Indeterminancy in physics

I love it, I am to be sent to the dunces corner because I do not believe in the quantum scripture. Prismatic, why did you not answer my question about dark energy and dark mater being a mathematical invention?

The only questions I found in that post are these:

Mathematics is used to confirm what might be false concepts, so can maths. be held accountable? Is it a tool of deceit to make suspect reasoning valid?

These are not particularly good questions and certainly not questions of science, but let me try to answer you. I wrote that

Newton's law of gravitation was the result of mathematical reasoning as were his three laws of motion, which he presented as axioms, not proved results. On that scaffolding with the aid of the calculus which he invented for the purpose, he built the world system which explained Kepler's laws and confirmed Copernicus.

Let's examine that piece of scientific history more closely. Newton developed the law of gravitation not from direct observation but purely from the mathematics—it was the one law that would allow him to deduce the laws of planetary motion due to Kepler. In other words Newton's entire contribution to the physics of gravitation was mathematical. Later the observed perturbations in the orbit of Uranus led astronomers to guess that another planet was perturbing the orbit. John Couch Adams predicted when and where that planet would be observed and Neptune was discovered—all from mathematics.

Now with dark matter the situation was entirely similar. Observations of the behavior of galaxies indicated that their mass had to be much much larger than their luminosity predicted and therefore that mass had to be dark. Further observations of the behavior of clusters of galaxies supported the notion and no observations contradicted it. Over time it became accepted that dark matter exists, but its nature is still a puzzle. If the mass in the universe is much greater than it was thought to be, the expansion of the universe ought to be slowing when it is accelerating and the notion that dark energy may be responsible has been hypothesized—but it is at this point only a hypothesis, not firmly accepted physics.

That is the way progress is made in science. Observation leads to explanatory theories which make new predictions. If those are correct the theory is validated; if they are incorrect, it is invalidated and discarded. You would like to see mathematics held accountable when a theory is invalidated and you seem to think that your judgment is enough to do that.

Steve quantum is not just guilty of its inability to convey its knowledge, it is guilty of not agreeing or even understanding what it is observing. Mathematics have played a part in this deception. Inventing formula to support a particle universe where particles do not exist.

You have said that you do not believe in electrons, yet we still have the electron microscope. It reveals objects smaller than you can see with a regular microscope because the wave-length of electrons is much shorter than the wave length of photons. In your view all this is pure invention, but, if so, it is invention that works to provide real results of great value.

Now I am told by Prismatic electrons are not in two places at the same time yet quantum tells me it is so.

No, I said something quite different. I said "I don't believe anyone claims to have observed an electron in two different places at the same time." The difference may not be clear to you, but it is definite. The inference from experimental results in double slit experiments is that it appears an electron goes through both slits at the same time, and of course that is possible for a wave, but that is different from observing an electron (as a particle) in two different places at the same time. No one denies that the results of the double slit experiments are not intuitive, but there is not a simple contradiction as you think.

http://www.mpg.de/511738/pressRelease20051011 Had to give this link to indicate the conclusion from the double split experiment, believing electrons are particles so can be claimed to be in two places at the same time.

As I read it, the experiment does not demonstrate that nor does the press release even claim it does. The headline is formulated as a question to draw you in. Here is what the press release says:

It states that manifestations of matter which would normally be mutually exclusive - e.g., local and non-local, coherent and non-coherent - are indeed measurable and make themselves evident, in a particular "transition regime". One can speak of partial localisation and partial coherence, or partial visibility and partial distinguishability. These are measurements that are connected to each other via the duality relation.

[my emphasis]

Note the many uses of the word partial. This describes a refinement of Bohr's complementarity principle—it shows there is a transition regime in which the object is in between particle and wave states with a bit of both.

Hello Xris and Prismatic

Xris I agree with the spirit of what you say. Not so much about the details Gaede as I don’t think that he has the answer.

When mathematics is used to support suspect concepts then it is culpable of deceit. Dark matter was invented by mathematicians to give credence to an expanding universe.

I strongly agree with the first statement. I also agree with the second statement. Taking into consideration everything about what Prismatic said below. I think that the problem in science right now is that scientists over intellectualize which causes them to make bad assumptions. For example in both the case of dark matter and dark energy we have a classic case of referent confusion presented to us by modern day science.

Prismatic says

Now with dark matter the situation was entirely similar. Observations of the behavior of galaxies indicated that their mass had to be much larger than their luminosity predicted and therefore that mass had to be dark. Further observations of the behavior of clusters of galaxies supported the notion and no observations contradicted it. Over time it became accepted that dark matter exists, but its nature is still a puzzle. If the mass in the universe is much greater than it was thought to be, the expansion of the universe ought to be slowing when it is accelerating and the notion that dark energy may be responsible has been hypothesized—but it is at this point only a hypothesis, not firmly accepted physics.

The scientists have taken a valid observation and made a valid conclusion based upon what we know about gravity and mass. Something is definitely awry. Here is where they screwed up. In the case of dark matter they took a valid observation and concluded that there is missing mass. Somehow the reasoning goes wrong after that. They assume that there must be a mysterious new piece of matter out there that will account for the missing mass in a galaxy. This type of bad assumption is where modern day scientists keep making the same mistake. We decide to take a simple explanation like the missing mass is probably there in the form of black holes and non-luminous matter and instead we invent a new undiscovered particle to explain the situation. Hey, maybe there is no such thing as the mysterious dark matter composed primarily of a new, not yet characterized, type of subatomic particle. What is particularly alarming is how long they will pursue this angle regardless of the fact there is no evidence to support a new piece of matter. Shouldn’t we be able to see it here locally?

Now for the case of dark energy. The same problem applies here. We have made an observation and this time I believe in part we made the wrong conclusion. While it is true that the galaxies that are on the edge of the Universe are accelerating away from us. They are not accelerating away from other galaxies near themselves. In some cases we have also noticed that there are clusters of galaxies at the edge of what we can see in the Universe. These clusters are moving together in a particular direction. To me it seems obvious what is happening and we do not need a new mythological particle called dark energy to cause an expansion.

Here is a more logical explanation for the expansion of the Universe. First problem I see is the Universe is not expanding at all. It is actually collapsing. Could it be that at the edge of the Universe and just beyond there exist vast already collapsed galaxies and collapsed galaxy clusters. These galaxies will be completely invisible to us. These huge black holes are causing the visible galaxies at the edge of the Universe to accelerate toward them and accelerate away from us. My explanation is already supported by known established science.

1. We know that black holes exist. 2. We know that nothing accelerates without a force being applied to it to cause the acceleration. The force in this case is gravity.

So my solution for the so called expansion is more sensible, reasonable and logical and it requires no unknown non-existent particle.

Often nowadays scientists today refuse to take good data and observations and then use the information to make reasonable models for explaining things. My question is how many years do we have to chase the red herring before we conclude there is no dark energy and no dark matter? We are wasting a great deal of time trying to explain everything with nonexistent particles. Every time we face something that is difficult to explain we invent a new particle to explain it. We are wasting a great deal of time.

Mmfiore could I possibly reply to your post latter?

Prismatic, Electron microscopes are not looking at electrons they are using EM magnification.

Sorry but the idea that the universe is expanding is a concepts derived through false conclusions. Once it is founded in certainty and strange anomalies occur questioning the particular concept, we get inventions. We are required to accept the mathematics simply because the concept demands it. Science will not stand still, it will eventually accept its mistakes but it will take more than my feeble mumblings.

As for your rejection of the principle that electrons have been observed being in two places at the same time. I humble request you read that link again. ..Depending on how the experiment is carried out the said electron can be seen at A or B or both A and B at the same time. The electron leaving and arriving as a particle but traveling as wave and appearing to be in two places at the same time can be explained using Gaedes theory of EM ropes.

May I also add that Newton indicated a determined universe something quantum particles are determined to destroy.

Mmfiore, Gaede may not be correct in everything he preaches but I am only concerned with his take on EM ropes. It has many advantages in considering a direct EM contact between atoms. It alleviates the duality of electrons and photons are not a necessity. If accepted it does put quantum particles in a difficult position and the observations would need to be revisited. The theoretical sciences must not be revered but treated with caution.

Andlan says,

I am very sympathetic to this idea that the concept of number can originate from the way we differentiate all of our experience into spatial and temporal objects. Numbers form patterns and geometrical shapes due simply to their sequential and relational order, such as those found involving pi and prime numbers. Might this even go some way to explaining the origin of the formal complexity that can be found in natural systems, such as the double helix of DNA or harmonics in music?

You stated in post #16 that you don't feel emergence explains the phenomenon of space-time, so I'm not sure how much I should say about this, since my answer is necessarily all about emergence.

My point is that the "underlying regularity that we are tapping into" may be nothing more than the operative parameters of our senses and cognition in action, which we all hold in common through evolution.

I'm afraid I can't subscribe to the idea that evolution gives us an adequate description of cognition. If evolution leads to cognition, what leads to evolution besides cognition?

Well, if I implied "adequate," evolution is adequate only in modeling how the necessary material complexity came to be. Cognition itself seems explicable to me only as an emergent phenomenon out of the resulting neural complexity. I'm not sure I see the significance of the circularity you are pointing out in your 2nd sentence, since I make no claim that evolution is anything but a model for correlating experience.

Moreover, all our concepts must have meaning for them to have utility; they must refer to something specific or else they are mere noise. The statement “Washington was the first president” refers to Washington and to the fact that he was president. If the fact is true, then the idea is true; otherwise it is false. But where does this relation come from? In the brain there are only evolved electrochemical processes and these do not seem to have anything to do with Washington.

I agree with your statements and concerns. However, I consider them epistemological concerns only. I do not look beyond epistemology to determine what defines a "fact." As such, the relationship between a fact and an idea is a question of degree, not a question of how to relate two different kinds of things.

As a non-realist I don't see significant gains by direct observation over indirect observation so long as the observation is meaningful in some cognitive schema. Fossils fit really well into the model called evolution, and evolution is marvelously consistent with a broad range of other cognitive models such as genetics, unidirectional linear Time, and even circumstantial observation. So I feel very comfortable believing dinosaurs existed within my own cognition so predisposed to believe in time, history and evolution.

For the argument to be true that you are predisposed in cognition to believe in evolution, evolution must be independent of observation. How then could we have ever come up with the idea of evolution? I'm sure you are already aware of the circularity here (hence your use of the word 'circumstantial').

I'm sorry if I was not clearer. When I said my own cognition is predisposed to believe in evolution, I did not mean in any inherent way. I meant that my own education has made me appreciative of how evolution fits so nicely with the models of other domains of knowledge. This appreciation breeds belief as a matter of my own temperament more than anything else. Consistency is my proxy for objectivity; with scientific methodology being the most useful way to establish consistency that I have ever encountered, though it is limited to what is measurable.

Regarding circularity, it strikes me that as soon as one abandons a priori axioms, all human conceptualization becomes tautological at its foundations. So I feel I have a spectrum of choice with the extremes being (1) choose my axioms whereby to ground an objective existence or (2) let go of any a priori assumptions and abandon any claim of objectivity (since I agree with most people that tautologies don't illuminate anything ontologically objective). Extreme #1 precipitates dogmatic fundamentalism that shuts out experience. Extreme #2 precipitates an impotent relativism incapable of leveraging any experience with authority.

Personally, I've found my intellectual and ethical comfort zone in what some philosophical commentaries term "soft relativism." Essentially, I draw my line in the sand by circumscribing it around "culture." Within that circle, one can speak productively and consistently about the a priori and the objective (not implying realism, mind you) and create meaning for things in quasi-absolute ways. However, culture is a more dynamic idea to me than what I've encountered before in relativist literature. Beyond the obvious demographic divisions, a culture can designate any degree of sub-culture, all the way down to secretaries around the water-cooler, software geeks in an office, or a man on the street trying to give a foreign tourist directions. Philosophically, to me, a culture is any unit that shares common truths in specific contexts or grapples for a common way to assign truth-value in such contexts. As such, cultures are fluid, nested, intersecting, and can arise spontaneously. Context becomes critical to evaluation of meaning. The mere "circumstantial," and the pertinent contexts for evaluating it, is the core of practical philosophy to me. It is the basis for my whole sense of ethics, for example.

I apologise for getting off the main subject of QM. I guess this all still has relevance to the extent that our difficulties with QM are tied up with our understanding of observation and conceptualisation in science.

Well I just beat you at taking us further off the subject. But then trying to understand the implications of QM to human epistemology tends to do that, I guess!

Prismatic, Electron microscopes are not looking at electrons they are using EM magnification.

Electron microscopes are using electrons (which you don't believe in) instead of photons to look at objects.

As for your rejection of the principle that electrons have been observed being in two places at the same time. I humble request you read that link again. ..Depending on how the experiment is carried out the said electron can be seen at A or B or both A and B at the same time. The electron leaving and arriving as a particle but traveling as wave and appearing to be in two places at the same time can be explained using Gaedes theory of EM ropes.

If electrons don't exist, how can it be that Gaede's theory explain this phenomenon?

Perhaps you can point to the precise place in the news release that says that. It refers to an experiment written up in Nature and in describing it the press release says "In it, each electron, including the highly localised inner electrons, is simultaneously at both atoms." However the abstract for that Nature article does not seem to say the same thing. Instead it says:

However, the quantum coherence is obscured if the two possible symmetry states of the electronic wavefunction (‘gerade’ and ‘ungerade’) are degenerate; the sum of the two exactly resembles the distinguishable, incoherent emission from two localized core sites.

[my emphasis] The abstract of the article is at nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7059/fu ... 04040.html I will still hold that no one claims to have observed an electron in two different places at the same time. It may well be their interpretation of what their results imply, but a direct observation is a different thing.

May I also add that Newton indicated a determined universe something quantum particles are determined to destroy.

No, the particles themselves have no determination. Physics was forced to the indeterminacy and it has persisted through all reformulations of quantum mechanics. It was in the original formulation as matrix mechanics by Heisenberg, in the reformulation as wave mechanics by Schrödinger, and in the path integral formulation by Feynman. The three distinct formulations are mathematically equivalent and they all have indeterminacy.

-- Updated June 4th, 2012, 3:48 pm to add the following --

When mathematics is used to support suspect concepts then it is culpable of deceit. Dark matter was invented by mathematicians to give credence to an expanding universe.

I strongly agree with the first statement. I also agree with the second statement.

But the second statement is incorrect. Dark matter was originally hypothesized to explain certain observations in the behavior of galaxies. The presence of dark matter would not explain an expanding universe.

Taking into consideration everything about what Prismatic said below. I think that the problem in science right now is that scientists over intellectualize which causes them to make bad assumptions. For example in both the case of dark matter and dark energy we have a classic case of referent confusion presented to us by modern day science.

No, you have in both dark matter and dark energy, reasonable hypotheses from observable phenomena that have not yet been explained. They may eventually be replaced by other hypotheses if they do not work out, but if so, the new ideas will seem as strange.

Your playing with words now Prismatic. Electrons as particles are not required to exist to oppose their existance nor are they as a concept necessary to invent a microscope using EM magnification. Its strange how you want to dismis the idea that electrons as a particle can be in two places at the same time. I do not believe they can be in one place let alone two. Certain well respected particle physicist even suggest there may only be one electron in the whole universe.That electrons can communicate from opposite parts of the universe. Now lets be honest can a particle with mass in your opinion perform such amazing feats? They leave as a particle, travel as a wave and then magically revert to a particle and Gaedes ropes are silly?

Hi Prismatic,

Oops I see that Xris second statement is incorrect. I read it too quickly and did not see what he was saying. “Dark matter was invented by mathematicians to give credence to an expanding universe.”

That statement is definitely wrong. In my actual reply you can see I that when I talk about Dark matter I am referring to the idea that it was hypothesized to explain certain observations in the behavior of galaxies. My bad. His second statement is incorrect.

No, you have in both dark matter and dark energy, reasonable hypotheses from observable phenomena that have not yet been explained. They may eventually be replaced by other hypotheses if they do not work out, but if so, the new ideas will seem as strange.

Your statement above is a matter of opinion and is not supported by scientific fact. If in fact dark matter exists we should be able to detect it right here. Dark matter is estimated to constitute 84% of the matter in the universe and 23% of the mass-energy. Hey that’s an awful lot of missing matter. How can such a significant amount of matter be undetectable? You’re not thinking it through and this is frustrating for people like me.

Let me give you a simple example. Since dark matter is supposedly 84% of the Universe then our solar system should be composed of 84% of this same material substance. So why don't we see an effect. Our calculations for the orbits around the sun work perfectly with the masses of the sun and the planets just as they are. Hmm... Why is the additional 84% dark matter not affecting the orbits in this solar system? One would have to assume that since the rest of the Universe is composed of 84% of dark matter then we should have that same amount distributed in our solar system. Yet there is no evidence of it here. Well then, since we have no evidence of it here. You now have to come up with an explanation of why this area of the Universe is special. Do you see a pattern here? Remember the days when man thought that the earth was the center of the solar system. Scientists began constructing more and more elaborate models to explain the motion in the sky of sun and other planets. All those models were wrong. Hmm “, reasonable hypotheses from observable phenomena’ Doesn’t seem so reasonable now.

So explain to me why we have no evidence of dark matter right here in our part of the Universe?

Also your second declaration that if the Dark matter explanation does not pan out that the new explanation will be even stranger. Do you not see an emotional bias in that statement? You assume that scientific explanations for things we don’t understand have to be strange in some way. This occurs because of the brain washing effect that the teaching of Quantum Theory has had on scientists and philosophers of this age. Thanks to QM we have become used to accepting strange explanations at the foundational level of reality. This scientific bias is ruining physics.

This is what you should be admitting. There is no direct evidence for the existence of dark matter. What in fact we have is run away speculation. When you can answer my question below then we can deal with dark energy.

So explain to me why we have no evidence of dark matter right here in our part of the Universe?

Taken from an article on the Internet.

“In the largest survey of its kind to date, astronomers scouring the space around the Solar System for signs of dark matter — the hypothetical material believed to account for more than 80% of the mass in the Universe — have come up empty-handed.”

Your playing with words now Prismatic. Electrons as particles are not required to exist to oppose their existance nor are they as a concept necessary to invent a microscope using EM magnification.

You're the one playing with words. What do you mean by EM magnification? Electron microscopy is possible because the wavelength of electrons is much smaller than the wavelength of the photons in visible light. Therefore electrons reveal smaller details. How do you think electron microscopy works?

Its strange how you want to dismis the idea that electrons as a particle can be in two places at the same time.

No, I only dismiss the notion that anyone has claimed to observe that phenomenon. Maybe they have, but you haven't convinced me with a press release when the abstract says something else. The interesting thing about the experiment is that it falsifies complementarity by allowing a mixed transition state.

That electrons can communicate from opposite parts of the universe.

This must be your plumber's interpretation of quantum entanglement. It's wrong.

Now lets be honest can a particle with mass in your opinion perform such amazing feats? They leave as a particle, travel as a wave and then magically revert to a particle and Gaedes ropes are silly?

You misinterpret what quantum mechanics says and then condemn it on the basis of your misinterpretation. Your notion of what is correct in physics is what fits your intuition in any area, whether or not you are well informed or not. My idea of what is correct in physics is what has been tested experimentally and fits with previous observations and accepted theories.

Gaede's rope hypothesis leaves almost everything to your imagination and is not supported by anything else—no experiments and no mathematics. Nothing.

-- Updated June 4th, 2012, 5:28 pm to add the following --

No, you have in both dark matter and dark energy, reasonable hypotheses from observable phenomena that have not yet been explained. They may eventually be replaced by other hypotheses if they do not work out, but if so, the new ideas will seem as strange.

Your statement above is a matter of opinion and is not supported by scientific fact. If in fact dark matter exists we should be able to detect it right here.

Really? We now know that black holes exist. Must there be one in your back yard?

Dark matter is estimated to constitute 84% of the matter in the universe and 23% of the mass-energy. Hey that’s an awful lot of missing matter. How can such a significant amount of matter be undetectable? You’re not thinking it through and this is frustrating for people like me. Let me give you a simple example. Since dark matter is supposedly 84% of the Universe then our solar system should be composed of 84% of this same material substance. So why don't we see an effect. Our calculations for the orbits around the sun work perfectly with the masses of the sun and the planets just as they are. Hmm... So explain to me why we have no evidence of dark matter right here in our part of the Universe?

Whoa there. Over 99% of the mass of the solar system consists of very hot plasma. Got any in your back yard? No? Ever meet with any in your travels?

Also your second declaration that if the Dark matter explanation does not pan out that the new explanation will be even stranger. Do you not see an emotional bias in that statement? You assume that scientific explanations for things we don’t understand have to be strange in some way. This occurs because of the brain washing effect that the teaching of Quantum Theory has had on scientists and philosophers of this age. Thanks to QM we have become used to accepting strange explanations at the foundational level of reality. This scientific bias is ruining physics.

The rotational effects in galaxies and clusters are well explained by the gravitational attraction of additional mass which of necessity then is not emitting radiation. In other words standard physics in a new medium. However, if that turns out to be wrong and there is no dark matter in galaxies, then entirely new physics must be at work. That is likely to be strange when we first encounter it. There are many alternative possibilities proposed including modification of Newton's law of gravity that could explain the observations, but they would certainly challenge and change classical physics and general relativity.

This is what you should be admitting. There is no direct evidence for the existence of dark matter. What in fact we have is run away speculation. When you can answer my question below then we can deal with dark energy. So explain to me why we have no evidence of dark matter right here in our part of the Universe?

Just as soon as you tell me why you don't have plasma at millions of degrees centigrade in your back yard. Runaway speculation? Really? Do you, like Xris and Gaede, think physicists are all a bunch of idiots all engaged in weird thinking with no basis in reality?

Electron microscopes use a certain frequency different to light, it does not prove electrons exist.They are a technical devices not a quantum experiment.

I have no idea how you can dispute the claim by particles scientists that the said electrons are capable of being in more than place at the same time. I have no idea what reference you might need. It has been accepted for more than 80 years.

I know your opinion of Gaede and I accept it requires more than we can resolve here but I still maintain his views are not to be dismissed with as much vigour as you have attempted.

Also it is not strictly speaking true that dark matter is not concerned with the mathematical calculations of an expanding universe. If we believed the BB, the universe might just expand forever if the they had not invented dark matter. An expanding universe is dependant on gravity and increase mass would deter that expansion. Mathematics becomes a tool to enforce a false concept.

Mmfiore,

You seem to find it convenient to interpret the failure to detect Dark Matter as clear evidence for its non-existence, yet you say nothing about the failure to detect Gravity Waves as clear evidence against General Relativity. Since your own views encompass General Relativity as being true, but not Dark Matter, I find your argument about lack of evidence to be disingenuous.

Xris:

I love it, I am to be sent to the dunces corner because I do not believe in the quantum scripture.

Not by me, and not by anyone else except yourself. Stop doing the inverted snobbery thing. This is not about intellectual elitism.

Electron microscopes use a certain frequency different to light, it does not prove electrons exist.They are a technical devices not a quantum experiment.

Your claim is that electron microscopes use electromagnetic waves at a frequency different from visible light? That is simply false. Why do you think it called an electron microscope and why is an essential part of it called an electron gun? How do you suppose the electron beam is focused?

Why do you make stuff up when you could easily learn a few simple facts about electron microscopy?

I have no idea how you can dispute the claim by particles scientists that the said electrons are capable of being in more than place at the same time. I have no idea what reference you might need. It has been accepted for more than 80 years.

You seem to be saying that physicists believe that the electron as a particle can be in two places at once and that for the last 80 years this has been the accepted quantum mechanical interpretation of the double slit experiment. I think the experimental evidence shows the wave nature of particles. When an electron is observed, that is, detected, it behaves like a particle and cannot be seen in two places at once. That is how I learned it, but that was a long time ago and maybe things have changed in recent years. You claim to be the expert here so how about one or two solid references to backup your claim?

Also it is not strictly speaking true that dark matter is not concerned with the mathematical calculations of an expanding universe.

Let me remind you of what you said in an earlier post:

Dark matter was invented by mathematicians to give credence to an expanding universe.

That is simply wrong as science history—dark matter was a proposed explanation by Fritz Swicky and Jan Oort to account for the orbital velocity of galaxies in clusters.

Half-Six wrote:

Peter Hacker, in Philosophical Foundation of Neuroscience encourages instead an Aristotelian approach, that psychological attributes are attributes of a person; that it is a category mistake to say they are an entity distinct from that person. From what you’ve said, Spinoza seems quite close to this, though as I say, I don’t know much about Spinoza.

Thanks for this. I do like joining the dots, and I had not known that Aristotle thought so. My point about factoring in minds was that the scientist is factoring in other people's minds and not his own , and that there are methods for examining other people's minds during scientific experiments IFF one allows that psychological methodology is foofproof enough.

The scientist who is examining natural material such as the anatomies of tortoises has to cope with his own inevitable subjectivity, so I don't see that examining others' minds is different in kind from examining tortoises' anatomies.

As for the Cartesian mind as separate substance, It seems more likely that mind is diferent from brain bodies only in that I have special privileged access to my own mind only, but not to other peoples' minds. It follows that other peoples' minds are fair subjects for research as much as are tortoises' skulls. The difference between researching totoises' skulls and other peoples' minds is that minds are not as easy to delineate for purposes of the space time model.But it can be done. As I said, we have artificial cultural boundaries between skulls and vertebrae, so why not between for instance a thought of ice cream and a thought of potato chips?

Prismatic, electromagnetic microscopes use electromagnetic coils to send a concentrated electromagnetic beam. You can call this a beam of electrons if you like but it does not prove electrons are particles.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 084257.htm This link also indicates that electrons can be situated simultaneously at two atoms.Strange when you consider that Gaedes ropes makes this totally acceptable. No need to see electrons as both waves and particles. The double split experiment actually proves his theory.

The point of dark matter, its invention and my reference to it. The exact amount was calculated with mathematical magic. No one found 40%, they decided that was what required and created a 40%. It was derived because the universe was not acting in accordance with their mathematical calculations. Mathematics is not science, it is a tool like any other tool. But I dont blame the tool.

-- Updated Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:51 am to add the following --

Xris:

I love it, I am to be sent to the dunces corner because I do not believe in the quantum scripture.

Not by me, and not by anyone else except yourself. Stop doing the inverted snobbery thing. This is not about intellectual elitism.

So what is about then Steve? Lets start a debate about those who are incapable of understanding particle science. Is that a wrong interpretation of your post? If you were totally honest you would disagree with Prismatic on certain issues concerning quantum understanding but your bias stops you. No one understands the quantum universe completely and those who say they do are fools. Concepts are useless if they fail to explain the observations and it is the concept of particles that are failing us, not our inability to understand particle science. I am sure the journals and mathematical explanations that indicated the Earth was the centre of the universe were just as detailed and convincing.The Ptolemaic system accepted for centuries, included complex mathematical explanations. If you opposed the concept, the RC church might just have burnt you as a heretic. I am not suggesting you advocate an equal punishment but the idea that opposing an accepted science is some how an act of ignorance does sound elitest, Steve.

Poster, I'm glad I led you off the subject - it was illuminating to get an idea of your intellectual hinterland (sorry - this sounds a bit pompous), and perhaps we can go back to culture at some point - possibly in another thread.

Despite the deviation, I'm still trying to unpick what it is that QM, or particle physics in general, reveals about physics as a method of enquiry (I'd like to ignore metaphysics if I can). I think I am right in saying that you thought the reason for QM being different in kind from what went before might be due to our inability to objectify QM objects (particles) by describing their intrinsic properties, thus making them indeterminate. I fully understand that 'charm' is a property not essentially different from 'charge', in that we have difficulty grasping its physical meaning. We only identify attributes like this by their measurable effects on other things. For anti-realism this doesn't matter because all physics relies solely on the the schemata that we construct for objectifying things, such as the periodic table and evolution (I too hastily took you for an un-reconstructed materialist on that one!). So if QM is just another schemata like these classical schemata, and it is irrelevant whether we observe things directly or just detect them, why should there be any dividing line (or appear to be a dividing line) at all between the two domains? Your use of 'emergence' to refer to how lower order complexity can generate higher order simplicity could equally well refer to thermodynamics (or radioactive half-life) in the classical domain, and also suggests a continuum. You are sympathetic to C.I., which says that indeterminacy (= randomness = probability) is the foundation of physics. I am more sceptical that we are getting closer to the heart of things through QM. Constructionism seems to me to have its limits. Although we must not factor it explicitly into our physics, we must tacitly assume that reality exists, and that we have access to it through our attention and our intuition. By treating measurement as fundamentally inexact rather than something we can refine, QM relegates one important aspect of the scientific enterprise.