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 3.
I have not mentioned what I personally believe, only presented some logical arguments based on the 4 scientists with vastly different opinions or theories on the same exact field.
I presented definitions according to the English language using the exact definitions from Miriam Webster's dictionary. something I guess some here lack the comprehension of.
Name calling is not a valid argument. sorry to disappoint.
But you'll have a hard time getting anywhere with what you think is learning about quantum mechanics without the mathematics. In particular, pawing through speculative debates over the speculative 'interpretations' competing for the bizarre is not helping you to understand quantum mechanics!
You don't know what a scientific theory is or how it is established. You are the cargo cult "scientist", the primitive witchdoctor who doesn't know how scientists think and accomplish what they do, but fears the 'miracles' that come to them from "opinions" you don't understand. You are no supporter of Atlas Shrugged.
What happened to Individual freedom of belief without being excoriated. I guess the left has truly won the battle and the war.
We are most certainly lost.
That is not the definition of the concept religion and rational people do not misuse the word that way. You know very well that the supernaturalism you are promoting is essentially something other than an "interest, belief, or activity". You are dishonest. Science is not a kind of religion and you know it. You are desperate to con people into taking your mysticism seriously -- just like the creationists tried to con the world by attempting to have it accepted as "creation science". Get lost.
Rejecting the irrational is not dogma. Rational minds are in fact "closed" to mysticism, sacred texts, and the supernatural for good reason. This is a thread about science on a site for those who like the pro-reason philosophy of Atlas Shrugged. Take your nonsense harassment somewhere else. DB is right to characterize it as trolling.
There may very well be further information yet to be determined or even conceptualized, but that in no way negates the present understanding or application of current knowledge.
It may very well be that science is just not your bailiwick or that you haven't yet developed the necessary level of conceptualization.
"The only thing I know is 1+1=2 until proven otherwise. "
Actually, 1+1=10. You use the number base you like, I'll use the number base I like.
The hell it is.
We have seen this over and over from a loud but small handful of proselytizing religious conservatives here on gg trying to cash in on Atlas Shrugged while denying it: The try to parlay religious testimonials about some strange experience (real or passed on as gossip) -- which no one has looked into to provide a rational explanation -- into "evidence" for a preposterous, sweeping fantasy about the entire universe, all life, an attack on reason, and a mystical duty ethics to serve the supernatural. 'Explain the testimonial or abandon reason and accept the supernatural' is an obvious fallacy.
Compare that with the topic of this thread.
There have been discoveries of facts in a realm of physics that appear strange in comparison with the more familiar facts we experience every day. New discoveries are always 'strange'. Some scientists go about trying to understand and explain them. When rational general principles are hard to formulate even though the details become understood very well mathematically, some resort to fantasies based on bad and destructive philosophical premises, promoted in the name of "science" and the authority and reputation of previous real accomplishments.
The philosophical vacuum then permits others to engage in increasingly bizarre nonsensical speculations such as fantasized parallel universes framed in floating abstractions and rationalized in the name of equations in a modern version of numerology. The worst of it is sensationalized, and promoted in the name of "science", while the majority of quiet, hardworking scientists, who realize that there are some things they simply don't know, are ignored.
The public sensationalizing, in the context of a continuing philosophical vacuum, then provides an opening for the worst charlatans and mystics, including some former scientists, to proclaim that modern science has validated ancient Eastern mysticism. Philosophical skeptics who never understood science proclaim that there is no difference while the overt mystics proclaim that reason has failed and we must succumb to their demands for faith and primitivist mythology.
This is why a rational philosophy, and not just pursuit of science, is required to save the culture.
Psalms 139:16. talks about The embryo and all parts down in writing.
DNA is what Science calls it now. DNA was only discovered by Science and Friedrich Miescher in 1953, over 2 thousand years after mentioned in the Bible.
I am sorry you feel this discuss is troll like, however; the dogma and fervent attitude toward science vs. religion, I find very closed minded.
There is a great deal of FACT in the Bible and other religious materials that predate "Science" that Science has only recently "discovered" or should I say validated, since it is hard to "discover" something that had already been written about.
Excellent commentary on the nature of observation. To be objective, is to be open to new information and when our instrumentality is always evolving so too must our theories. I too am fascinated by this subject matter, but it is also beyond my pay grade. Still, one day I hope to gain understanding.
Regards,
O.A.
I have great respect for both and find a solid place for both in our lives. I to not believe that Science disproves religion or Religion disproves Science. Both have many exceptional qualities.
I am presenting my debate using the actual definitions in the English language and in specific context of said definitions. This is reasonable, and logical.
The irony of it all.
Also please refer to the definition of "Religion", in particular the third definition.
re·li·gion noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
1: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
2: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
3:an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
Load more comments...