Indeterminancy in physics

Hi folks.

Please keep it up! When I get down watching the news, I head for this thread and am assured that there is a group of people dedicated to solving the worlds biggest problems. I go to to sleep at night without a care, knowing this.

It certainly is a prolific thread isn't it! I'm preparing my latest pearl of wisdom now, but by the time I post it I suspect the comments to which it is supposed to be a devastating rejoinder will be several pages back and lost in the march of progress.

---


Xris:

I know, you know, I know, you know, well thats what you have led me to believe, there are no such thing as an electron particle, it is just concept drawn from observation. It acts like a particle so it must be particle. The problem only arises when it becomes a quantum question. When it can not decide if it is a particle or a wave.

You're still using "existential" language, like "there are no such thing" when trying to describing what you think I've said. So you obviously either don't understand or don't buy into what I've said about utility. Fair enough. No law says you have to.

I didn't say there are "no such things" as electrons or particles. I said that, in trying to understand the world, the most fruitful way to think of these concepts is as useful models for explaining observations.

"Particle" is a collective term for a set of properties. "Wave" is a collective term for another set of properties. "Electron" is a collective term for a set of observations that have some properties of...

I'm going to stop there. I've said this stuff over and over again, including lengthy threads devoted to it. There's no point repeating it.

If you do not believe there is a electron as a particle please say so and we may move on but if you believe there is we need to concentrate on that question alone. You need to state your beliefs quite clearly.

See various previous comments from the past year or so.

Mmfiore:

First of all, apologies for not getting back to you on that other topic you started about the ether and all that. I started writing a reply but didn't finish it. I'll finish it later.

Here is a more universal definition for the word “understand”

OK. Fire away.

To perceive and comprehend the nature and significance of nature.

Mmm. No definition so far. "Comprehend" is a synonym for "understand". So you seem to be defining "understand" as "to understand the nature of nature".

Also, to grasp or comprehend the meaning and to have knowledge of something. Imagine that someday it may be possible to simply know and understand this reality deeply. That’s the goal. We need to unite toward the same goal and we are not there.

Sorry but this seems like more meaningless hand-waving to me. I'm all in favour of awe at the mysterious grandeur of the universe. Not a single day goes by when I don't think about various aspects of the universe and the strange fact that bits of that universe have grown into creatures that can contemplate their own origins. But for that reason I am all the more uninterested in mystical misuse of language. I prefer language to say something that corresponds to something that I can sense.

Wake up! You can do it. There is a brave new world out there, a world where everything makes sense.

Sounds a bit like "have you heard the good news?". Sounds like you think you've found the ultimate answer without really knowing what the question is.

Have you ever read about Einsteins private life, his martial and financial affairs? Should that make him an ignorant fool not capable of anything worthy of consideration? I am starting to understand this attempt to undermine the man is your only ability.

Gaede's ideas do not constitute science: no experimental or observational evidence supports them, no connection to known science is furnished, and they make no testable predictions. That is why they should be rejected, not because he is a convicted felon. I read your posts with the interest they deserve and would be the last to deny the possibility—however remote— that random musings of the criminal mind might be of eventual use to society.

Have you ever read about Einsteins private life, his martial and financial affairs? Should that make him an ignorant fool not capable of anything worthy of consideration? I am starting to understand this attempt to undermine the man is your only ability.

Gaede's ideas do not constitute science: no experimental or observational evidence supports them, no connection to known science is furnished, and they make no testable predictions. That is why they should be rejected, not because he is a convicted felon. I read your posts with the interest they deserve and would be the last to deny the possibility—however remote— that random musings of the criminal mind might be of eventual use to society.

It was I who introduced this personal note about Gaede, not Prismatic.

I do not think <<I am starting to understand this attempt to undermine the man is your only ability.>> is a polite way of addressing someone on this forum, especially someone like Prismatic who's devoted considerable time to addressing your questions, Xris.

I introduced the personal note because to me much of this issue is a question of trust. Xris and Mmfiore do not trust the entire Establishment of physicists and other scientists who propagate quantum theories. I do: I don't trust them to be right, but I trust them to follow certain methods, and to have a certain broad range of approaches to experiment and theory. If there are alternatives to the established view, I'm interested to know about whether I feel able to trust them in their turn. That to me makes Gaede's biography pertinent.

As a second point, I've been reflecting on how this opposition to the electron as wave-and-particle, to the invisible-with-properties, has required an alternative invisible notion to be invented. In MMfiore's case it could be the subject of an experiment, because twin pairs of entangled 'particles' are proposed to have an invisible physical connection. In the Gaede/Xris case, it's a rope no-one has seen or has any experimental data about. At the moment these notions carry only the weight of your convictions. Why should a thoughtful passing stranger believe in them against the weight of the opinion of most intelligent physicists of the past 80 years?

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.

The “privileged access” notion arises only once we’ve adopted the Cartesian mind/body split. Doing this creates huge difficulties for your conclusion, that..

It follows that other peoples' minds are fair subjects for research as much as are tortoises' skulls.

Introducing “privileged access” creates an important difference between researching tortoises' skulls, and researching others’ mind, because, unlike for minds, there is no privileged access to the tortoises’ skulls; the reason being because science presupposes an Aristotelian notion of mind, where there is no privileged access. We all have access to the skulls, we all see the skulls, and we all see the same skulls, so one scientist can make a claim about a skull, and the others can go and look at it, see if it’s true. The Cartesian viewpoint would have it that when we see a skull, we are seeing a “private image” of the skull, supposedly created by activity in our eyes/brains, which no-one else has access to. So you can’t use experimental observation to check what someone else says about their “private image”, because you can’t access it. Using a Cartesian split makes science very conjectural, and very subjective, one reason why Hacker argues against it.

And this gets worse in regards of studying others’ minds, because adopting the Cartesian split doesn’t give you a “private image” of others’ minds, in the way it would for skulls, that you then have “privileged access” to. You would have no access whatsoever to their “private mind”.

The ontological status of minds is not a problem at this juncture , because whether or not minds are separate substances or separate aspects of the same Substance I have privileged access to my own mind as you have to yours. Please consider that Half-Six's bodymind and Belinda's bodymind are indivisible entities. In the unlikely event that Half-Six's nervous system and Belinda's nervous system were to be anatomically and physiologically linked then each of us two would have privileged access to each others' minds. But nobody else in philosophy club would have that access unless the mad scientist performed the same linking operation on him too then he would join in the privileged access. Then we would have an unholy trinity.

What do you think the value of psychological investigations is, if they are not attempts, at least, to understand others' mentalities? Do you think that psychology is insufficiently scientific to be able to provide, not privileged access for which as yet undiscovered surgical techniques would apply, but statistical, behavioural and carefully led subjective reporting as evidence for the natures of others' mentalities?

If psychology is as admissible as , say, technology of scientific instrumentation in physical experiments then psychology might help to diminish the problem of indeterminacy as to which model of description for subatomic events is the best model.

Hello Steve,

Mmfiore:

First of all, apologies for not getting back to you on that other topic you started about the ether and all that. I started writing a reply but didn't finish it. I'll finish it later.

Thanks Steve for the update. The aether topic is intersting to me and I would like to discuss it further but I am not sure that it is relavant in this thread. I don't want to get off of the original topic. Perhaps if you like you can leave the your aether comments in my thread "Philosophical approach to a Theory of Everything" and it can be discussed there where it is related to the thread. I am already engaged here in a Darkmatter off topic discusion with Prismatic here.

-- Updated June 7th, 2012, 7:55 am to add the following --

Mmm. No definition so far. "Comprehend" is a synonym for "understand". So you seem to be defining "understand" as "to understand the nature of nature".

Hmm, interesting reply since the definition I supplied is taken directly from webster. Perhaps you can take it up with them and enlighten them with your expertise and knowledge on the subject and definition of the word "understanding". LOL Ah, the oh so typical response from a QM advocate. Criticize the person who attempts to define something and then supply no answer themselves. That’s the problem with a person that has been infected with QM meem everything is an unexplainable mystery and it is futile to attempt to define things.

Also, to grasp or comprehend the meaning and to have knowledge of something. Imagine that someday it may be possible to simply know and understand this reality deeply. That’s the goal. We need to unite toward the same goal and we are not there.

Sorry but this seems like more meaningless hand-waving to me. I'm all in favour of awe at the mysterious grandeur of the universe. Not a single day goes by when I don't think about various aspects of the universe and the strange fact that bits of that universe have grown into creatures that can contemplate their own origins. But for that reason I am all the more uninterested in mystical misuse of language. I prefer language to say something that corresponds to something that I can sense.

Ugh yet another comment of limited use from a left brain thinker. Steve and Poster and prismatic this is your primary problem. Your primarily left brain thinkers. In general, schools tend to favor left-brain modes of thinking, while downplaying the right-brain ones. Left-brain scholastic subjects focus on logical thinking, analysis, and accuracy. Right-brained subjects, on the other hand, focus on aesthetics, feeling, and creativity. My mission here in this thread and others I participate in is to find one or more whole brain thinkers to help me achieve some very important goals. My conversations are with a purpose and a design to ferret out all the one sided thinking left brainers and see if some of them are salvageable and perhaps spur them into being full brain thinkers. Better yet it is my hope to find a fully functional full brain thinker like Newton or Einstein. Probably not going to happen but I am an optimist so I believe anything is possible. Disappointingly you have left brain dominated functionality that has the typical QM meem viral infection embedded in it. A left brain dominated person is completely useless to me in achieving my goals no matter how high your IQ is you won’t be able to help and function on the level I need. I do not mean that as an insult. So please don’t take it that way. So now let me connect the dots for you because by now I am sure I have left you completely in the dust as I have strongly digressed. What I have said to you above appears to be meaningless hand-waving. That tells me you don’t get it and sadly you probably never will get it. What I said above was rich and important and has great value. A full brain thinker would have easily recognized it as such.

Wake up! You can do it. There is a brave new world out there, a world where everything makes sense.

Sounds a bit like "have you heard the good news?". Sounds like you think you've found the ultimate answer without really knowing what the question is.

Once again I was basically sending out a call here in a light hearted way but hoping you would recognize what I was saying and make a connection with it. Alas, again you failed the test.

@ Wooden shoe

Thank you for that nice comment. You and Xris have demonstrated better understanding of what is important than anyone else I'v seen here. Yes, some of us here are trying very hard to solve very important problems. Well done...

@ Andlan

The problem is you want physics to be more than it ever can be - namely a perfect description of what is real. Science only offers an abstraction from reality. Newton's second law is that the gravitational force acting on a falling body is proportional to its mass, but is independent of the size, material and shape of the body. The freedom of a scientist lies in the choice of language, axioms and the facts that deserve attention; and experiments are designed that depend on a small set of realizable and reproducible conditions. Give up the search for deep meaning in science and you'll sleep easier.

Breaking down what you said... "The problem is you want physics to be more than it ever can be - namely a perfect description of what is real. Science only offers an abstraction from reality." Physics can be more than you and your QM friends think it can be. Science which is nothing more than an invention of man is limited to abstractions for 2 reasons.

1. Limited technology. Our technology when we are measuring the very small interferes with what we are measuring. Big problem. 2. The current incarnation of "Science" that we invented to deal with this problem is also limited to mathematical abstraction only. It is a left brain intellectual process that can be easily fooled into believing things are exist that don't exist. Examples the Graviton, Dark matter, Dark Energy and the Higgs particle. In some cases QM has predicted the outcome of experiments that has been useful but its predictive power is empty and has no meaning. Its useless in determining what is true and real.

The bigger problem is now your convinced we can go no farther because you belief system has locked you into accepting that it is impossible to go any farther. Nothing could be further from the truth. Once again being a left brain thinker you need to be thumped on the forehead as I have attempted to thump Prismatic. So lets see if you or anybody else here has been paying attention. How do we over come the limitations of "science" and discover the causal nexus?

And finally

"Give up the search for deep meaning in science and you'll sleep easier."

This advice is better given to potato farmers, bus drivers, politicians and factory workers. Its not their job to fix what is broken in the world of science. That attitude is the worst attitude a scientist can have. Shame on you!

I am wondering who deserves a reply with all this rhetoric flying about. Steve are you sure you believe in these little pesky minute schizophrenic particles, flying around not really knowing what they are? I would at this moment like everyone's opinion and what they understand them to be. It should not be a difficult task considering the proclaimed knowledge available. I could be more difficult and ask about photons or gravitons but I will be reasonable as there has been more reported about electrons than most other "particles". Whose first? Steve a repetition of your previous explanations was not quite enough so if you could, could you expand?

Mmfiore,

As to your left-brain hypothesis, I make my living as an artist and as hobbies I write fiction and compose music, hardly left-brain dominant activities. It is in fact my right-brain-dominance that allows me to see science in its place: namely as a domain of analysis, not the vehicle for the ontological certainty you assign to it.

Andlan's attitude is a testimonial to a professional who takes science seriously. His posts consistently display a detachment and consideration of others that I would be proud to be capable of myself. That you should attempt to shame him for it with more of your puerile browbeating is merely illustrative of the self-serving disingenuity you have devolved to as your posts have progressed. You can believe as you like with my blessing but I can't condone your attack on Andlan or Prismatic with my silence.

My concept of an electron for what is worth: This is from the perspective of the Super Relativity view point.

The electron is a sub atomic particle that consists of a primarily negative charge. It is physically composed of and exists as a spatial deformation in the form of a twist or physical inversion of space. Space being the primary physical object of the Universe. The electron has poles both positive and negative (Warning that last statement is not considered valid in the traditional world of physics. Actually most of what I say here is going to be not valid according to traditional physics.) I believe they would say that an electron is an electric monopole and a magnetic dipole. I personally believe that the electron is both an electric dipole and magnetic dipole. The basis for my belief that electrons have both a positive and negative pole is based in the knowledge that electrons can be polarized.

Continuing on, the electron's charge is centered and based upon the deformation field. The primary deformation field is what is known as the coulomb charge. This field emanates from the point at which the inversion occurs and then the charge is projected as a field from that point. The field which extends from the inversion origin gives the electron its wavelike characteristic. This field is manifested by physical degrees of turn of space which start from the origin and decrease in strength and degree determined precisely by the inverse-square law. This makes sense because the field exists as part of a 3 dimensional space.

The Electron behaves as both a wave and a particle and its behavior (how it manifests itself in observations depends completely upon the apparatus that is detecting it. The geometry of the apparatus determines the behavior of the electron and its behavior is defined as whether it expresses its wavelike or particle like behavior.

The motion of the electron is caused by an uneven distribution of charge along the X-axis. This uneven distribution of charge along the x axis forms a self sustaining pressure wave within space. This causes a motion in a specific direction.

The electron has mass and the origin of the mass is generated by the accelerated motion of unbalanced charge through space. In other words space itself reacts to the motion of the electron through it and contracts around the electron. This contraction is very weak in comparison to its charge.

A traditional explanation is much more vague. An electron according to standard physics is an elementary subatomic particle with a negative elementary charge. The electron according to normal physics has no sub structure. The electron has mass but the origin of the mass is unknown. The cause of motion of the electron is also undefined. The electron has Quantum Mechanical properties so it behaves as a particle and wave.

I am sure with all this said I am about to receive heavy fire from every imaginable direction.

-- Updated June 7th, 2012, 10:42 am to add the following --

Poster

As to your left-brain hypothesis, I make my living as an artist and as hobbies I write fiction and compose music, hardly left-brain dominant activities. It is in fact my right-brain-dominance that allows me to see science in its place: namely as a domain of analysis, not the vehicle for the ontological certainty you assign to it.

I too have all those hobbies. But you have a belief that will not allow you to transfer that and or apply that full brain capability to problems in physics. Everyone to some degree in certain circumstances uses the both halfs of their brains. So that is not a big deal.

As for shaming Andlan It is merely a statement not so much on him as on the attitude of the statement so let me appologize for that. The heart of the statement he made is not what science should be about.

The ontological status of minds is not a problem at this juncture , because whether or not minds are separate substances or separate aspects of the same Substance I have privileged access to my own mind as you have to yours. Please consider that Half-Six's bodymind and Belinda's bodymind are indivisible entities. In the unlikely event that Half-Six's nervous system and Belinda's nervous system were to be anatomically and physiologically linked then each of us two would have privileged access to each others' minds. But nobody else in philosophy club would have that access unless the mad scientist performed the same linking operation on him too then he would join in the privileged access. Then we would have an unholy trinity.

But how would this work? Let's say we could be surgically linked, so that whenever you thought of a blue horse, it triggered the same neural activity in my brain so that I thought of a blue horse. We'd have the same thought, but it would still be my thought, and your thought, not me gaining access to your thought. It's like with the neural activity; it's the same activity, but it's activity in my brain, and activity in your brain, not my brain gaining access to your brain's activity. It's not like you putting a diamond in a deposit box, and giving me a copy of the key. If we both see a cake and think "yummy, I want", we're having the same thought, but that doesn't mean we've gained access to something.

What do you think the value of psychological investigations is, if they are not attempts, at least, to understand others' mentalities?

This is just what I do think, well attempts to understand mind generally, not just others'. I can think so because I'm not thinking in terms of privileged access. When I feel happy, sad, depressed, I'm feeling the same as others who feel happy, sad, depressed, I'm not feeling my own private happy that no-one else can access. Same in physics, when I observe an experiment, I am observing the same experiment as anyone else who is observing it; not my own private image of it that they can't access. This is presupposed by science, by both physics and psychology. Problems can arise because of the notion of privileged access.

If you and I are looking at a house, I'm at the front gate, you're up a hill some distance away, then we're seeing the same house. Of course it looks different to you, but not because you have privileged access to something. You have a different viewpoint, but I can "access" that same viewpoint, by climbing the hill.

I am wondering who deserves a reply with all this rhetoric flying about. Steve are you sure you believe in these little pesky minute schizophrenic particles, flying around not really knowing what they are? I would at this moment like everyone's opinion and what they understand them to be. It should not be a difficult task considering the proclaimed knowledge available. I could be more difficult and ask about photons or gravitons but I will be reasonable as there has been more reported about electrons than most other "particles". Whose first? Steve a repetition of your previous explanations was not quite enough so if you could, could you expand?

I'm happy to answer this, and in return look forward to Xris's explanation of what happens in various devices which use the idea of 'electrons' - electron microscopes and electron beam drilling are the two examples I've mentioned - if you decide to describe the world without the electron altogether.

I'm of a historical bent so I see electrons as at the end of a search for the something at the basis of electricity. J J Thomson identified the electron as a particle in 1897 though he called them 'corpuscles', he was trying to understand 'cathode rays' and they only took on the electron name in due course. In the decade after that further evidence developed that they formed part of an atom, (confirming) that they had a negative electric charge and measuring that charge, and getting more accurate assessment of their mass. It was in the 1920's that de Broglie put the cat among the pigeons by hypothesising that all matter, under different conditions, may be particle-like - i.e. have a place in space through which it's travelling - or wave-like like light. From this Schrodinger, of cat fame, made predictions, which turned out to be right, about the probability of the location of the electron. There's been lots of experimental verification and use since, the most seminal use to me being the traditional television, which is based on electrons passing through a cathode ray tube, just like the corpuscles in J J Thomson's original experiments (Thomson's son actually won a Nobel prize for his work on the wave-like properties of the electron in 1937). You can't see an electron but you can follow its tracks and trace where its tracks have been, make predictions about where it might be, isolate it, and use it in all sorts of amazing ways.

I have heard a lot about the character of an electron but very little about its physical characteristics. Considering it supposed to have mass, what shape is it?

@ poster

I have given what you said some more thought and I think that you are right. I am going to step back from this for awhile as I am way to fiery and passionate about this topict and I have hurt some peoples feeling. I apologize for that. I am going to take a break and take some time to mellow out.

@ poster

I have given what you said some more thought and I think that you are right. I am going to step back from this for awhile as I am way to fiery and passionate about this topict and I have hurt some peoples feeling. I apologize for that. I am going to take a break and take some time to mellow out.

I don't think any blood has been shed, thanks for your input. If nothing else it sharpens our talons.

Hi guys, I have found this debate absolutely riveting. Alas, I am not qualified to add any really valuable input to the debate, but I will submit my opinion as a layman. I don't know whether electrons exist as a physical entity / particle or not. However, if the concept of electrons has been used to make accurate observations about the world and has conformed to predictable patterns, then for all intents and purposes electrons exist. As Steve3007 said, the term "electron" is just the name that has been given to the concept because of the qualities it possess; it could just as easily been called something else. The concept of electrons has been used to create functioning technology. Therefore, as well as having predictable behaviour it also has practical, technological uses. I think that these facts act as evidence that electrons do exist in some form or another.