1900%26gt;The Planck constant (denoted h) is a physical constant that is used to describe the sizes of quanta. It plays a central role in the theory of quantum mechanics.
1905-1915%26gt;The Copenhagen interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics, usually understood to state that every particle is described by its wavefunction, which dictates the probability for it to be found in any location following a measurement. Each measurement causes a change in the state of the particle, known as wavefunction collapse.
1925-1930%26gt;The Uncertainty Principle is now understood not so much as a consequence of trade-offs inherent in the measurement process, but rather as a property of quantum states, corresponding to the statistical properties of measurement in quantum mechanics.
1935%26gt;In quantum mechanics, the EPR paradox is a thought experiment which challenged long-held ideas about the relation between the observed values of physical quantities and the values that can be accounted for by a physical theory. "EPR" stands for Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, who introduced the thought experiment in a 1935 paper to argue that quantum mechanics is not a complete physical theory.
The EPR experiment yields a dichotomy. Either
The result of a measurement performed on one part A of a quantum system has a non-local effect on the physical reality of another distant part B, in the sense that quantum mechanics can predict outcomes of some measurements carried out at B; or...
Quantum mechanics is incomplete in the sense that some element of physical reality corresponding to B cannot be accounted for by quantum mechanics (that is, some extra variable is needed to account for it.)
1964%26gt;Bell's theorem is the most famous legacy of the late physicist John S. Bell. It is famous for showing that the predictions of quantum mechanics (QM) are not intuitive, and touches upon fundamental philosophical issues that relate to modern physics. Bell's theorem states:
“ No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. ”
1978%26gt;Wheeler's delayed choice experiment is a thought experiment proposed by John Archibald Wheeler in 1978 (Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory, edited by A.R. Marlow, Academic Press). Wheeler proposes a variation of the famous Double-slit experiment of quantum physics, one in which the detector screen can be removed at the last moment, according to a "delayed choice" of the observer, i.e. a choice made after the presumed photon would have cleared the midstream barrier containing two parallel slits. Behind the screen are two tightly focused telescopes, each one aimed to observe its own slit, and it is claimed that seeing a flash of light through one telescope or the other would detect by which path the photon traveled. According to the results of the double slit experiment, if we know which slit the photon goes through, we change the outcome of the experiment and the behavior of the photon. If we know which slit it goes through, the photon will behave as a particle. If we do not know which slit it goes through, the photon will behave as if it were a wave. This wave-particle duality of photons (and in fact all quantum particles) is one of the fundamental mysteries of quantum mechanics.
1982-2007%26gt;Bell test experiments serve to investigate the validity of the entanglement effect in quantum mechanics by using some kind of Bell inequality. John Bell published the first inequality of this kind in his paper "On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox". Bell's Theorem states that a Bell inequality must be obeyed under any local hidden variable theory but can in certain circumstances be violated under quantum mechanics. The term "Bell inequality" can mean any one of a number of inequalities — in practice, in real experiments, the CHSH or CH74 inequality, not the original one derived by John Bell. It places restrictions on the statistical results of experiments on sets of particles that have taken part in an interaction and then separated. A Bell test experiment is one designed to test whether or not the real world obeys a Bell inequality. Such experiments fall into two classes, depending on whether the analysers used have one or two output channels.
Today all of this reveals the importance of consciousness and how it relates to "physical reality" Which exists as only a probable non-local timeless state prior to observation, further to say that "physical reality" can or does exist prior to human observation necessitates a primary or original consciousness to make the observation/state collapse. Deeper still, the consciousness must be said to have a non-quantum/physical quality or you will reach infinite descent which is not possible in a quanta/physical reality as quanta are finite therefore at the end of the chain of physical obsevation there must exist a nonquantum quality to the nature of concsiousness for the obseveration of physical reality. So it is logical to either dismiss all assumptions about empirical knowledge and the ablitity to know our nuniverse or we must accept the non-quantum and primary consciousness aspects that are required of physical reality both prior to and existent after the evolution of other forms of consciousenss and also that physical reality is dependent upon and to some extent determined by the primary/original and our own individal/self consciousness.
Fear not one day we will all come to realize this simple fact that has been stated many times and in many forms throughout history, for one day each consciousness will be parted from the physical form.
Sources
quantum physics and logical reasoning.
Also if there is a flaw in my logical reasoning based on current data as provided by the jurgurnaught that is emperical science then please point it out in detail via e-mail
the refinement of ideas is always nice.
Is there a flaw in this logic if so details please.?concert tickets
All the theories, hypotheses and interpretations are subjective. None of them have any impact on reality. None of them reflect reality.
Is there a flaw in this logic if so details please.?theater seating opera theater
I am not a physicist, nor do I know in detail the dispute you talk about. An answer from me is an educated guess.
My feeling is that the theory of quantum mechanics is flawed. It is said that, "by the nature of existence, contradictions cannot exist. If you find yourself facing a contradiction, check your assumptions. You will find that one of them is wrong." Perhaps one day somebody may come up with a better theory, that will seem obviously correct in retrospect. My guess is that the new theory would expose this hidden assumption.
I will admit that my knowledge of quantum theory is not as extensive as yours, but I do have understanding of the basic principles.
It seems to me that you have strong arguments for the unreliability of empirical knowledge. The observation of non-quantum components of consciousness is essential to making your argument strong. I don't know if I can concur with your statements about dismissing empirical knowledge entirely because I don't see that non-quantum observation is necessarily exclusive of accurate data gathering. All of the work done in this field is based on thought experiments and maths that are a direct result of our empirical non-quantum processes. It may simply be a matter of conception on our part as a developing consciousness to properly address the issue. The irreconciliation of our macro-'reality' and the quantum reality can merely be a matter of resolution between the macro- and the quantum levels.
[add] Please forgive me if I appear to be babbling, I am quite drunk and this question has affected my state of determinacy.
This is a very interesting exposition of various facets of Quantum Physics. All the exposition leads to the statement:
"Today all of this reveals the importance of consciousness and how it relates to "physical reality" Which exists as only a probable non-local timeless state prior to observation, further to say that "physical reality" can or does exist prior to human observation necessitates a primary or original consciousness to make the observation/state collapse.
{ Reply:
I don't see any arguement to make this point. You are re-asking the question, if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it does it make a sound. I assert that various principles of physics clearly make it obvious that the answer is yes. It would be very strange to imagine a physical universe where only if there is a listener, there is a sound. How would the universe/nature know when to make a sound or not. That would presume that the universe/nature is aware of the existance of a listener or no listener. And, depending on which, that in one case the physical causes of sound would be in play and in the other they would not. }
Deeper still, the consciousness must be said to have a non-quantum/physical quality or you will reach infinite descent
{Reply:
Sorry, I don't see any arguements to support that. }
which is not possible in a quanta/physical reality as quanta are finite therefore at the end of the chain of physical obsevation there must exist a nonquantum quality to the nature of concsiousness for the obseveration of physical reality.
{ I believe the following is an assertion and needs a proof or at least a more orderly exposition to lead us to this conclusion - } So it is logical to either dismiss all assumptions about empirical knowledge and the ablitity to know our nuniverse or we must accept the non-quantum and primary consciousness aspects that are required of physical reality both prior to and existent after the evolution of other forms of consciousenss and also that physical reality is dependent upon and to some extent determined by the primary/original and our own individal/self consciousness."
{More reply:
You write:
"So it is logical to either dismiss all assumptions about empirical knowledge and the ablitity to know our nuniverse or we must accept the non-quantum and primary consciousness aspects...."
You assert that either we must "dismiss all assumptions about empirical knowledge ... or ... accept the non-quantum and primary consciousness aspects...."
But it is rare that we must "dismiss all". As we think about the world and Newtonian vs Einstienian physics, it is clear that Newtonian physics works at a certain level. That is for day-to-day activity, the apple falls and who cares about how much it's mass increases due to acceleration as the change
is so small as to be un-meaningfull. Of course, if the apple should approach the speed of light as it falls, that would be another story.
So frankly, I do not find a logical arguement in your post.
You need a lot more structure.
you need a different hobby
stop neglecting your body and the vibrant world around it
You pretty much left off describing the experimentation which has been accomplished to test the Bell inequality since shortly after the EPR thought experiments. I would like to call your attention to two books on this subject. The first is:
Robert Nadeau and Menas Kafatos: "The Non-local Universe. the new physics and matters of the mind."; Oxford Univ. Press, N.Y. NY, 1999 (pp. 197-198)
In which they state on the pages cited;
"Given that this whole (the cosmos) exists in some sense within all parts (quanta), one can then argue that it operates in self-reflective fashion and is the ground for all emergent complexity. Since human consciousness evinces self-reflective awareness in the human brain and since this brain (like all physical phenomena) can be viewed as an emergent property of the whole, it is not unreasonable to conclude, in philosophical terms at least, THAT THE UNIVERSE IS CONSCIOUS.
The second book is:
Amir C. Aczel; "Entanglement, the greatest mystery in physics."; Four walls , Eight windows, N.Y. NY, 2001 (pp. 181-190)
At the pages cited he describes the Alan Aspect Experiments of the 1970's which disproved locality and affirmed quantum theory. These experiments and others are also described in the first book pp,. 77-80.
How is that for logic?
Good luck in your research, good health, peace and Love!
No comments:
Post a Comment