Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Quantum Physics / Quantum Mechanics

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

To which Neils Bohr (progenitor of the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM) replied,

Unfortunately, his attitude has been inherited by many modern physicists.

-Q

Sadly that would seem to be the case. Was Bohrs the one that originally had the idea of electrons acting kind of like little planets orbtiting the nucleus? If so Im sure he later changed his mind about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha, good point I thought there was something else that I usually say when I am discussing this...I just couldnt think what it was. I was probably trying to remember that.

Well anyway, God does not play dice as he said. Einstein said this of course to try and point out how Quantum Physics is not in fact governed by chance, but by definite laws. In his later years he was deeply disturbed about the direction Quantum Mechanics was going into after he had basicaly kicked the science off by iproving light came in quantas (small packets, though they later "refined" it to be some sort of weird "particle/wave" thing instead).

QM other contemporary sciences (genetics, evolutionary biology, etc) and philosophy (some at least) are, for the most part wary of the notion of axioms (including identity); at least the scientist I know. I think one can look at the development of (Leibniz's) Calculus to see the mathematical origins of probability models over axiomatic certainty. As far as probability goes, it isn't "random chance" (dice throw); probability takes as it's starting position a specific population or set of circumstances and posits probable outcomes. It's rather the opposite of axiomatics, in that probabilistic models look at particular populations for information in forming probabilistic knowledge about an event; while axiomatics (I'm not sure if I speak to Objectivism) appeals to a universal law, rule and applies it to any situation. In many circumstances it sounds like a simple semantic shift, statements appear in percentages, likelihoods, etc, rather than in yes or no. Certainty, in these sciences, becomes "degree(s) of certainty or uncertainty" rather than absolute knowing. But I think Objectivists are right to recognize that there is a (fundamental) philosophical difference.

Stephen Hawking has a lecture: "Does God Play Dice?" where he addresses Einstein's remark in the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly that would seem to be the case. Was Bohrs the one that originally had the idea of electrons acting kind of like little planets orbtiting the nucleus? If so Im sure he later changed his mind about that.

It was Rutherford who proposed the "planetary model" of the atom. Electrons revolve around the nucleus. But according to classical electrodynamics such moving charges would radiate their energy away and collapse onto the nucleus. But we know most atoms are stable and do not collapse. It was Neils Bohr who proposed an atomic model which assumed there were orbits in which the electrons did not radiate their energy away. At that stage (in 1913) Bohr still assumed that electrons have definite orbits around the nucleus, a view which changed in the 1920s.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question - does this particular claim violate the axioms (specifically Identity), and is it otherwise consistent or inconsistent with Objectivist metaphysics? Additionally, if anyone knows anything about the science (or quack science) behind this, please speak up.

The Principle of Identity A is A is logically equivalent to the principle of Non-Contradiction

not (A and not A).

The theory underlying quantum physics obeys this principle. There are no mathematical contradictions in the theory. In short, the theory is -consistent- and -coherent-.

I should point out that consistency is not a guarantee of empirical correctness. For example Newtonian gravitation (the theory) is mathematically consistent. In fact all of Classical Mechanics is mathematically consistent. It is also the case that Newtonian Gravitation based on the instantaneous interaction of masses has been empirically falsified. For example the motion of the planet Mercury has been shown empirically not to match the predictions of the Newtonian theory.

Likewise Classical Electromagnetic Field Theory (invented by Faraday and Maxwell) is consistent and at the macro level empirically accurate. However the theory cannot account for the stability of atoms nor can it account for the photo-electric effect.

So internal consistency is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for correctness. It is not sufficient just to say A is A. One must also find out -what A is-. That requires looking, measuring, experimenting and calculating in a scientific context. Objectivism can establish some constraints on science, but it cannot produce science.

And to answer one of your questions: no, a potato is not going to be anything but a potato although an electron and a positron having a clandestine meeting will turn into a photon. In this transformation no conservation laws are violated and the effect has actually been observed. It has also been observed that ice cubes can sometimes turn into puddles and clouds of steam. The lesson here is that the Principle of Identity cannot be applied in a trivial or superficial way with any expectation of coming up with something useful.

I hope you will find this discourse useful.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to answer one of your questions: no, a potato is not going to be anything but a potato although an electron and a positron having a clandestine meeting will turn into a photon. In this transformation no conservation laws are violated and the effect has actually been observed. It has also been observed that ice cubes can sometimes turn into puddles and clouds of steam. The lesson here is that the Principle of Identity cannot be applied in a trivial or superficial way with any expectation of coming up with something useful.

I hope you will find this discourse useful.

Bob Kolker

Thanks! Are you saying that the Objectivist Law of Identity is the "same"(identical with) the Law of Conservation? Or, what does it mean for an A to be an A? (f.ex. it's quanta of matter/energy? What about when that changes, which is to say alway it is always changing?) That is, if the Law of Identity is the fundamental axiom of Objectivist Metaphysics shouldn't it apply in all ways in the Universe (even trivial and superficial identities, Quantum to Cosmic)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks! Are you saying that the Objectivist Law of Identity is the "same"(identical with) the Law of Conservation?

A is A is logically equivalent to not (A and not A) which is the law of non-contradiction.

Conservation laws are not axiomatic but they are true for the physical world, or so every measurement ever made would indicate.

If a measurement ever indicates that a conservation law is violated, either the measurement is faulty, or physics is in deep dark Kimchee.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Fear that they might prove to be true? No, not really, something that contradicts primary facts of reality cannot be true, no matter what proof any scientist might claim to have for to support it. Objectivists seek to keep their thoughts in line with reality, by looking at reality first, forming logical chains of concepts and then judging any claims such as those made by QM accordingly. Science is not a "cause" it is something to be evaluated rationally, and for us all to decide whether it is right or wrong, based on our knowledge of reality. QM is no exception, it should be judged rationally, and if one does so they should find that it is largely false, not due to prejudice to what you imply is an arbitary choosen philosophy and its teachings, but by the fact that its claims are largely WRONG.

Only two things matter for a scientific theory:

Thing 1. Is it internally consistent?

Thing 2. Are its predictions empirically correct?

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What matters for a properly valid scientific theory is whether its true or falseness can be assesses through tests / observations. Remember a theory can be right or wrong...but there should be some way of finding out which of the two.

Can the be tested and therefore verified as a result of tests / observations of reality, ie can it be proven to be true or false through observation.

Note that mathematics cannot be rationally substituted for observation of reality here. One can prove that the mathematics behind a theory is mathematically sound all they wish: this is not proof in and of its self of a theories correspondence with reality (i.e. whether it is true or false), observation of reality is the only way of determining whether the theory is correct.

If by "internally consistent' you mean the theory should not contradict itself, sure a scientific theory that contradicts itself is invalid.

What really matters is that its principles are correct and therefore all that is drawn as a result too, so that it makes correct predictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that mathematics cannot be rationally substituted for observation of reality here. One can prove that the mathematics behind a theory is mathematically sound all they wish: this is not proof in and of its self of a theories correspondence with reality (i.e. whether it is true or false), observation of reality is the only way of determining whether the theory is correct.

In matters of scientific induction, the usage of mathematics can often be absolutely necessary to expanding one's knowledge of the empirical world. Prime examples of this include the unification of electricity and magnetism through the expression of basic laws by James Clerk Maxwell and Isaac Newton's demonstration that Kepler's laws of planetary motion and classical mechanics were the same. To my understanding both discoveries (along with a myriad of others) were made through mathematical deduction. Of course, sound inductive reasoning was also crucial to these discoveries.

I am not so much insinuating that you implied otherwise so much as ensuring that the field of mathematics receives proper recognition.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, DarkWaters, I realize that :-). I meant to say that by itself mathematics is not proof, nor is it to be divorced from observation in science. And as you point out, it can be critical indeed...but just not in complete isolation (i.e. one should not construct mathematical models whilst avoiding observations so that one can test the maths).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, DarkWaters, I realize that :-). I meant to say that by itself mathematics is not proof, nor is it to be divorced from observation in science. And as you point out, it can be critical indeed...but just not in complete isolation (i.e. one should not construct mathematical models whilst avoiding observations so that one can test the maths).

Sure, for physical models. What about other kinds of models?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, for physical models. What about other kinds of models?

If by physical model you mean a model of physical, actual reality, then an other kind of model would mean a model of non-reality, meaning a model of nothing. Sure, you can make a model of nothing you can use mathematics in isolation of everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If by physical model you mean a model of physical, actual reality, then an other kind of model would mean a model of non-reality, meaning a model of nothing. Sure, you can make a model of nothing you can use mathematics in isolation of everything.

Sadly this is what Quantum Mechanics often claims to do! Experts in the field often do not challenge the assertions along the lines of : "There is no quantum reality, only appearances" that the anti-causality minds like Neils Bohr and his like made back in the earlier part of the 20th century. They make up mathematical constructs like String Theory and all sorts of weird and wonderful mathematical models, whilst not bothering to verify them against reality. They model the unreal quantum world their crazy so called "theories" describe, thats enough for them, and if they claim a limited number of "tests" prove their theories all the better (some of the "proofs"I have read about are just stupid).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If by physical model you mean a model of physical, actual reality, then an other kind of model would mean a model of non-reality, meaning a model of nothing. Sure, you can make a model of nothing you can use mathematics in isolation of everything.

Uh...so conceptual systems can't be modeled? Concepts are physical?

I'm trying to be charitable. What do you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh...so conceptual systems can't be modeled? Concepts are physical?

I'm trying to be charitable. What do you mean?

[/quote

I think he means that the model has to based on reality, it has to describe reality, not some arbitrary mathematical system, or any arbitrary series of "concepts" based on an unreality. Your "conceptual system" is fine the concepts it uses in its model are not based on mere fantasy but describes actual entities in some way. But if it is mere fantasy it is not a scientific model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...They make up mathematical constructs like String Theory and all sorts of weird and wonderful mathematical models, whilst not bothering to verify them against reality. They model the unreal quantum world their crazy so called "theories" describe, thats enough for them, and if they claim a limited number of "tests" prove their theories all the better (some of the "proofs"I have read about are just stupid).

Quantum Mechanics is the most rigorously tested scientific theory in human history.

You confuse a model of thing with the thing itself. This mistake is analogous to mistaking the sign for the signified, or a word for it's meaning.

Constructs in formal systems aren't necessarily "real." They are simply useful for modeling stuff. In the case of physical science, they are useful for predicitng phenomena. For example, imaginary numbers were invented by mathematicians only for closure of the number system under the field of surds. Imaginary numbers were criticized with the same arguemnts you offer here. Fortunately, less dogmatic thinkers discovered that imaginary numbers model certain electrical phenomena very well --- and we got electronics.

Consider that forces have never been observed. A force is only a mathematical relation between moving bodies. In reality, only the bodies have ever been observed. Forces are unobserved entities that are very useful for predicting phenomena.

It's not unusual to discover several mathematical systems that can model the same phenomena. The choice which system to use is based purley on usefulness. When you start complaining about forces and imaginary numbers, I'll take your criticism of strings and quantum mechanics seriously. Until then, you're just being inconsistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quantum Mechanics is the most rigorously tested scientific theory in human history.

You confuse a model of thing with the thing itself. This mistake is analogous to mistaking the sign for the signified, or a word for it's meaning.

Constructs in formal systems aren't necessarily "real." They are simply useful for modeling stuff. In the case of physical science, they are useful for predicitng phenomena. For example, imaginary numbers were invented by mathematicians only for closure of the number system under the field of surds. Imaginary numbers were criticized with the same arguemnts you offer here. Fortunately, less dogmatic thinkers discovered that imaginary numbers model certain electrical phenomena very well --- and we got electronics.

Consider that forces have never been observed. A force is only a mathematical relation between moving bodies. In reality, only the bodies have ever been observed. Forces are unobserved entities that are very useful for predicting phenomena.

It's not unusual to discover several mathematical systems that can model the same phenomena. The choice which system to use is based purley on usefulness. When you start complaining about forces and imaginary numbers, I'll take your criticism of strings and quantum mechanics seriously. Until then, you're just being inconsistent.

No, I am fully aware a model and its subject are not the same thing, there is no confusion.

A force is REAL, it is more than a mathematical game, force exists in the real world in same way. It is not a curvature of space. Force exists. We might not observe it, but based on observation we can conclude it MUST exist.

I have no issues with mathematical modeling, as long as the models are based on data gathered by observation. If you start claiming models should be based on anything else but observation, then you risk wandering in a realm where you make up whatever mathematical system you wish that seems to fit, while losing any relevance to reality.

Science is NOT a system of arbitrary mathematical systems that "get results" it is a system of formulating theories that describe reality, theories based on observation of reality.

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I am fully aware a model and its subject are not the same thing, there is no confusion.

Ok. Sorry if I was hasty there.

A force is REAL, it is more than a mathematical game, force exists in the real world in same way. It is not a curvature of space. Force exists. We might not observe it, but based on observation we can conclude it MUST exist.

Now you're sounding like a mathematician. ;-) But tt really is a slippery slope.

How do we distinguish between unobserved entities that must exist and unobserved entities the need not exist? If strings present a modeling alternative to forces, then how do we decide which to use? Remember, they are unobserved so all we have to go by is the mathematical model

I have no issues with mathematical modeling, as long as the models are based on data gathered by observation. If you start claiming models should be based on anything else but observation, then you risk wandering in a realm where you make up whatever mathematical system you wish that seems to fit, while losing any relevance to reality.

Science is NOT a system of arbitrary mathematical systems that "get results" it is a system of formulating theories that describe reality, theories based on observation of reality.

But the whole purpose of mathematical models to present the stucture alone. That's why we use undefined terms.

Question: In geometry, what's a point?

Answer: Whatever makes the axioms true.

The meaning of the undefined terms is not necessary to develop the system. In fact, the only reason formal systems work is because they have undefined terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. Sorry if I was hasty there.

Now you're sounding like a mathematician. ;-) But tt really is a slippery slope.

How do we distinguish between unobserved entities that must exist and unobserved entities the need not exist? If strings present a modeling alternative to forces, then how do we decide which to use? Remember, they are unobserved so all we have to go by is the mathematical model

But the whole purpose of mathematical models to present the stucture alone. That's why we use undefined terms.

Question: In geometry, what's a point?

Answer: Whatever makes the axioms true.

The meaning of the undefined terms is not necessary to develop the system. In fact, the only reason formal systems work is because they have undefined terms.

Unobserved entities that do not exist are not entities, entities exist.

We decide which to use based on how closely the models fit REALITY...and we determine if they match reality by doing tests of course. If one theory matches the facts of reality, contains no contradictions, and allows predictions, I would say its a good theory. But if a "theory" is based not on reality but maths, then how do we know if it is true? Just because the maths works?

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do we distinguish between unobserved entities that must exist and unobserved entities the need not exist? If strings present a modeling alternative to forces, then how do we decide which to use? Remember, they are unobserved so all we have to go by is the mathematical model.

If I am not mistaken, this is where Rand's Razor can be quite helpful in understanding reality. This epistemological razor can be stated as "a concept should not be expanded beyond necessity nor narrowed in disregard of necessity." Thus, what is the empirical necessity in generalizing the four fundamental forces to vibrating superstrings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am not mistaken, this is where Rand's Razor can be quite helpful in understanding reality. This epistemological razor can be stated as "a concept should not be expanded beyond necessity nor narrowed in disregard of necessity." Thus, what is the empirical necessity in generalizing the four fundamental forces to vibrating superstrings?

String Theory does not have pesky infinities that have to be gotten rid of by re-normalization.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
There is the Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle which some claim means that subatomic particles do not have precise positions AND momentum at any given moment (unless we observe them). That the state of particles is indetermine until observation occurs. This leads to this sort of thing:

You set up a cat in a box with some poison gas that is released if and only if some radioactive material decays and the poison gas kills the cat. Now according to some QM scientists, until one observes the situation (and whether or not the radioactive decay occurs) the radioactive particles are in some "indetermine " state, they have decayed, yet not decayed, or maybe both and or neither...which means the gas has been released and not released etc..and the cat is alive and dead and yet neither. UNTIL someone looks in the box...then the uncertainty resolves and the radioactive decay occured or not, and the cat is dead or alive.

Then there are the Multiple Universe theories that try to invoke "parallel universes" to explain difficult problems in Quantum Mechanics.

But this is of course insane, what they are doing here is in effect saying "I dont know the answer, I dont care to find it, so I am going to invoke that beyond this reality so thatI will not be called upon to provide the answer". If the answer lies in some other universe how can they be expected to be able to provide it? But the answer cannot lie in another universe.

There can be only one universe (if we use the definition that the universe is all t hat exists), so what they are saying is that the answer lies in some other reality, ie that it doesnt exist, that there IS no answer. It is a blatant evasion of finding an answer by invoking some mystical "other universe"

Then there is some experiment that apparently proves one of the following two assumptions (or both ) are incorrect:

A ) that reality exists while its not being observed (now you know for sure that mysticism is infesting science when this is accepted as a possiblity)

B ) That if you have two entities seperated by some distance, that one particle cannot have a literally instant effect on the other particle (ie the particles cannot interact with each other without SOME amount of time passing).

Now of course, both of these assumptions are clearly correct. Reality DOES exist when not observed, and particles cannot have effects on each other literally instantly..

That is a taste of the sort of irrationality that has been accepted and to some extent stil is in QM. And it indicates just how much trouble modern science is getting into..

On to your original question. yes, proper physics should have definite rules, reality is not governed by probablity as many modern physicists claim. Certain events will cause certain other events, it is nto a matter of random chance but reality obeying definite rules.

I'd just like to straighten out some of the facts provided in this entry. As well as add some more facts and some of my own insights. I've been through many books, articles, etc. involving Quatum Mechanics and, would like to think of myself as somewhat of a theorist on the subject. Not quite an expert, though.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theory states that both exact momentum and position cannot both be measured at the same time.

According to theorists, a particle, let's say an electron, can have a pretty good idea of where it's going, but not where it is, and vice-versa. This statement of a particle "knowing" is/was very hard to come to terms with. But it applies in other situations such as Brass Dragon first stated: a particle appearing anywhere in the universe(despite the minute chances), the double-slit or two-holes experiment by Thomas Young and others.

The "cat in the box" experiment is called: The Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment. It was created by Erwin Schrodinger in order to depict the absurdity of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Copenhagen interpretation states that an entity in the quantum world does not exist until there is an active observer to colapse it's wave-function. Perhaps countermanding some other statements made, theories and phenominae of the Quantum are based on mathematics. A "wave-function" is a wave of probability that colapses once it is observed. Therefore, a particle could be anywhere in the wave-function of an area until it is observed. With the already explained elements of the experiment, there is a 50 percent chance the cat will be dead or alive once observed. Schrodinger asked: What is happening inside the box when no one observes it? Copenhagen Interpretation states that the cat is neither dead or alive. It exists in a super-position of states. One could ask: What defines a conscious observer? Cannot the cat be the observer and collapse it's own wave-function? [What's important to add here is that quantum effects only apply to those on a microscopic level, specifically those below Planck's constant, sub-atomic particles]

If the cat is neither dead or alive then surely these rules can apply to the macroscopic world. After all, things on our level are made up of particles that follow quantum rules. Some scientists argue, including Hawking, that there must be an observer outside the universe to collapse it's overall wave-function. But then what does that make us? Maybe things change depending on who is looking at them, that's what Relativity states, doesn't it? So how do we know we are what we think we are?

Most generally, these days, things in the macrosopic world do not behave such as quantum entities.

Scientists are not lazy, answer-dodgers. That's all I'm going to say regarding that paragraph about Multiple Universes.

A)Reality has never been proven not to exist without being observed. But the equations say (and those equations have held for decades) that reality does exist and doesn't exist at the same time. Feel free to complicate the philosophical implications of that one on your own.

Prometheus said:

B)That if you have two entities seperated by some distance, that one particle cannot have a literally instant effect on the other particle (ie the particles cannot interact with each other without SOME amount of time passing).

This instant effect is called: "Spooky Action at a distance" Einstein was vehemently opposed to this, and dismissed it as crazy. He even formulated his own thought experiment to highlight it's absurdity. This thought experiment was was carried out in the early 1980s by Alain Aspect. The experiment was carried out at CERN in Geneva, the largest particle accelerator in the world. Two photons of light were fired from an atom in different directions. These two photons' polarity wasn't observed until they were an arbitrarily large distance away. When the polarity of one of the photons was measured the other's was thus instantly determined as different to to the rules of probability. These two photons also still had the same wave-function as if they were

both right beside each other. This proves "action at a distance" does apply but what does it say about the universe. First of all, it contradicts Einstein's theory of Relativity stating that nothing can move faster than light. "Action at a Distance" does. Anything faster than light is going back in time. So this may imply that action at a distance can go anywhere through the dimension of time to suit it's needs. Although, one can also argue that Action at a Distance operates outside the paradigms of space and time. That may give rise to alternate realities and multiple dimensions and universes stated by Prometheus.

So what does all this say about MetaPhysics and the universe? As observers, humans appear to play a much larger role in the unverse's existance than first let on. It seem we need the universe and the universe needs us. What can be said about the quantum applications to the microscopic workings of the brain? Do brains make us observers? What about thoughts and feelings? What effects do those have on our world? What really got the wheels turning in my brain was when I heard:

"If I die, nothing exists."

To answer your question, Brass Dragon, what axioms in particular are you refering to? The axiom of classical mechanics? Newtonian physics? What of common sense? Don't trust common sense in the quantum world. It will serve you no pupose there. This is also why people are so skeptical of the quantum world, is because of common sense.

I hope I may have enlightened and helped you with your quandary and that you may explore the quantum universe and it's wonders further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your question, Brass Dragon, what axioms in particular are you refering to?

The axioms of Objectivism (this site and forum are dedicated to the discussion of the philosophy of Ayn Rand called Objectivism).

Those axioms are existence, identity, and consciousness.

For more detail, see the Objectivist wiki page about Axioms: http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/wiki/Axioms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "cat in the box" experiment is called: The Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment.

I just saw the ultimate refutation of this experiment on another (unrelated) forum. It goes (edited to remove profanity):

You can't get the [expletive] cat in the [expletive] box in the first place!

As a cat owner, I can corroborate :worry:

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...