I’ll have to think about your spin example. It seems to run counter to everything I’ve encountered (every state I’ve ever seen for such systems collapses to where the system has a single well-defined classical-type state), but I’ll look into it. As for the "particles moving in opposite directions but getting closer together, I haven’t seen/heard that. Do you have a reference of some kind, a textbook say (my university’s library is quite extensive).
As for “zero-point energy” and “non-locality”: Non-locality, as Grames has said, is simply a fact. It won’t be overturned any time soon. The world is far stranger than it seems to us way up here at the meter-scale level, but that does not mean that non-locality is nonphysical or a dead end. Indeed, the whole idea that effects can only propagate at the speed of light is relatively new- only since the turn of the 20th century. As for your contention that “zero-point energy” is unphysical, I don’t see why. There will always be some minimum amount of energy left over, perfect rest is the non-physical view (there will always be some forces on a particle, and given non-locality this is more true then ever).
Like I said before, the psi-function describing the system prior to the experiment contains all the eigenvalues that can be potentially revealed through the experiment (with their own probabilities, of course). The experiment will not produce eigenvalues that weren’t “contained” within the psi-function describing the system prior to experiment. Schroedinger’s cat illustration gives a very good idea about that (too bad QM isn’t based on only physical outcomes as in that illustration) – the cat is in one of two possible, physically viable, states prior to opening the lid. There’s no third state in which the cat can be in. Similarly, there are no other possible outcomes from Aspect’s experiment than the outcomes contained in the psi-function describing the system, no matter how it appears so someone observing the polarizing angles (noticing that they are continuous, for instance). In that sense all is tied up ahead of time within the state function describing the system just as in the classical case. There will be nothing unexpected created by the experiment, no eigenvalue that wasn’t there to begin with will pop up due to experiment. The only unexpected would be what exact eigenvalue will be pulled out due to experiment out of the given, predetermined set (continuous or not).
How about a parked car? It isn’t changing its spatial coordinates with respect to the lamppost or with respect to the nearby building. Wouldn’t you say, then, the said car is at perfect rest with respect to at least one system? Quantum mechanics unjustifiably denies that, only adding that the car is too big an object for its (QM’s) conclusions to be noticeable.
I do not know that a parked car is in total rest in comparison with the lamppost and a nearby building. I only know that it is very very nearly at rest. It is constantly being bombarded with energy (light for example, air molecules hitting it, etc.), so I in fact do not expect it to be in absolute rest, but rather only in average rest. That is, I expect its average velocity, even over short times, to be zero.
So, all the objects that are at rest around you are in some kind of motion, although on the average in going to and fro they maintain their positions with respect to the walls, the floor or the ceiling. But then even the immovable objects will be producing kinetic energy which will inevitably turn into heat. Think about how many immovable objects there are on Earth. Do we not notice the kinetic energy constantly produced by them according to the above mechanism?
By the way, I agree that states such as uniform rectilinear motion, observed in classical mechanics are an idealization. True rectilinear uniform motion is akin to rest and there is no such motion in reality, in harmony with your latest post. However, this has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Such reality is not due to quantum effects but is a result of real classical forces acting on the objects. On the other hand, as usual, classical mechanics uses abstraction, as does quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics, however, in its most abstract sense doesn’t recognize rest while classical mechanics certainly does. This invalidates the much celebrated correspondence principle.
Like I said before, the psi-function describing the system prior to the experiment contains all the eigenvalues that can be potentially revealed through the experiment (with their own probabilities, of course). The experiment will not produce eigenvalues that weren’t “contained” within the psi-function describing the system prior to experiment.
So, all the objects that are at rest around you are in some kind of motion, although on the average in going to and fro they maintain their positions with respect to the walls, the floor or the ceiling. But then even the immovable objects will be producing kinetic energy which will inevitably turn into heat. Think about how many immovable objects there are on Earth. Do we not notice the kinetic energy constantly produced by them according to the above mechanism?
For a brownian motion which sums to a net zero for a macroscopic object at rest, each of the particles in a gravitational field will both gain energy and then return it when moving parallel and then anti-parallel to the direction of attraction. This is why objects at rest do not heat up.
So, then, that’s the problem with the Schroedinger’s cat example – it appears you believe it may happen so that there may be an experiment after which we will find the cat in some third state, other than being alive or dead. On the other hand, Schroedinger’s cat seems to illustrate my claim that it’s predetermined when writing a psi-function what exact eigenvalues we may expect after doing an experiment. In that sense quantum mechanics is deterministic. What cannot be determined with certainty prior to an experiment in quantum mechanics is exactly which one of the strictly defined set of possible eigenvalues will come about as a result of the experiment. One can only know the probability of the outcome. You, obviously, don’t agree with that and propose that the experiment can create some unexpected new eigenvalue. Can you show how this can happen theoretically, Aspect’s experiment notwithstanding?
As for brownian motion, the macroscopic object is at rest but brownian motion certainly is a motion, at that not occurring at 0K temperature. The body doesn’t heat up because of the nature of what’s causing brownian motion, the environment playing a substantial part in it, and because there is such a thing as thermal equilibrium with the environment. You, however, seem to agree that a macroscopic body can be at rest, contrary to @nanite1018’s claim which even in macroscopic sense may have merit in the real world.
That was, however, not the point I was trying to make in the exchange with @nanite1018 and I realize that the example with the real bodies may lead to confusion. My point is in my last post, namely that even in abstract sense quantum mechanics doesn’t allow for rest while classical mechanics certainly does. Therefore, the widely acclaimed correspondence principle in quantum mechanics is simply incorrect.
By the way, whether or not you’re impressed with someone’s physics has no standing as an argument in the exchange.
Can you show how this can happen theoretically, Aspect’s experiment notwithstanding?
I am no longer a practicing physicist or student, but I know where the answer lies. The theoretical treatment that gives the right answers agreeing with experiment is Bohmian Mechanics, aka Pilot Wave Theory, aka the de Broglie - Bohm theory.
… Therefore, the widely acclaimed correspondence principle in quantum mechanics is simply incorrect.
Not true. See the Wiki article’s sections on relativity and the classical limit in the de Broglie - Bohm theory.
By the way, whether or not you’re impressed with someone’s physics has no standing as an argument in the exchange.
No, but it is a way to express the conclusion that you don’t quite know what you are talking about based on the opinions you have expressed so far.
No, but it is a way to express the conclusion that you don’t quite know what you are talking about based on the opinions you have expressed so far.
This is going too far. Not only are you the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, as I have already shown, but you allow yourself to use ad hominem attacks in the stead of arguments for lack of such. This concludes the exchange with you.
Fine, I’ll let nanite1018 finish you off. He is a current physics student.
You might also consider that Travis Norsen, PhD is an Objectivist and physicist and has written extensively on Bell’s theorem, and has no philosophical difficulties with it. There is a thread here at Objectivism Online where he explains Bell’s ideas and what it means for physics.