What are the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics?: Video
This is an excellent video that discusses four theories on the foundations of quantum mechanics and it is some of the best explanations I have seen and it is not a dry video. I have pointed out that there are a number of problems with the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, see http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/37.... The video presents four alternatives to the Copenhagen Interpretation. They are the De Broglie–Bohm theory (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%...), the many-worlds theory also known as the Everett interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds...), the spontaneous collapse theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2...), and the QBism theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bay...). These ideas were presented with respect to the famous double slit experiment. The video mentions that Einstein was unhappy with the CI, but so was Schrodenger. Here are my thoughts on them, what are yours?
1) De Broglie–Bohm theory
I think this is better than the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI). However, it does not appear to provide any significantly different predictions and requires an additional equation, which makes it problematic.
2) Many-Worlds theory
The other panelists point out a number of problems with this interpretation, but my problem is that it violates conservation of matter and energy, because it requires an infinite number of universes and each event requires infinitely more universes.
3) Spontaneous collapse theory
I did not think this was very well explained. It does appear to solve the measurement problem however, but other than that I do not think it is promising.
4) QBism
I think this may actually be worse than the CI.
Other Thoughts:
In the double slit experiment when we are shooting one electron at a time, we do not consider that the detector is made up of atoms that also have a wave function and therefor a probability of interacting with the free electron. I am not exactly sure how this would change the interpretation of the double slit experiment with single electrons at a time, but it would suggest that the position of the electron may not be as localized as the experiment suggests. Another problem with the single electron double slit experiment is how do we know we are shooting a single electron at a time? If we know this for sure, then we must be measuring it in some way which would affect the experiment. If we don’t know this then we don’t know that one of the free electrons does not make two dots on the screen or no dots on the screen. Again going back to the limits of our detector. In order for a dot to occur, the free electron has to cause an electron in an atom to change state. If the free electron is truly a wave then it might cause a single dot, because of the atomic nature of our detector. However, you would also expect that a single electron might cause two, three, or more dots if it were a wave or no dots at all.
Personally I think we will eventually find that all matter is really waves. We will find that the probabilistic side of QM is a result of these waves being spread out. Point particles of charge cause all sorts of problems, including infinitely intense electrical fields.
Feynman did some work on the wave nature of matter. Carver Mead has done some work in this area as have many others and I am not talking about string theory, but as yet there is no comprehensive ideas in this area.
1) De Broglie–Bohm theory
I think this is better than the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI). However, it does not appear to provide any significantly different predictions and requires an additional equation, which makes it problematic.
2) Many-Worlds theory
The other panelists point out a number of problems with this interpretation, but my problem is that it violates conservation of matter and energy, because it requires an infinite number of universes and each event requires infinitely more universes.
3) Spontaneous collapse theory
I did not think this was very well explained. It does appear to solve the measurement problem however, but other than that I do not think it is promising.
4) QBism
I think this may actually be worse than the CI.
Other Thoughts:
In the double slit experiment when we are shooting one electron at a time, we do not consider that the detector is made up of atoms that also have a wave function and therefor a probability of interacting with the free electron. I am not exactly sure how this would change the interpretation of the double slit experiment with single electrons at a time, but it would suggest that the position of the electron may not be as localized as the experiment suggests. Another problem with the single electron double slit experiment is how do we know we are shooting a single electron at a time? If we know this for sure, then we must be measuring it in some way which would affect the experiment. If we don’t know this then we don’t know that one of the free electrons does not make two dots on the screen or no dots on the screen. Again going back to the limits of our detector. In order for a dot to occur, the free electron has to cause an electron in an atom to change state. If the free electron is truly a wave then it might cause a single dot, because of the atomic nature of our detector. However, you would also expect that a single electron might cause two, three, or more dots if it were a wave or no dots at all.
Personally I think we will eventually find that all matter is really waves. We will find that the probabilistic side of QM is a result of these waves being spread out. Point particles of charge cause all sorts of problems, including infinitely intense electrical fields.
Feynman did some work on the wave nature of matter. Carver Mead has done some work in this area as have many others and I am not talking about string theory, but as yet there is no comprehensive ideas in this area.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
In the context of this interchange, I am specifically referring to the folks that ARE educated as scientists, who all have recognized PhD's, all whom have different "opinions"/theories" while observing the SAME empirical data, and reported facts., all with different interpretations of the data based on their perception of reality.
Your defense of science is admirable, but even you must recognize that much of science, in fact the VAST majority is based on "theories." Theories are defined specifically as:
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
4b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation.
The "scientific method" suggests to CHAGE your theory based on facts and re-run experiments, however this is predicated on the "scientists themselves" being willing to easily give up their prized belief or theory in favor of how the facts play out. Too often this is not the case, and scientists use results based experiments in stead of experiments that are repeatable, provable, and consistent,.
Again this is FAITH and Religion, you just call it science, and try to make a distinction between biblical and science books.
I personally believe, "opinion" that science asks the wrong questions when trying to prove theories. Instead of asking how did this evolve, or how did this come into being through a random explosion, they should be asking, how was this made, and work on reverse engineering it like you would any mechanical device.
Anyone can call himself a "scientist" bu these pseudo scientists are doing a good deal of damage dishonestly exploiting the reputation of science for their own ends -- which they do because they realize that science is good and the reputation is worth their while to steal. Science does not claim mystic insights to boost its reputation. To equate defense of science with jihad is obscene.
If you want to understand science learn the science and look to see how it rationally follows from and confirms observation instead of watching videos on bizarre speculation for an audience not expected to know anything -- which only feeds and cashes in on ignorance, philosophical skepticism, a turn to faith and mysticism, and ultimately a lot of brute force and collapse of advanced civilization.
Evolutionary biology, quantum physics and Newtonian gravitation are science based on experiment and observation, resulting in rational inductive principles for understanding of the real world and a successful technology. Creationism, mystic sects, and sacred texts are not, and result in the Dark Ages. The culture will be in a terrible state when people are so ignorant they can't tell the difference (and don't know any more than 1+1=2).
The physicists were very smart people who were doing the best they could, and made remarkable progress. To some extent they did "throw up their hands" when the established concepts and theories could not be directly applied (which they of course tried first). Fundamentally new ideas were required in a realm where existing theory and concepts were shown to be inadequate, observation could only be by indirect measurement, and theory formation and new concepts involving ever higher levels of abstraction from abstraction were without philosophical guidance and under the influence of Mach and the positivists, which had permeated physics. That was all on top of very difficult problems in the physics and mathematics which took a great deal of intelligence and creativity to solve.
Many of the 'interpretations' they came up with have given them a bad name, not that they weren't mistakenly serious about them but that they succeeded as much as they did in formulating general mathematical and somewhat conceptual accounts of the new physics confirmed by experiment to high accuracy is remarkable -- and look at some of the technology today that came from it.
Especially in the last few decades there have been some really excellent scientific biographies of some of the major scientists. They provide enormous insight into their backgrounds, interests, and motives, along with what problems they faced and how they dealt with them -- and the strange 'interpretations' they cooked up and promoted and how they came about. But the biographies are not philosophical and strive to report the technical events accurately without getting into the epistemology. It's hard to find good fiction as interesting as this, but they also require varying degrees of prior technical understanding to follow.
Let us examine the context of the Video. and several "Sciences":
Global Warming/Climate Change. Scientists are split on their "OPINION" based on the "evidence" they believe and defend their belief with the same vigor as the Crusaders of old.
Evolution vs. Creation: I can present to you just as much science for, as against., and again each side presents argues and defends their belief with similar zeal to the Jihadists in the middle east.
Quantum Science. Again, the four here in the video present 4 views and 4 opinions based on the same equations and reported "science", and defend them with the same vigor as to religious zealots. If you paid close attention each of the "scientists: view and opinion was radically different from each other with vastly different implications. Yes this is belief. Belief is faith. Faith is religious in nature. Even if that religion is Science.
I can go on and on within different "Scientific Disciplines" There is a MASSIVE amount of "science" that is every bit as religious as religion.
Allow me to point out that the Biblical definition of faith is, "..The assured expectation of things hope for, and the evident demonstration of reality though not beheld." Gravity is an example. If I drop an apple from a 100 story building I have complete faith that:
1) The apple will fall toward the earth, not up
2) The apple will be smashed to pieces when it hits the ground
Can I prove that without dropping the apple? No, however based on evidence and previous empirical data, I have faith and believe this is the case. Of course that makes the assumption that while the apple is falling an eagle does not swoop in and catch it, or some other unforeseen event interrupts the fall, but these things could happen, hence the differences in belief, especially when correlating this with the possibilities in Quantum Math given some of the "beliefs" in parallel universes and so on all based on the MATH of quantum mechanics.
Objective standards are also given and established by the subjective nature of those setting the standards. Global warming using results based "Bayesian" analysis vs. other forms and calling those standards conclusive.
The only thing I know is 1+1=2 until proven otherwise.
In addition to subatomic particles like electrons, there are also subatomic forces within the nucleus as well as electric fields. An explanation of the mechanism of gravitational, electric, and magnetic attraction, let alone nuclear forces, would necessarily be very abstract and mathematical, not something you can grasp directly in terms of matter at the macroscopic level which we experience directly.
Einstein himself noted the distinction and advocated for some kind of ether whose characteristics are presently not known. In his "Ether and the Theory of Relativity" address at the University of Leden on May 5, 1920, he stated:
".. the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitational potentials g_mu_nu), has, I think finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events."
We understand gravitation but not why the masses attract. We understand electricity and magnetism through Maxwell's equations and material properties, but not what gives rise to the waves and fields at a deeper level. 19th century attempts to concoct mechanical explanations of electromagnetic waves all failed, but they aren't needed.
We know things by their attributes, and only the attributes we know of. A thing is the totality of it's attributes, not an identity-less blob to which attributes are attached. 'Existence is identity". Existence and identity are th same thing from different perspectives. Our expanding knowledge is knowledge of more and more attributes and their relations which make things what they are.
Matter consists of atoms and molecules. As long as you hold onto "matter" and "matter in motion" as the basis of conceptual explanation you are precluding understanding of subatomic phenomena, which is understood through its observable attributes obtained by indirect measurement. The only measurement equipment we have is based on macroscopic entities, and in that sense our entire hierarchy of knowledge depends on macroscopic entities we directly perceive, but that does not mean that higher levels of abstraction inferring non-perceivable entities and attributes must conclude that they are based on "matter".
No, we can't "just get along" with faith and force. Belief through faith is cognitively irrelevant at best, and in practice destructive in both thought and action. With no objective standards of truth, there is no way for people to interact without force and no way to "just get along".
You did not describe what kind of abnormal mental images you experienced as your brain phased in and out. Whatever it was, you fortunately survived it, and it was what it was as fact, but it is not a substitute for rational understanding of the causes and not a reason to engage in mystic fantasies as a substitute for explanation. There is always much that it is not understood. Resorting to mystical speculation does not provide any more understanding, it remains mystical speculation of no cognitive value. Learning does not fail, it continues to grow as long as we live, but never becomes omniscience. A failing intellect is a physical breakdown, not a revelation to trust in.
No variety of faith, which is the belief contrary to or in the absence of reason, provides understanding. It is arbitrary imagination.
Load more comments...