QM - Fact or Fantasy

[Ilya Startsev]

That would depend on the context. Part of my understanding of time comes from the Ayn Rand Lexicon.

 

On this basis, if one is considering the notion of time as it relates to existence, it would be considered as timeless, or outside of time. When considering something within the context of existence the term everlasting could be applied. This would extend to that "excellent quote" what was implied as "an eternal entity" when it stated: "An entity may be said to have a cause only if it is the kind of entity that is noneternal."

 

I forgot about the lexicon entry. Yes, if existence is timeless, then it fits within my framework. An everlasting entity is a hard one to comprehend, though. QM was surely caused, but do you think that it's everlasting? I doubt it. The USSR was supposed to never have an end, too.

[New Buddha]

I forgot about the lexicon entry. Yes, if existence is timeless, then it fits within my framework. An everlasting entity is a hard one to comprehend, though. QM was surely caused, but do you think that it's everlasting? I doubt it. The USSR was supposed to never have an end, too.

The QM Model is predicated on the existence of electrons, neutrons and protons.  At one time in the past, they did not exist.  When entropy was very low (and the Universe was very young and very hot), these particles did not exist.

[Ilya Startsev]

The QM Model is predicated on the existence of electrons, neutrons and protons.  At one time in the past, they did not exist.  When entropy was very low (and the Universe was very young and very hot), these particles did not exist.

 

You mean when there was only one never-to-be-observed particle in existence, right? I get an idea that neither have other particles, such as Higgs boson, exist until they were observed by people who so desired (and mathematically justified) them to exist.

[andie holland]

The QM Model is predicated on the existence of electrons, neutrons and protons.  At one time in the past, they did not exist.  When entropy was very low (and the Universe was very young and very hot), these particles did not exist.

Technically, the QM model is about photons, which did indeed exist prior to the Big Bang. This is the immeasurable vacuum state.

[andie holland]

You mean when there was only one never-to-be-observed particle in existence, right? I get an idea that neither have other particles, such as Higgs boson, exist until they were observed by people who so desired (and mathematically justified) them to exist.

Uhhh, no, these particles are real. Admittedly, however, Wigner took a minoritarian view that stated that QM was so closely correlated to math that it, like math, stemmed from the human brain;hence, he was a neo-Kantian.

[andie holland]

Which doesn't negate the fact that rationality can make incremental steps even in the shadows of opposition. Galileo probably wasn't the first, and certainly won't be the last.

Most all of your QM research has been funded within public universities. the first ones in America were U Cal Berkeley and Pasadena's Cal Tech. Of course, the LHC project is multi-government funded, as well. 

 

AH

[andie holland]

First, I did not mention "vacuum" in my reformulation. Second, you did not answer my question.

Edit: here I'll put it more directly:

Andie, does this agree more with QM than before?

 

 

The verb "is" is used in Rand's sense as a mix of existence and identity based on context.

The only relation i could find with QM is that the original quantum flux (vacuum) was not an 'is' to begin with.

 

AH

[New Buddha]

Technically, the QM model is about photons, which did indeed exist prior to the Big Bang. This is the immeasurable vacuum state.

I won't disagree with your post.

 

The point of my post was to try and get Ilya to define 'everlasting entity'.  When discussing 'entities', you have to specify the scale on which they exist - since different scales are modeled differently.

Edited January 18, 2015 by New Buddha

[dream_weaver]

Most all of your QM research has been funded within public universities. the first ones in America were U Cal Berkeley and Pasadena's Cal Tech. Of course, the LHC project is multi-government funded, as well. 

 

AH

A non-sequitur to my point. In general, you continue at failing to persuade, intellectually, that Harriman's assessment is unsound. You are aware that you are discussing this matter on an Objectivism oriented forum - which deals primarily in philosophy, rather than exclusively within the domain of the special sciences w/o regard to philosophy, aren't you?

Edited January 18, 2015 by dream_weaver

[dream_weaver]

The point of my post was to try and get Ilya to define 'everlasting entity'.  When discussing 'entities', you have to specify the scale on which they exist - since different scales are modeled differently.

Ilya's question to me was the distinction between timeless and everlasting. An entity which is not everlasting would, under Peikoff's description, be said to have a cause. At this point, "what one actually explains causally is a process, the fact of its coming into being or another thing's passing away." An entity which does not fall into this category would be what?

 

Does this preclude an eternal existence comprised of cycles which consist of entities coming into being and another thing's passing away?

Edited January 18, 2015 by dream_weaver

[New Buddha]

Ilya's question to me was the distinction between timeless and everlasting. An entity which is not everlasting would, under Peikoff's description, be said to have a cause. At this point, "what one actually explains causally is a process, the fact of its coming into being or another thing's passing away." An entity which does not fall into this category would be what?

 

Does this preclude an eternal existence comprised of cycles which consist of entities coming into being and another thing's passing away?

My position, which I realize is not the Objectivist position, is: What we designate as an "entity" is an epistemological designation, and not an existential one.

 

If you zoom in close enough to the skin of a human being, you will see that there is no existential, clear-cut boundary between the chemical elements that comprise the skin and the chemical elements that comprise the atmosphere (or the photons being absorbed and re-admitted).  This is also true of the food that we break down and consume and the air we breath in and exhaust.

 

Our differentiation between the body of an organism and it's environment, while objective, is based on perceptual limitations not physics.  A body cannot live independent of it's environment.  In much the same way, if the bacteria that lives in our intestines dies, we die.  But if we die, the bacteria in our intestines will continue living.  Is the human organism existentially distinct from the bacteria?

Edited January 18, 2015 by New Buddha

[Plasmatic]

Buddha said:

 

Our differentiation between the body of an organism and it's environment, while objective, is based on perceptual limitations not physics.

 

Here again you make objectivity contra correspondence... And what about physics transcends perceptual limitations while remaining objective? .......

 

I will respond to your previous comments soon.

 

Will you give us a clear definition of objective?

Edited January 18, 2015 by Plasmatic

[andie holland]

I won't disagree with your post.

 

The point of my post was to try and get Ilya to define 'everlasting entity'.  When discussing 'entities', you have to specify the scale on which they exist - since different scales are modeled differently.

I agree. Perhaps, however, one might be able to define the Quantum Vacuum as an everlasting entity?

 

AH

[andie holland]

My position, which I realize is not the Objectivist position, is: What we designate as an "entity" is an epistemological designation, and not an existential one.

 

If you zoom in close enough to the skin of a human being, you will see that there is no existential, clear-cut boundary between the chemical elements that comprise the skin and the chemical elements that comprise the atmosphere (or the photons being absorbed and re-admitted).  This is also true of the food that we break down and consume and the air we breath in and exhaust.

 

Our differentiation between the body of an organism and it's environment, while objective, is based on perceptual limitations not physics.  A body cannot live independent of it's environment.  In much the same way, if the bacteria that lives in our intestines dies, we die.  But if we die, the bacteria in our intestines will continue living.  Is the human organism existentially distinct from the bacteria?

For the most part, i agree. Permit me to add that it's our religions that give humanity a false sense of uniqueness. After all, life springs from non-life and in the biggest picture, we're all made of star-dust.

 

That's why it's best to say that you're 'anti-theist' rather than 'atheist'. Don't get caught up in the discourse of religious mumbo-jumbo. Otherwise, even if you wind up saying that god does not exist, you're left with the sidebar nonsense that homo sapiens are somehow special.

 

AH

[andie holland]

A non-sequitur to my point. In general, you continue at failing to persuade, intellectually, that Harriman's assessment is unsound. You are aware that you are discussing this matter on an Objectivism oriented forum - which deals primarily in philosophy, rather than exclusively within the domain of the special sciences w/o regard to philosophy, aren't you?

I'm sorry, then, that I've missed Harriman's point. My observation was rather specific in terms of government-funded vs private research, as i understood  your statement.

 

Kindly, then, reference a thread # to Harriman and i'll be happy to respond.

 

AH

[dream_weaver]

I'm sorry, then, that I've missed Harriman's point. My observation was rather specific in terms of government-funded vs private research, as i understood  your statement.

 

Kindly, then, reference a thread # to Harriman and i'll be happy to respond.

 

AH

You've already indicated that you're not interested in researching it back in post #19.

[Ilya Startsev]

Quantum Vacuum means 'zero measured level of energy with positive measured effects'.

 

According to Kraus's "Something from nothing", the vacuum state of quanta is non-A, or 'nothing' because it cannot be observed --or 'phenomenally measured', as it were in Russian.

 

Rather, it's only a mathematical object or 'padoode', as I'm entitled to say as a non-physicist lit-chick.

 

What's miraculous, then,  is the creation of a tangible, very- measurable universe that springs from this state of nothingness.

 

AH

 

Uhhh, no, these particles are real. Admittedly, however, Wigner took a minoritarian view that stated that QM was so closely correlated to math that it, like math, stemmed from the human brain;hence, he was a neo-Kantian.

 

Technically, the QM model is about photons, which did indeed exist prior to the Big Bang. This is the immeasurable vacuum state.

 

I agree. Perhaps, however, one might be able to define the Quantum Vacuum as an everlasting entity?

 

AH

 

Kantians ignore reality. They are anti-realists. The 'realities' you speak of are the primeval 'particle' with the internal temperature from about 10²⁷C to about 10¹²C before the Big Bang and the 'vacuum' state with photons somehow existing at the same time. More so, none of these things are observable yet they are measurable (or immeasurable, however you like) by the humanly constructed instrumentation based on anti-foundationalist principles.

[andie holland]

You've already indicated that you're not interested in researching it back in post #19.

No, what i said was that i'd be happy and interested in your pov; listening to his audio is unnecessary.

 

AH

[Ilya Startsev]

From 1905 onwards,  discreet sets of experiments have demonstrated that a photon is both a particle and a wave. But since the expetriments don't talk to each other (incommensurate math, for one), no, you can't say that it's a particle inside of a wave.

 

From wikipedia:

A single, all-encompassing definition for the term wave is not straightforward. A vibration can be defined as a back-and-forth motion around a reference value. However, a vibration is not necessarily a wave. An attempt to define the necessary and sufficient characteristics that qualify a phenomenon to be called a wave results in a fuzzy border line.

 

And from the same place, showing how much of a 'realist' you are:

[W]ave theory represents a particular branch of physics that is concerned with the properties of wave processes independently of their physical origin.

 

And here is something I found on a Russian website about wave–particle duality:

photon, electron, proton, neutron... are only half-waves of vibrations in the medium where the wave propagates

(фотон, электрон, протон, нейтрон… являются лишь полуволнами колебаний той среды, в которой распространяется волна)

[andie holland]

Kantians ignore reality. They are anti-realists. The 'realities' you speak of are the primeval 'particle' with the internal temperature from about 10²⁷C to about 10¹²C before the Big Bang and the 'vacuum' state with photons somehow existing at the same time. More so, none of these things are observable yet they are measurable (or immeasurable, however you like) by the humanly constructed instrumentation based on anti-foundationalist principles.

As do all Kantians. Wigner believed that lots of what we construe as objective, subject-independent reality is, in actuality, mind-dependent. In particular, Wigner observed that the ease at which QM values 'fit' into pre-conceived maths is too close to be anything but a cooperative math/QM mindgame.

 

My larger point  here is that kantianism can neither be accepted nor rejected as an article of faith. Rather, you need to judge what is and is not mind-independent based upon evidence.

 

No the quantum vacuum is not measurable which is precisely why again, it's considered a 'nothing'.

 

The basic Heisenberg predicts huge quantum fluxes that have now been observed, Recent explorations of deep space reveal that it's not empty.

 

AH

[andie holland]

From wikipedia:

A single, all-encompassing definition for the term wave is not straightforward. A vibration can be defined as a back-and-forth motion around a reference value. However, a vibration is not necessarily a wave. An attempt to define the necessary and sufficient characteristics that qualify a phenomenon to be called a wave results in a fuzzy border line.

 

And from the same place, showing how much of a 'realist' you are:

[W]ave theory represents a particular branch of physics that is concerned with the properties of wave processes independently of their physical origin.

 

And here is something I found on a Russian website about wave–particle duality:

photon, electron, proton, neutron... are only half-waves of vibrations in the medium where the wave propagates

(фотон, электрон, протон, нейтрон… являются лишь полуволнами колебаний той среды, в которой распространяется волна)

I'm not sure how garden-variety daffy-nitions of 'wave' work their way into the conversation.

 

'Half-wave of vibrations' means that when you measure your amplitude, you mustn't  forget to divide by two. The diagram kinda-sorta explains why. American texts simply show that any because any wave has a 2-pi value of crest and trough, the energy is calculated as half of that.

 

AH

[Ilya Startsev]

As do all Kantians. Wigner believed that lots of what we construe as objective, subject-independent reality is, in actuality, mind-dependent. In particular, Wigner observed that the ease at which QM values 'fit' into pre-conceived maths is too close to be anything but a cooperative math/QM mindgame.

 

My larger point  here is that kantianism can neither be accepted nor rejected as an article of faith. Rather, you need to judge what is and is not mind-independent based upon evidence.

 

You and Wigner judge as if everything was QM particles. The difference is that he takes them to be subjective and you take them as objective. That's a difference of ideas but not of core materialist philosophy. As for me, I live in an environment, which is not the same as 'vacuum.' Whole things surround me, but they are not the same as QM matter and energy. While QM is concerned with fragments and parts, our true reality is the perceivable whole.

 

'Half-wave of vibrations' means that when you measure your amplitude, you mustn't  forget to divide by two. The diagram kinda-sorta explains why. American texts simply show that any because any wave has a 2-pi value of crest and trough, the energy is calculated as half of that.

 

That's exactly what I need, and this was my point. I am concerned with the relationship between energy and particles. And this wave-relationship is found among particles as well. This simply means that no particle is independent from energy or other particles.

[dream_weaver]

I'm sorry, then, that I've missed Harriman's point. My observation was rather specific in terms of government-funded vs private research, as i understood  your statement.

 

Kindly, then, reference a thread # to Harriman and i'll be happy to respond.

 

AH

You did not miss Harriman's point, you missed my point. My point was that government-funded research is not really germane to whether or not a given conclusion is philosophically sound or not.

 

More to the point on this thread, I excerpted two points Harriman highlights within first 5 minutes of his course on The Philosophical Corruption of Physics.

It's the whole progression, from Newton through Quantum theory that is interesting. If I just discuss the irrationality of 20th physics, I would leave it unintelligible how physics came to such a state. So I decided to sketch the whole rather than go into detail on a particular part.

 

Shortly after that, Harriman asks:

"Why should you care about this topic?"

For physicists and students of physics the answer is obvious. I don't have to motivate you. This material is essential to a fundamental understanding of your science. Now it's true that many of the physicist today just use the equations without learning about the fundamentals, but that's the attitude of a hack, not a serious scientist.

 

Going into various contentious particulars without the basic fundamentals isn't going to get you very far.

Edited January 20, 2015 by dream_weaver

[andie holland]

You did not miss Harriman's point, you missed my point. My point was that government-funded research is not really germane to whether or not a given conclusion is philosophically sound or not.

 

More to the point on this thread, I excerpted two points Harriman highlights within first 5 minutes of his course on The Philosophical Corruption of Physics.

It's the whole progression, from Newton through Quantum theory that is interesting. If I just discuss the irrationality of 20th physics, I would leave it unintelligible how physics came to such a state. So I decided to sketch the whole rather than go into detail on a particular part.

 

Shortly after that, Harriman asks:

"Why should you care about this topic?"

For physicists and students of physics the answer is obvious. I don't have to motivate you. This material is essential to a fundamental understanding of your science. Now it's true that many of the physicist today just use the equations without learning about the fundamentals, but that's the attitude of a hack, not a serious scientist.

 

Going into various contentious particulars without the basic fundamentals isn't going to get you very far.

Okay, you've convinced me: permit me a day or two to listen to Harriman's texts & I'll respond in a way which will turn the axis of discussion back to Objectivism. 

 

Otherwise, government -funded research is indeed the issue if the philosophical question is whether or not private research can do a better job. Perhaps, as well, government-funded research is responsible for having abandoned the fundamentals.

 

AH

[andie holland]

You and Wigner judge as if everything was QM particles. The difference is that he takes them to be subjective and you take them as objective. That's a difference of ideas but not of core materialist philosophy. As for me, I live in an environment, which is not the same as 'vacuum.' Whole things surround me, but they are not the same as QM matter and energy. While QM is concerned with fragments and parts, our true reality is the perceivable whole.

 

 

That's exactly what I need, and this was my point. I am concerned with the relationship between energy and particles. And this wave-relationship is found among particles as well. This simply means that no particle is independent from energy or other particles.

Wigner wrote that 'particles' were nothing more than a convenient mental picture. QM is really, only the math itself. So because during his epoch  we did not have either a functioning naturalist or realist theory, his ideas as to the origin of math  were important--but not so much today.

 

So yes, he was definitely not a 'materialist'! Yet because Wigner is a canonical figure in the history of QM, what he says is important. Amazingly, the math that he did for his matrix was his own.

 

I'm afraid you've misunderstood: photon-particles ARE energy. Their energy is written as h-slash.

 

In a larger sense, you live in a world of photons because all light and heat are photon/energy.

 

By some definitions of 'truth', i suppose we live in a bigger- picture world than that of the quanta. For example, i don't really think much of Born-based non-identity when translating a gazul. Yet it's all reducible to quanta in one way or another....

 

AH