On the Nature of Things | Forum

This I believe though it explains it poorly, debunks a lot of the crazy claims associated with quantum.

q7v5NtV8v6I

Pretty good. The discussion is old. Einstein and Bohr quarreled 30 years about it. Bottom line is that Bohr stated that there is not much we can say with certainty about anything before or after a quantum measurement and that Einstein considered this a serious weakness of quantum mechanics.

They may be both speaking the truth. After all, Einstein is right that the premise of science is that independent of experience/consciousness and scientific measurement there exists an objective reality that can be probed using the scientific method. But Bohr was right that in the quantum world apparently nature is not providing the type of answers we were used to in classical physics.

Analogously to what I coined experience-independent reality, measurement-independent reality (before/after a measurement) as it can be assumed to exist at the quantum level turns out to be sort of a black box where only mathematical descriptions (probability distribution, collapse of the wave function, super-position etc) remain to describe it. But the fact that these mathematical equations turned out to be stunningly accurate predictors and as such part of the technological tool-set also begs the question...(see my tongue-in-cheek signature about probability)

I do think however that the difference between classical physics and quantum physics is exaggerated. There are a lot of similarities.

6RQ6ugMWZ0c

Colonel Sun wrote:Symmetry Mag | Five [current] mysteries the Standard Model can’t explain

The Standard Model is a thing of beauty. It is the most rigorous theory of particle physics, incredibly precise and accurate in its predictions. It mathematically lays out the 17 building blocks of nature: six quarks, six leptons, four force-carrier particles, and the Higgs boson. These are ruled by the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces.

“As for the question ‘What are we [made of]?’ the Standard Model has the answer,” says Saúl Ramos, a researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). “It tells us that every object in the universe is not independent, and that every particle is there for a reason.”

For the past 50 years such a system has allowed scientists to incorporate particle physics into a single equation that explains most of what we can see in the world around us.

Despite its great predictive power, however, the Standard Model fails to answer five crucial questions, which is why particle physicists know their work is far from done.

I was watching a documentary on the standard model the other day(It may have even been posted here) where one physicist said he felt there maybe something wrong with the math of the standard model. He **seemed** to be indicating it the wimp section

Parodite wrote:Pretty good. The discussion is old. Einstein and Bohr quarreled 30 years about it. Bottom line is that Bohr stated that there is not much we can say with certainty about anything before or after a quantum measurement and that Einstein considered this a serious weakness of quantum mechanics.

They may be both speaking the truth. After all, Einstein is right that the premise of science is that independent of experience/consciousness and scientific measurement there exists an objective reality that can be probed using the scientific method. But Bohr was right that in the quantum world apparently nature is not providing the type of answers we were used to in classical physics.

Analogously to what I coined experience-independent reality, measurement-independent reality (before/after a measurement) as it can be assumed to exist at the quantum level turns out to be sort of a black box where only mathematical descriptions (probability distribution, collapse of the wave function, super-position etc) remain to describe it. But the fact that these mathematical equations turned out to be stunningly accurate predictors and as such part of the technological tool-set also begs the question...(see my tongue-in-cheek signature about probability)

I do think however that the difference between classical physics and quantum physics is exaggerated. There are a lot of similarities.

Just an analogy towards your point: Beatlejuice is 650 light years from earth. It is expected to go supernova sometime within the next 100,000 years. So we can't definitively say where it is precisely or even if it still exists as a star, or as a wave of energy and material. So is it currently a star or is it a wave?

If Beatlejuice was at the other side of the universe and there was an Einsteinian train circling it at the speed of light, would you be able(assuming a perfect telescope) to determine how long the train is without relativistic effects? Or how far the train was alternately and relatively traveling into our future and our past as it went around Beatlejuice? Or even if the engine of said train due to relativistic effects will crash into the caboose? Relativity shows there can be great uncertainty. Quantum physics says there is unknowable uncertainty. So both, in their own way, are uncertainly weird.

i1TVZIBj7UA

tis probably philosophy but its strikes me that believing in a purely mechanical, reductionist world makes one dislike quantum.

quantum , with its percentages of likelihood is more wobbly, like economics.

Colonel Sun wrote:i1TVZIBj7UA

Irregardless of what is most efficient, 4000K is my favorite color of light.

noddy wrote:tis probably philosophy but its strikes me that believing in a purely mechanical, reductionist world makes one dislike quantum.

quantum , with its percentages of likelihood is more wobbly, like economics.

I think that is a common viewpoint, which drives many people's interest in the meta-physical.

What exists outside of the visible spectrum of light?

noddy wrote:tis probably philosophy but its strikes me that believing in a purely mechanical, reductionist world makes one dislike quantum.

quantum , with its percentages of likelihood is more wobbly, like economics.

Er, no. QM does not mean that predictions, as in the case of economics, are imprecise and irreproducible.

Rather one can calculate the distributions of photons or electrons detected by the two slit experiment or the energy/frequency distribution of light emitted from a heated body, do an experiment, and find that the agreement is spot on.

Doc wrote: . . . Relativity shows there can be great uncertainty. Quantum physics says there is unknowable uncertainty. So both, in their own way, are uncertainly weird.

Er, no. Relativity is a deterministic classical theory.

Colonel Sun wrote:

noddy wrote:tis probably philosophy but its strikes me that believing in a purely mechanical, reductionist world makes one dislike quantum.

quantum , with its percentages of likelihood is more wobbly, like economics.

Er, no. QM does not mean that predictions, as in the case of economics, are imprecise and irreproducible.

Rather one can calculate the distributions of photons or electrons detected by the two slit experiment or the energy/frequency distribution of light emitted from a heated body, do an experiment, and find that the agreement is spot on.

yah, I realised I should have clarified that muse.

QM is reproducable whilst Economics is historical, massive differences, however ... to those that really dislike QM on an instinctual level , they seem the same in that its percentages instead of black and white cause -> effect.

Colonel Sun wrote:

Doc wrote: . . . Relativity shows there can be great uncertainty. Quantum physics says there is unknowable uncertainty. So both, in their own way, are uncertainly weird.

Er, no. Relativity is a deterministic classical theory.

OK point me to the absolute center of the nearest black hole.

Doc wrote:

Colonel Sun wrote:

Doc wrote: . . . Relativity shows there can be great uncertainty. Quantum physics says there is unknowable uncertainty. So both, in their own way, are uncertainly weird.

Er, no. Relativity is a deterministic classical theory.

OK point me to the absolute center of the nearest black hole.

According to GR, a classical deterministic theory, there is a singularity [see link below] at the centre of a black hole.
The key issue is choosing the right coordinate system and one can point to the centre of a black hole.

What lies at the centre of black holes

The problem is that due to the extreme curvature in the region of a black hole, quantum effects are thought to become important and there is, to-date, no quantum theory of gravity. The spacetime field in GR is purely classical.

Colonel Sun wrote:

Doc wrote:

Colonel Sun wrote:

Doc wrote: . . . Relativity shows there can be great uncertainty. Quantum physics says there is unknowable uncertainty. So both, in their own way, are uncertainly weird.

Er, no. Relativity is a deterministic classical theory.

OK point me to the absolute center of the nearest black hole.

According to GR, a classical deterministic theory, there is a singularity [see link below] at the centre of a black hole.
The key issue is choosing the right coordinate system and one can point to the centre of a black hole.

What lies at the centre of black holes

The problem is that due to the extreme curvature in the region of a black hole, quantum effects are thought to become important and there is, to-date, no quantum theory of gravity. The spacetime field in GR is purely classical.

OK that makes sense in the same way I was meaning originally. Which basically is if you are standing on earth looking at Beatlejuice you are looking 650 into the past. If you waited 650 years to see what Beatlejuice was doing (at Beatlejuice)when you first looked at it, you cannot predict with certainty what it was doing at Beatlejuice at that instant in time, at beatlejuice. Conversely, if you traveled instantaneously to Beatlejuice you could not be certain what you would find when you get there because you would be in effect traveling 650 years into the future relative to Earth.

At any rate that is what I meant WRT uncertainty in relativity. The train might be a bit of a stretch on my part but given the relativist time effect of movement at vast distance, and if the train were long enough it would appear as if the train engine was speeding up while the caboose was slowing down (or even going in the counter common sensicle direction)at the same point in Earth time. Or vise a versa. Even if it was not going all that fast, would it not? Making a relativistic calculation if not uncertain then I would think extremely difficult. Plus it could be happening as much as 13 billion years in the past relative to Earth time. If you went to Beatlejuice to measure the train I imagine it would be relatively straight forward. But at 13 billion lights year not so straight forward.

I hope I am not giving you a headache CS. I just think it is an interesting, if obscure, question. I think I am not even able to state the question properly.

The SM only describes the interactions of standard matter, leptons and baryons. Hypothesized dark matter is outside of the SM.
The theorist's favoured candidate for dark matter is WIMPS.
Direct experimental searches have, to-date, turned up nada.

FN2d2cmi_Gk

There is one experimental observation of standard matter that is not accounted for by the SM: the mass of the neutrinos and the associated neutrino oscillations.

How long does a quantum jump take?

Date: September 19, 2018
Source: Vienna University of Technology
Summary: Quantum jumps are usually regarded to be instantaneous. However, new measurement methods are so precise that it has now become possible to observe such a process and to measure its duration precisely -- for example the famous 'photoelectric effect', first described by Albert Einstein.

[...]

Some light starts to shine in the dark space of quantum jumping. Darkness matters.

Colonel Sun wrote:The SM only describes the interactions of standard matter, leptons and baryons. Hypothesized dark matter is outside of the SM.
The theorist's favoured candidate for dark matter is WIMPS.
Direct experimental searches have, to-date, turned up nada.

FN2d2cmi_Gk

There is one experimental observation of standard matter that is not accounted for by the SM: the mass of the neutrinos and the associated neutrino oscillations.

A Physicist discovers absolute proof of Supersymmetry. What is the first thing he says?



A) "This is my sparticle moment!!!"

edvdzh9Pggg

A hard scifi author who has done some fun maths scifi's (yes really) contributed to a permutation algorithm theorem partially sovled by an anonymous shitpooster on 4chan.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/sci-fi-w ... -20181105/

In less than an hour, an anonymous person offered an answer — not a complete solution, but a lower bound on the number of episodes required. The argument, which covered series with any number of episodes, showed that for the 14-episode first season of Haruhi, viewers would have to watch at least 93,884,313,611 episodes to see all possible orderings. “Please look over [the proof] for any loopholes I might have missed,” the anonymous poster wrote.

The proof slipped under the radar of the mathematics community for seven years — apparently only one professional mathematician spotted it at the time, and he didn’t check it carefully. But in a plot twist last month, the Australian science fiction novelist Greg Egan proved a new upper bound on the number of episodes required. Egan’s discovery renewed interest in the problem and drew attention to the lower bound posted anonymously in 2011. Both proofs are now being hailed as significant advances on a puzzle mathematicians have been studying for at least 25 years.

Mathematicians quickly verified Egan’s upper bound, which, like the lower bound, applies to series of any length. Then Robin Houston, a mathematician at the data visualization firm Kiln, and Jay Pantone of Marquette University in Milwaukee independently verified the work of the anonymous 4chan poster. “It took a lot of work to try to figure out whether or not it was correct,” Pantone said, since the key ideas hadn’t been expressed particularly clearly.

Quanta Mag | [Tentative] Evidence Found for a New Fundamental Particle

An experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago has detected far more electron neutrinos than predicted — a possible harbinger of a revolutionary new elementary particle called the sterile neutrino, though many physicists remain skeptical.

Colonel Sun wrote:Quanta Mag | [Tentative] Evidence Found for a New Fundamental Particle

An experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago has detected far more electron neutrinos than predicted — a possible harbinger of a revolutionary new elementary particle called the sterile neutrino, though many physicists remain skeptical.

Finally the Eunuch is found.

Just imagine what Stan Lee could have done with "The Sterile Neutrino".

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Just imagine what Stan Lee could have done with "The Sterile Neutrino".

Two muons from neighboring colleges in upstate New York are swept up in a tragic romantic interlude calling for a maturity of vision beyond their experience of capabilities. Pookie Adams - a kooky, lonely misfit with no family and no place to go, insists on calling all those who won't participate in her world, "electron neutrinos," clings to a quiet studious Jerry, who has the ability to make a choice of living in Pookie's private little world or be accepted by the society that Pookie rejects. Unwittingly, it is through their awkward relationship that Pookie actually prepares Jerry for the world of "electron neutrinos" that she doesn't fit into or wish to be apart of.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065037/pl ... _=tt_ov_pl

..........

APS | Kilogram Untethered from Earthly Objects

A new definition of mass based solely on fundamental constants.