxiety I do. Only I realize what an asset it has been. When he protested that he was too nervous, I countered that he would be playing a role. "It isn't you. You're somebody else." "You aren't even in the picture, you become somebody else. It's not really you.This version of you you create can have or not have anything it wants. It's make believe."
He wasn't going for it.
|
|