Thanks. I'll take a look at it when I have the ability to listen to the soundtrack.Greta wrote:Steve, not wishing to butt in on your experiment, but I came across this video about the double-slit experiment that I especially liked, especially how he explained the measurement problem (hint: you don't need a conscious observer) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h75DGO3GrF4
The Twin-Slit Experiment
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
This is what I've been trying to get him to explain coherently in his proposed model. He seems to be vaguely proposing that some particles travel across empty space in a related group, in a way that seems to be analogous to an oscillating drop of water or jelly moving across a space. How that is supposed to be in any way related to the observed interference fringes, I don't yet know.Halc wrote:Perhaps I don't understand what you're trying to convey. For one, how does one send 27 photons "in a single wave pattern" as opposed to not sending them that way? It seems like case b is just case a done 27 times. You can do each of them in separate labs if you want. You get the same predicted results either way, per quantum theory.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
We're using mathematics in the same way that we're using English language. It's just less prone to ambiguity. We use mathematics to precisely describe the observed behaviour of the surface of water when a "dipper" bobs up and down in it. We use mathematics to precisely describe the observed behaviour of cathode rays as they go through two slits. We use the mathematics to note similarities between the two. We propose that the similarities might continue in the future. We test that proposition.Terrapin Station wrote:After all, what we're primarily doing in making predictions for experiments like this is using mathematics, but mathematical objects are not real. They're simply (a) a way that we think about some basic relations we observe, and then the bulk of mathematics is (b) a construction extrapolated from (a), much in the way of building elaborate structures from an erector set. It's simply a language for talking about the way we think about relations.
None of the above constitutes the reification of mathematics that you've discussed previously.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
Occam's razor is basically an aesthetic preference.Steve3007 wrote: ↑February 4th, 2020, 10:44 am That is true, in the sense that there is no experiment or observation that could be used to distinguish between different propositions as to what is going on ontologically if all of those propositions stem from the same set of observations. That is where such metaphysical devices as Occam's razor are sometimes invoked. But if our theory doesn't make falsifiable predictions as to what will be observed then it hasn't even reached the first stage. The first stage is to lay out various theories that achieve that basic aim. Only then can we decide among them.
As I said, all the various possibilities could be set up--by applying the same or similar/at least equivalent mathematical constructions--so that they make exactly the same predictions. They'd all be falsifiable in the same way.
The point is that this fact doesn't enable us to make statements about "what's really going on" behind what we're observing, so that we can state that "this is the behavior of single particles" etc. That's not epistemically justified. What we're observing could be the behavior of all sorts of groupings of particles rather than of single particles.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
A claim that would be based on what, exactly? How would you be observing 1 versus 27 versus 282 particles to check how many dots they'd make on the detector screen?
That might be the only way that it's possible to send photons, at least given the apparatuses we have.Perhaps I don't understand what you're trying to convey. For one, how does one send 27 photons "in a single wave pattern" as opposed to not sending them that way?
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
I don't know how else to put it anymore, really.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 5:05 pmSo the way we'd know that something is the case is by conforming to conventions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-photon_source
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
Or do you?(hint: you don't need a conscious observer) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h75DGO3GrF4
"Collapse" happens when which-path information is available. Even if say no one is looking at say the result of a double-slit experiment, and we store the result in an atom, and send the atom to the other end of the universe, the collapse will still happen because which-path information is available.
But what or "who" is keeping this classical universe classical in the first place, which-path information is available to what or to whom?
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
I mean classical PART of the universe.Atla wrote: ↑February 4th, 2020, 1:44 pm Or do you?
"Collapse" happens when which-path information is available. Even if say no one is looking at say the result of a double-slit experiment, and we store the result in an atom, and send the atom to the other end of the universe, the collapse will still happen because which-path information is available.
But what or "who" is keeping this classical universe classical in the first place, which-path information is available to what or to whom?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
That doesn't answer the epistemological question I'm asking.Atla wrote: ↑February 4th, 2020, 1:35 pmI don't know how else to put it anymore, really.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 5:05 pm
So the way we'd know that something is the case is by conforming to conventions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-photon_source
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
It did answer it. If we can emit single photons, then it's not true that we may only be able to emit groups of photons together.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 4th, 2020, 2:08 pmThat doesn't answer the epistemological question I'm asking.Atla wrote: ↑February 4th, 2020, 1:35 pm
I don't know how else to put it anymore, really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-photon_source
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
A conditional wouldn't answer the question I'm asking.Atla wrote: ↑February 4th, 2020, 2:13 pmIt did answer it. If we can emit single photons, then it's not true that we may only be able to emit groups of photons together.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 4th, 2020, 2:08 pm
That doesn't answer the epistemological question I'm asking.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
You know it wasn't a conditional.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 4th, 2020, 2:20 pmA conditional wouldn't answer the question I'm asking.
Why don't you academics try to solve the Measurement problem instead?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
You wrote: " If we can emit single photons, then it's not true that we may only be able to emit groups of photons together. "Atla wrote: ↑February 4th, 2020, 2:24 pmYou know it wasn't a conditional.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 4th, 2020, 2:20 pm
A conditional wouldn't answer the question I'm asking.
Why don't you academics try to solve the Measurement problem instead?
That's a conditional. Conditionals are "if...then" statements.
What I was asking can't be answered by a conditional. It can't be answered by an "if...then" statement. I'm asking how we know we're emitting single photons. Saying "If we're emitting single photons, then . . . " doesn't address how we know that we are emitting single photons.
Re the "measurement problem," that only arises via reifying mathematics--taking the mathematical equations we use to be telling us what the noumenal/objective world is like.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
I linked how we know we're emitting single photons. You just won't look it up because it refutes your pet theory.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 4th, 2020, 2:30 pmYou wrote: " If we can emit single photons, then it's not true that we may only be able to emit groups of photons together. "
That's a conditional. Conditionals are "if...then" statements.
What I was asking can't be answered by a conditional. It can't be answered by an "if...then" statement. I'm asking how we know we're emitting single photons. Saying "If we're emitting single photons, then . . . " doesn't address how we know that we are emitting single photons.
Re the "measurement problem," that only arises via reifying mathematics--taking the mathematical equations we use to be telling us what the noumenal/objective world is like.
And by saying that the measurement problem only arises via reifying mathematics, you've lost your remaining credibility as well. It arises directly from experiment.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023