Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World
- Wanderer101
- Posts: 96
- Joined: June 7th, 2012, 3:24 pm
Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World
I would like to see how this enigma can be resolved. In other words how is it that objects made up of microscopic particles that do not make sense and only exist when they are indirectly observed, can still work in a way as a large group to form large scale objects that make sense and are directly observable in the macroscopic world. How can microscopic objects that do not make sense form objects that do make sense?
-
- Posts: 1104
- Joined: March 18th, 2011, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Anaximander
Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World
Massively aggregated quanta are subject to "decoherence" where the amalgamation of individual quanta's wavefunctions cancel out most of the effects of uncertainty, yielding classical behavior for the massive "object" as a whole....how is it that objects made up of microscopic particles that do not make sense and only exist when they are indirectly observed, can still work in a way as a large group to form large scale objects that make sense and are directly observable in the macroscopic world. How can microscopic objects that do not make sense form objects that do make sense?
There are also the findings of complexity theory which, since the 1960s, has become more and more capable of modelling macroscopic experience in terms of "emergence." Emergence is an overall term for how complex behavior of lower level systems (such as massive amounts of interacting quanta) can produce inherently unpredictable behavior (in terms of analyzing the quantum mechanics itself) across the entire system as a whole which, relative to other systems, displays ordered behavior. In short, complexity theory can demonstrate how order emerges from chaos, given that the chaotic lower-level system is an "open" system (i.e., able to interact with a contextually larger environment subsuming it) and has access to an external energy source.
So, while decoherence can potentially explain why deterministic behavior appears at the macroscopic level, complexity theory can potentially explain why macroscopic-level physical characteristics (such as solidity) and relationships (such as time's arrow) emerge that do not exist at the atomic and subatomic scale.
Human cognition receives sensorimotor input from organs that evolved to accommodate macroscopic experience. For example, the dark-adapted human eye can discern a single photon, but this is incidental to its functioning as an organ that can discriminate differing densities and energy levels from massed photons, allowing cognition to discern emergent patterns for subsequent conceptualization. Therefore, it is to be expected that whatever way massively aggregated quanta manifest, that is the way that would be the basis for common sense, while anything outside the threshold of perception (or more accurately, common sense conceptualization) might not be since its emergent aspects would be missing.
- Wanderer101
- Posts: 96
- Joined: June 7th, 2012, 3:24 pm
Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World
This basically is my concern, nearly a century after its inception, the debate about the relation of quantum physics to the familiar physical world continues. Why is a theory that seems to account with precision for everything we can measure still deemed lacking?Massively aggregated quanta are subject to "decoherence" where the amalgamation of individual quanta's wavefunctions cancel out most of the effects of uncertainty, yielding classical behavior for the massive "object" as a whole.
The only “failure” of quantum theory is its inability to provide a natural framework for our prejudices about the workings of the Universe. States of quantum systems evolve according to the deterministic, linear Schrödinger equation. This is just an indicator that underneath the math is a foundation built upon deterministic chaos which is not random. So the first part of your explanation is not really a physical explanation it is a vague explanation based in the abstract mathematics of approximation.
Given almost any initial condition, the Universe described by QM equations evolves into a state containing many alternatives that are never seen to coexist in our world. Moreover, while the ultimate evidence for the choice of one alternative resides in our elusive “consciousness,” there is every indication that the choice occurs much before consciousness ever gets involved and that, once made, the choice is irrevocable. Thus, at the root of my unease with quantum theory is the clash between the principle of superposition and everyday classical reality in which this principle appears to be violated.
I always become a little more concerned when one theory is used to prop up another theory. Emergence makes sense to me. The only problem I have is that I believe the complexity of the microscopic world is simply driven by chaotic determinism not by random chance and our consciousness. Experiments concerning isolated single atoms support the classical deterministic explanation rather than a QM explanation. In other words when the system gets simple enough to understand then the system can be predictable using classical math as well as QM math.There are also the findings of complexity theory which, since the 1960s, has become more and more capable of modelling macroscopic experience in terms of "emergence." Emergence is an overall term for how complex behaviour of lower level systems (such as massive amounts of interacting quanta) can produce inherently unpredictable behaviour (in terms of analyzing the quantum mechanics itself) across the entire system as a whole which, relative to other systems, displays ordered behaviour. In short, complexity theory can demonstrate how order emerges from chaos, given that the chaotic lower-level system is an "open" system (i.e., able to interact with a contextually larger environment subsuming it) and has access to an external energy source.
Its good that you used the phrase, “decoherence can potentially explain”. It still remains uncertain how a system that is driven by randomness and our consciousness can suddenly be deterministic. It seems to me if an macroscopic object that is composed of microscopic objects always behaves in a deterministic way then all of those microscopic objects are at all times behaving in a deterministic way. It is logically inconsistent for macroscopic object such as an airplane, has at all times a real detectable position and velocity to be entirely composed of objects that do not have the same type of rules imposed upon them. What is true for the macroscopic object it must be true and inherited for the microscopic objects that make up the macroscopic object.So, while decoherence can potentially explain why deterministic behavior appears at the macroscopic level, complexity theory can potentially explain why macroscopic-level physical characteristics (such as solidity) and relationships (such as time's arrow) emerge that do not exist at the atomic and subatomic scale.
So if what you are saying above were indeed true and an actual fact in our reality then macroscopic systems cannot be always safely placed on the classical side of the boundary, then might there be no boundary at all? The Many Worlds Interpretation (or more accurately, the Many Universes Interpretation), developed by Hugh Everett III with encouragement from John Archibald Wheeler in the 1950s, claims to do away with the boundary. In this interpretation, the entire universe is described by quantum theory. Superpositions evolve forever according to the Schrödinger equation. Each time a suitable interaction takes place between any two quantum systems, the wave function of the universe splits, developing ever more “branches.”Therefore, it is to be expected that whatever way massively aggregated quanta manifest, that is the way that would be the basis for common sense, while anything outside the threshold of perception (or more accurately, common sense conceptualization) might not be since its emergent aspects would be missing.
So now we have multiple so called explanations neither of which has been observed to actually exist. They exist only as mathematical inventions of the mind. It should be unnerving to us all that there are multiple interpretations involved and no physical observations that support either.
Is there any physical evidence that supports QMs explanations of how and why macroscopic objects behave in a way that is purely classical even though they are entirely composed of unpredictable random microscopic particles?
-
- Posts: 73
- Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 2:51 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World
There is no boundary. Each time you walk through a doorway, you are diffracted like a photon going through a slit. It is just that the uncertainty about position for macroscopic objects is too small to measure.Wanderer101 wrote:So if what you are saying above were indeed true and an actual fact in our reality then macroscopic systems cannot be always safely placed on the classical side of the boundary, then might there be no boundary at all?
-
- Posts: 1104
- Joined: March 18th, 2011, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Anaximander
Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World
It seems to me that you accept that QM's mathematical modelling of quanta, with its potential for decoherence, is an accurate description of WHAT happens, while you reject this description as being any physical explanation or, in other words, HOW it happens. I don't see that QM is any more vague, mathematically speaking, than say Newton's F=ma where mass and acceleration are equated to a "force" that Newton can offer no physical explanation for.So the first part of your explanation is not really a physical explanation it is a vague explanation based in the abstract mathematics of approximation.
If we are talking about quantum-scale objects, I think the opposite: there is evidence that the choice doesn't occur until consciousness gets involved. Larger objects have far fewer "degrees of freedom" as physicists speak of the allowable values inherent in a system, so superposition is restricted where more quanta are interacting. At the macroscopic scale, the wavefunction of a chair, a baseball, or a planet is so restricted that the indeterminacy is below any threshold of measurability. So there is no "clash" and nothing is violated....while the ultimate evidence for the choice of one alternative resides in our elusive “consciousness,” there is every indication that the choice occurs much before consciousness ever gets involved and that, once made, the choice is irrevocable. Thus, at the root of my unease with quantum theory is the clash between the principle of superposition and everyday classical reality in which this principle appears to be violated.
The confluence of results from diverse theories is always considered major support for both theories. The theory of plate techtonics--still controversial when I was a small child--was accepted almost overnight once known data about the earth's electromagnetic field was diachronically adjusted into the remote past. In turn, plate techtonics solved several outstanding issues in marine biology and paleontology, granting further creedence to those sciences.I always become a little more concerned when one theory is used to prop up another theory.
I do not know the experiments to which you are referring.Experiments concerning isolated single atoms support the classical deterministic explanation rather than a QM explanation. In other words when the system gets simple enough to understand then the system can be predictable using classical math as well as QM math.
Your position is simply ignoring the capacity for emergence inherent from microscopic objects in complex interaction. To me, it is like trying to understand, model and subsequently predict the behavior of a forest by studying the actions of 10,000 individual trees. It's like trying to appreciate a sand painting by cataloguing the relative positions and colors of 1 million sand grains. The capacity for emergence of a self-regulating forest ecosystem is not to be found in any given tree. It is a phenomenon of the operative whole.It seems to me if a macroscopic object that is composed of microscopic objects always behaves in a deterministic way then all of those microscopic objects are at all times behaving in a deterministic way.
You say emergence makes sense to you so I don't really see why you should selectively decide that emergence of causality and determinism shouldn't occur for the airplane from its component quanta.It is logically inconsistent for macroscopic objects such as an airplane, has at all times a real detectable position and velocity to be entirely composed of objects that do not have the same type of rules imposed upon them. What is true for the macroscopic object it must be true and inherited for the microscopic objects that make up the macroscopic object.
The indeterminacy in a macroscopic object is below the threshhold of measurement due to the effects of decoherence. The boundary between the quantum and classical worlds is an epistemological boundary, existing only in the cognitive schemata of human beings.So if what you are saying above were indeed true and an actual fact in our reality then macroscopic systems cannot be always safely placed on the classical side of the boundary, then might there be no boundary at all?
That the macroscopic bias of all of our cognitive schemata should force even scientists to want to find causality for quantum behavior is not unnerving; it is perfectly human. What is very unnerving is that the resulting hypotheses are very often presented to the lay public as scientific fact when they are merely untested hypotheses. This problem is one that makes me very unhappy given how much respect I have for science.The Many Worlds Interpretation (or more accurately, the Many Universes Interpretation), developed by Hugh Everett III with encouragement from John Archibald Wheeler in the 1950s, claims to do away with the boundary. In this interpretation, the entire universe is described by quantum theory. Superpositions evolve forever according to the Schrödinger equation. Each time a suitable interaction takes place between any two quantum systems, the wave function of the universe splits, developing ever more “branches.”
So now we have multiple so called explanations neither of which has been observed to actually exist. They exist only as mathematical inventions of the mind. It should be unnerving to us all that there are multiple interpretations involved and no physical observations that support either.
I guess I don't know what would qualify as physical evidence to you. You reject that the modeling of quantum behavior demonstrating decoherence for massively aggregated quanta provides a physical explanation, so I can't help. Meanwhile, I should point out that classical physics offers no physical explanation for why electron microscopes work. And quantum tunnelling microscopes can't work according to classical physics. Classical physics cannot physically explain even macroscopic phenomena like superconductivity nor the behavior of Bose-Einstein condensates.Is there any physical evidence that supports QMs explanations of how and why macroscopic objects behave in a way that is purely classical even though they are entirely composed of unpredictable random microscopic particles?
And classical physics quickly becomes useless for modeling complex systems that follow non-linear dynamics. Complexity theory can do better. In my lifetime, I've seen weather prediction improve its accuracy 3 times over what it was in my youth thanks to high-speed computing via non-linear algorithms. Classical physics wasn't able to figure out how to get rid of the antennae sticking out of our cell phones--complexity theory did it. Is the absence of those pesky antennae physical evidence enough for these theories?
- Wanderer101
- Posts: 96
- Joined: June 7th, 2012, 3:24 pm
Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World
I can agree with the idea and analogy of diffraction. But you fail to consider that diffraction is easily described with ordinary wave theory formulations. There is no need for QM calculations. Also there really is no uncertainty for the macroscopic object. Why, because in reality both position and momentum can be determined for the macroscopic object. When you evoke the idea of diffraction you open the doorway for an alternate explanation via classical wave theory. An explanation that I believe is most likely the correct one.There is no boundary. Each time you walk through a doorway, you are diffracted like a photon going through a slit. It is just that the uncertainty about position for macroscopic objects is too small to measure.
-
- Posts: 73
- Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 2:51 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World
Agreed. Nevertheless, the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics can be applied to any size of object, not just at atomic scales. So that if the momentum of the person going through the door is known exactly, the uncertainty in their position is given by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The QM positional uncertainty is equivalent to the diffraction of classical mechanics. Which means that there is no boundary between the microscopic and macroscopic worlds as far as quantum mechanics is concerned - and no contradiction between quantum and classical mechanics at the macroscale.Wanderer101 wrote: There is no need for QM calculations.
- Wanderer101
- Posts: 96
- Joined: June 7th, 2012, 3:24 pm
Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World
-
- Posts: 73
- Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 2:51 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World
I agree completely. But, I believe that is also the case for all our scientific theories i.e. they just predict. I am not brave enough to look for explanations.Wanderer101 wrote:QM does not explain things, it predicts them.
-
- Posts: 65
- Joined: May 16th, 2012, 9:38 am
Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World
QM gives us only a symbolic picture of the world, not a real picture in the way that our ordinary perception does. QM is a mathematical formalism; a theoretical structure, and as such, is not real in the ordinary sense. It is used to predict observations through the use of probability and the wave equation. It is not uniquely indeterminate in this regard - relativity does not gives us a 'real picture' either, since it also involves imaginary numbers in the formalism. All physics is indeterminate as far as it is an abstraction from the fullness of the ordinary world that we encounter.Wanderer101 wrote:Quantum theory clearly shows that microscopic particles behave in a way that does not “make sense”. Not only can those particles exist in two places at once, but the theory shows that they only exist when observed by something or someone. And since our everyday macroscopic objects are made up of those tiny particles, what does that mean about the chair I am sitting on? Is it there only because I am here?
-
- Posts: 73
- Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 2:51 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World
Its your choice of course, but statistics is a branch of logic, so if you disqualify QM on the grounds that uses statistics, you also reject a part of logic.Wanderer101 wrote: What disqualifies it (QM) for me is that it uses statistics and probabilty in its formulations.
- Wanderer101
- Posts: 96
- Joined: June 7th, 2012, 3:24 pm
Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World
This is just such an accurate and excellent comment. You are 100 percent correct in what you say I believe. You then go on to correctly describe the subtle but vitally important difference we have chosen as to how we interpret the meaning of the mathematics in question. QM vs. Classical. This is the heart of the issue.It seems to me that you accept that QM's mathematical modelling of quanta, with its potential for decoherence, is an accurate description of WHAT happens, while you reject this description as being any physical explanation or, in other words, HOW it happens. I don't see that QM is any more vague, mathematically speaking, than say Newton's F=ma where mass and acceleration are equated to a "force" that Newton can offer no physical explanation for.
You said that you do not see any difference in QM's math versus Newton's Math. Oh my I see a great deal of difference. Allow me to explain. I am a very ruled based person. I remember in college many years ago I was singled out for an experiment in psychology after I took a MAPS test for personality. It was discovered in that test that every little detail of any situation was critically important to me. The slightest discrepancy could cause me to go 180 degrees in my opinion concerning an issue of importance. In other words the details and their circumstances are all very important to me.
On the surface I see what you are saying when you said, "I don't see that QM is any more vague, mathematically speaking, than say Newton's F=ma where mass and acceleration are equated to a "force" that Newton can offer no physical explanation for."
Basically, mathematically speaking these are both approximations describing a physical reality. If you are willing to leave it at that then there is no difference. I do not believe that would be the correct course of action. The truth is in the details.
Newton’s math deals with concepts of forces objects and actions. Newton developed differential calculus. Calculus, as you know being the study of the rates at which quantities change. He attempted to describe a Universe in which things like forces and objects were real objects in their own right. He needed no statistics, no probabilities and his math is still used today. He described a physical clockwork like Universe. He provided a series of equations that were a very good approximation of physical reality.
QM equations describe nothing. They do predict results of experiments that consist of large sample sizes of detectable events. With the help of Schrödinger’s equation quantum mechanics equations achieve a near perfection of predictive power. However, the Schrödinger equation does not directly say what, exactly, the wavefunction is. There is no such mysterious beast in Newton’s equations. It is important to note that Schrödinger, always opposed a statistical or probabilistic approach, with its associated discontinuities. This equation was meant to mock QM not help it. Schrödinger much like Einstein believed that quantum mechanics was a statistical approximation to an underlying deterministic theory. I believe they are correct in that assumption.
I certainly agree with you in the case of theories that are not reliant on abstract mathematics. These theories you list above gain a great deal of credibility by virtue of the fact that we can measure and observe the macroscopic objects involved. We don’t have the measurement problem that we have with microscopic objects. Purely mathematical theories are in a different class. They are in a class where interpretation of abstract concepts plays an important role. In this case there is a great deal more room for error. QM theory can be said to support String theory. Do you still feel comfortable about these types of theories supporting each other. I know I don’t.The confluence of results from diverse theories is always considered major support for both theories. The theory of plate techtonics--still controversial when I was a small child--was accepted almost overnight once known data about the earth's electromagnetic field was diachronically adjusted into the remote past. In turn, plate techtonics solved several outstanding issues in marine biology and paleontology, granting further creedence to those sciences.
I read an article about an isolated atom experiment a couple of years ago. In the case of this experiment when interfering forces were removed the simple isolated system became purely deterministic chaotic system it lost its random behavior. I will see if I can locate this article.Experiments concerning isolated single atoms support the classical deterministic explanation rather than a QM explanation. In other words when the system gets simple enough to understand then the system can be predictable using classical math as well as QM math.
I do not know the experiments to which you are referring
Your position is simply ignoring the capacity for emergence inherent from microscopic objects in complex interaction. To me, it is like trying to understand, model and subsequently predict the behavior of a forest by studying the actions of 10,000 individual trees. It's like trying to appreciate a sand painting by cataloguing the relative positions and colors of 1 million sand grains. The capacity for emergence of a self-regulating forest ecosystem is not to be found in any given tree. It is a phenomenon of the operative whole. [/quote]It seems to me if a macroscopic object that is composed of microscopic objects always behaves in a deterministic way then all of those microscopic objects are at all times behaving in a deterministic way.
You are partially right on this one. I am ignoring something. I am not ignoring the emergence concept. I am ignoring the concept and idea underneath the emergence concept. I am ignoring the idea that the microscopic objects that make up the macroscopic objects are acting in a random way. I believe that the randomness is a pseudo randomness. The macroscopic system is simply to chaotic and dynamically complex to compute with classical math but that does not mean that classical physics and cause and effect are not at work. The microscopic components that make up macroscopic systems are just to strongly affected by any attempts to measure them. I acknowledge the difficulty of measuring microscopic objects without affecting them.
I have a difference of opinion on the cause of the difficulty of measurement in the microscopic realm. Where we disagree is what the cause of this difficulty is. I do not believe that the difficulty of measuring microscopic objects is the Uncertainty Principle. The Uncertainty Principle is an abstract mathematical object that attempts by use of a circular logic to give birth to its own cause. Wow I can’t believe I just said that. I hope you get what I mean there. What I mean is that the Uncertainty Principle says that we cannot know the position and the momentum of a microscopic object at the same time. Thus, QM says that the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology. This interpretation of the Uncertainty principle is the critical mistake. You believe that quantum uncertainty is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems. I believe that uncertainties are because these systems are inherently noisy and easily disturbed by the observer. The true cause of the Uncertainty principle is caused by observer’s apparatus and other nearby geometries that have a physical affect upon the system. I believe that all of what QM predicts through its equations are driven by the physical dynamics of the system itself not by the abstract mathematical principles of QM.
The last line is definitely a big problem. “The boundary between the quantum and classical worlds is an epistemological boundary, existing only in the cognitive schemata of human beings.”The indeterminacy in a macroscopic object is below the threshhold of measurement due to the effects of decoherence. The boundary between the quantum and classical worlds is an epistemological boundary, existing only in the cognitive schemata of human beings.
Rather than me saying I disagree with that I would request instead that you give me an example of some experiment that backs up that particular belief. Are you are basically saying that physical reality does not exist on its own independent of us and our cognitive schemata of human beings? This belief must be dealt with directly and completely. What experimental and or observational fact leads you to believe that is true. If you don’t have an experiment that proves this just try and give me a small simple logical argument for this belief.
I am having trouble understanding that first sentence. I think I know what you are trying to say. I believe you meant to say is that we have a bias toward what we see and experience in the macroscopic world and we are trying to force that view into the microscopic world. That’s a fair comment.That the macroscopic bias of all of our cognitive schemata should force even scientists to want to find causality for quantum behavior is not unnerving; it is perfectly human. What is very unnerving is that the resulting hypotheses are very often presented to the lay public as scientific fact when they are merely untested hypotheses. This problem is one that makes me very unhappy given how much respect I have for science.
My personal view is that there can be only one explanation for everything we see. Either it’s the QM theory or it’s something else, perhaps a classical theory. My analysis tells me that QM theory has never been proven to be a complete theory. All of its success has relied upon statistics and probability. No mathematical theory that uses this technique can or should be used to model reality. While QM can be very useful for predicting the microscopic world I believe that successfully predicting experimental results using this technique does not constitute evidence that QM explains the behaviors and causes of the microscopic realm. I do not believe things in this world happen because of chance. As far back as Maxwell there was concern about using statistics in science. He evens mentions it in his writings. Even the name Quantum Mechanics is a misnomer. Quantum Mechanics does not have to do with the mechanical operation of any physical object. A better name would be Quantum Probabilities or Quantum Probability Theory.
You also mention complexity theory in your final paragraphs. I know nothing about this theory. What are its founding principles?
-- Updated June 22nd, 2012, 3:24 pm to add the following --
For Steve,
Ah, how nice, we agree. (see me with my head nodding up and down and laughing.) Your statements are small but pack a powerful punch. I believe what you say about theories is correct for some theories. Theories that use a lot of abstact math. Even some theories that don't use abstact math. What makes me laugh and nod in agreement is the reference to bravery. Any true, deep theoretical work is always at the foundations of reality and at that place, the ground is treacherous. Why? Because no one is sure what is really there. What is space? What is a photon? What are they made of? Why do they behave the way they do? To answer questions such as these you have to be brave. It is built in to our nature to try and know these things. People will continue to try and answer these questions until the end of time. I walk along the beach and wonder about them.I agree completely. But, I believe that is also the case for all our scientific theories i.e. they just predict. I am not brave enough to look for explanations.Wanderer101 wrote:QM does not explain things, it predicts them.
-- Updated June 22nd, 2012, 4:12 pm to add the following --
For Andlan,
To a degree I am going to agree with what you say there. I just can't accept the limitation that you are willing to accept. Perhaps a simple parable might help in this discussion. To me the mysterious Universe is like a lock. On the face of the lock is a dial with symbols on it we call numbers. We believe that by moving the dial back and forth in a certain way the lock will open. Scientists and philosophers are simply trying understand what the lock is and with that knowledge they will be able to open the Universal lock. The numbers are the symbols we use and they represent the quantities and objects we see in the Universe. The specific motion and proper manipulation of the dial using the numbers as a guide are equivalent to formulas. There is only one formula that will open the Universal lock. (Unified Field Theory)QM gives us only a symbolic picture of the world, not a real picture in the way that our ordinary perception does. QM is a mathematical formalism; a theoretical structure, and as such, is not real in the ordinary sense. It is used to predict observations through the use of probability and the wave equation. It is not uniquely indeterminate in this regard - relativity does not gives us a 'real picture' either, since it also involves imaginary numbers in the formalism. All physics is indeterminate as far as it is an abstraction from the fullness of the ordinary world that we encounter.
There are many ways we can attack the problem to discover the one and only combination (formula). We can attempt to see inside the clock study its internal parts and attempt to reverse engineer the mechanism to discover the combination. << (particle accelerators). We can attempt to formulate a theory using numbers and formulas and then execute these formulas in experiments and then observe the lock to see if it opens. << (abstract mathematical theories with associated experiments).
What is our equivalent of the formula that opens the Universal lock? The Theory of Everything
What is the Theory of Everything? As Einstein first conceived it, the unification of Electromagnetism to Gravity.
Where are we at now?
We have seen inside the lock but have not been able to reverse engineer the inner workings. We have not been able to see the pattern that is in the standard model of particles.
We have many theories and interpretations of theories and all of them have failed to unify gravity with electromagnetism.
Quantum Mechanics tells us nothing about what is that the foundation of our reality. It has offered no clue as to the origin of gravity.
General Relativity describes the warping of space by gravity but it does not describe the origin of mass and the gravitational field.
Quantum Theory says we cannot know what is at the foundation. It’s principles prohibit giving us the big picture. If we give in to this philosophy we are essentially finished. I don’t mean that in a good way. We are stalled, no more progress, no more break throughs. No more particles to discover. For 90 years we have had stagnation with little progress and decades more to come if we do not change course.
If we want to progress we will have to adopt a new philosophy about science. We have to believe we can discover the one and only formula that opens the lock. Then and only then will we achieve the knowledge we seek.
-- Updated June 22nd, 2012, 4:36 pm to add the following --
For Steve,
Logic may use statistics. Logic I am sure can function without statistics. I do not reject logic. What kind of philosopher would I be without logic!What disqualifies it (QM) for me is that it uses statistics and probability in its formulations.
Its your choice of course, but statistics is a branch of logic, so if you disqualify QM on the grounds that uses statistics, you also reject a part of logic.
Quantum Mechanics Theory is composed of 2 primary components.
Statistics:
Statistics are nothing more than a record of events, it a collection, classification, analysis of numerical facts or data. Statistics are the end result of some causative action. They do not describe the cause as they are merely the effect.
Probability:
Probability is the chance that something will happen.
There is no explanation of mechanics in either component. Therefore I reject this method as a way to solve and or explain the mechanics of the Universe.
I used simple logic to reject statistics for the use of something that explains the physical universe. I do not reject statistics for applications usage to solve real world problems.
-
- Posts: 1104
- Joined: March 18th, 2011, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Anaximander
Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World
Newton describes particulars that correspond with the common artefacts of our perception because his formulae were intended to model those common objects and their dynamics. QM describes particulars that do not correspond with artefacts of common perception, since our perception has evolved to process macroscopic particulars. To declare that Newton’s particulars correspond to “physical reality” while QM’s particulars do not, is a statement of nothing but the macroscopic bias of your cognition. It doesn’t have any scientific or philosophical merit to me. For example, Newton requires a backdrop of absolute space & time yet General Relativity says there is no such thing. Both theories work when applied correctly so does that mean reality carries an inherent contradiction? I doubt a realist would believe that.Basically, mathematically speaking [QM and Newton] are both approximations describing a physical reality. If you are willing to leave it at that then there is no difference. I do not believe that would be the correct course of action. The truth is in the details.
Newton’s math deals with concepts of forces objects and actions. Newton developed differential calculus. Calculus, as you know being the study of the rates at which quantities change. He attempted to describe a Universe in which things like forces and objects were real objects in their own right. He needed no statistics, no probabilities and his math is still used today. He described a physical clockwork like Universe. He provided a series of equations that were a very good approximation of physical reality.
QM equations describe nothing. They do predict results of experiments that consist of large sample sizes of detectable events. With the help of Schrödinger’s equation quantum mechanics equations achieve a near perfection of predictive power. However, the Schrödinger equation does not directly say what, exactly, the wavefunction is. There is no such mysterious beast in Newton’s equations. It is important to note that Schrödinger, always opposed a statistical or probabilistic approach, with its associated discontinuities. This equation was meant to mock QM not help it. Schrödinger much like Einstein believed that quantum mechanics was a statistical approximation to an underlying deterministic theory. I believe they are correct in that assumption.
The fact that Schrodinger, Einstein, Bell and many others all believed in a deterministic theory underlying QM is, quite frankly, illustrative of the macroscopic bias of their cognition. But the real point is that even if they are right, the existence of deterministic causation underlying quantum dynamics is irrelevant to the validity of QM. QM is a model for cataloguing and predicting quantum dynamics, period. That it could someday find itself subsumed within a more general deterministic theory implies only that all along, QM was merely what it is: a scientific theory.
I disagree. In the laboratory, interpretation of abstract concepts is confined to the testing of hypotheses and recording the results. When practical science applies those results, it doesn't care what the results mean about reality. It cares only about what it can do with them. The sort of interpretation I think you’re talking about is done in a purely speculative manner that has no bearing on the theories per se. I do agree that such ad hoc interpretation has enormous potential for error since none of it can be tested scientifically.The confluence of results from diverse theories is always considered major support for both theories. The theory of plate tectonics--still controversial when I was a small child--was accepted almost overnight once known data about the earth's electromagnetic field was diachronically adjusted into the remote past. In turn, plate tectonics solved several outstanding issues in marine biology and paleontology, granting further credence to those sciences.
I certainly agree with you in the case of theories that are not reliant on abstract mathematics. These theories you list above gain a great deal of credibility by virtue of the fact that we can measure and observe the macroscopic objects involved. We don’t have the measurement problem that we have with microscopic objects. Purely mathematical theories are in a different class. They are in a class where interpretation of abstract concepts plays an important role. In this case there is a great deal more room for error. QM theory can be said to support String theory. Do you still feel comfortable about these types of theories supporting each other. I know I don’t.
True, but only because I acknowledge that when one considers a system, one is creating a relative situation between the system and whatever isn't the system. If those two phenomena interact, there will be uncertainty.You believe that quantum uncertainty is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems.
I totally agree with these words. The only difference between us is that for me, I don’t believe that QM is saying anything metaphysical or ontological about the status of uncertainty. Yes, various ad hoc interpretations of the “quantum measurement problem” make such statements and they can be very flamboyant, but QM theory per se does not. QM, like all scientific theories, is just a model for cataloguing and predicting experience.I believe that uncertainties are because these systems are inherently noisy and easily disturbed by the observer. The true cause of the Uncertainty principle is caused by observer’s apparatus and other nearby geometries that have a physical affect upon the system. I believe that all of what QM predicts through its equations are driven by the physical dynamics of the system itself not by the abstract mathematical principles of QM.
I made a philosophical statement, not a scientific statement. Science reveals no boundary between the quantum and classical world, just as Steve already pointed out. But we know the boundary is there in our cognitive schemata by the sheer hullabaloo that surrounds this phenomenon we call the “collapse of the wave function.” We want the boundary to be there. We need it to be there. If we try to remove it, we get interpretations of QM like John von Neumann’s Consciousness-Created universe, Hugh Everett’s Many Worlds, or John Wheeler’s Observation-Created universe; all flying in the face of common sense which demands the boundary be there once common sense finds out about QM.The last line is definitely a big problem. “The boundary between the quantum and classical worlds is an epistemological boundary, existing only in the cognitive schemata of human beings.”
Rather than me saying I disagree with that I would request instead that you give me an example of some experiment that backs up that particular belief.
Philosophically, I am an anti-realist. Realism simply doesn’t make sense to me. As an analytical platform and methodology, it just yields tautologies, infinite regression, and “answers” that are nothing but a priori axioms proclaimed by fiat. I’ve actually come to believe that realism is antithetical to any serious philosophical consideration of reality. You ask me, does reality exist independent of us and our cognitive schemata? I don’t believe it does. I don’t think there is one person who can actually explain what “independent” means in such a scenario coherently. If reality were truly independent of us, we couldn’t be aware of reality at all, given that we couldn’t interact with it, nor could we be functionally aware of ourselves.Are you basically saying that physical reality does not exist on its own independent of us and our cognitive schemata of human beings? This belief must be dealt with directly and completely. What experimental and or observational fact leads you to believe that is true. If you don’t have an experiment that proves this just try and give me a small simple logical argument for this belief.
We cannot look to science to discover the ultimate ontology or metaphysical status of reality. It is simply outside of science’s purview because scientific methodology rests on epistemological presuppositions that underlie how validation/verification can be recognized. Such presuppositions preclude any ability to validate the metaphysical except in terms of these epistemological presuppositions. Once can step outside of these presuppositions, of course, but from that point onward, it’s no longer science.
I disagree. Good theories complement each other and work to support each other even when their formalisms or implicit assumptions about the world may be mutually incompatible. Even if causation does ultimately underlie the dynamics of quantum motion, QM would not be incomplete for failing to address such causation. Nobody ever called plate tectonics incomplete because it doesn’t model the particulars of radioactive decay in the earth’s core that heat the earth’s mantle generating tectonic activity in the first place. Nobody ever called Maxwell’s Equations incomplete because they provide no explanation for the constancy of light’s speed. Why not? Because plate tectonics is compatible with radioactivity which is the purview of another scientific theory. Because electromagnetism is compatible with Special Relativity’s explanations for the speed of light. If causation were to be discovered behind the dynamics of quantum motion, do you really believe that QM would then have to be declared wrong? No, QM would be completely compatible with any underlying causation for quantum dynamics. The very fact that QM works makes it clear that it would have to be compatible. Just as Newton is compatible with QM. Even theories commonly considered incompatible, like General Relativity and QM, are thought so only because they cannot both be applied to all scenarios. But in science, as in life, complementarity does not imply incompatibility. GR and QM are beautifully complementary, operating at different scales of reality. Is one or the other or both wrong because they cannot be fused into one theory? A realist might think so, who has to believe that theories must correspond to reality’s truths. An anti-realist realizes that the only kind of correspondence in reality is from concepts to concepts.My personal view is that there can be only one explanation for everything we see. Either it’s the QM theory or it’s something else, perhaps a classical theory. My analysis tells me that QM theory has never been proven to be a complete theory.
I disagree. I don’t believe in humans’ ability to consider reality except in terms of reality’s behaviour, therefore “modelling reality’s behaviour” and “modelling reality” are synonymous terms to me. There are few other theories that come close to modelling reality’s behaviour as productively as QM.All of [QM’s] success has relied upon statistics and probability. No mathematical theory that uses this technique can or should be used to model reality.
You’re certainly right about that. QM doesn’t explain anything. Nor does any other scientific theory. Not Newton, not Maxwell, not Einstein. Every one of them is a symbolic model of relations between phenomena. The only thing that distinguishes QM (in the context of what we’re debating) is that its fundamental dependence on Planck’s Constant yields a quantized (i.e., discontinuous/discontiguous) reality which cannot be “refined” into a contiguous continuum. I have no problem accepting that as an aspect of that particular model. In fact, I’m much more comfortable with a quantized reality than with a continuum. The physical reality of a continuum makes no sense to me because it requires mustering a belief in physical infinities, which is personally beyond me.While QM can be very useful for predicting the microscopic world I believe that successfully predicting experimental results using this technique does not constitute evidence that QM explains the behaviors and causes of the microscopic realm.
Too complex for discussion (no pun intended). Here is a reading list I prepared once for another forum member who was interested in learning about it.You also mention complexity theory in your final paragraphs. I know nothing about this theory. What are its founding principles?
The Cosmic Blueprint by Paul Davies Comprehensive, short, easy-to-read introduction. Really makes clear why complexity theory is revolutionary for taking on non-linear systems. Just take the last chapter with a grain of salt.
Frontiers of Complexity by Roger Highfield Kind of haphazard in its approach but useful for finding out about actual research efforts in the field.
Applied Chaos Theory - A Paradigm for Complexity by A.B. Cambel This book explores the mathematics of dynamical systems capable of chaotic behavior and subsequent emergent order. A bit technical, but packed with information.
The Emergence of Everything by Harold J. Morowitz A walk through the evolution of the universe in terms of evolving self-organization, all the way to the emergence of self-awareness.
Hidden Order by John H. Holland Emergence from a focus on computer modeling of non-linear systems. Great for understanding the role of algorithms in creative chaos.
The Nonlocal Universe by Menas Kafatos & Robert Nadeau This is actually about quantum nonlocality & entanglement, not complexity theory, but it is a great book for showing how the two fields complement each other. The chapter on Darwinian Evolution reinterpreted as a self-organizing holistic biosphere is really inspiring and very reflective of complexity's potential.
-
- Posts: 219
- Joined: March 27th, 2011, 8:03 am
Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World
- Wanderer101
- Posts: 96
- Joined: June 7th, 2012, 3:24 pm
Re: Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World
A bias is something all people have. So with that in mind the only difference between, Schrodinger, Einstein, Bell and what is popularly believed now is that we have become biased into believing that QM interpretation represents our physical reality and not the classical belief. Right now the pendulum has swung toward QM. So my argument is that there is a solution to this puzzle has nothing to do with personal or group taught bias. I believe that there is but one solution to this problem.The fact that Schrodinger, Einstein, Bell and many others all believed in a deterministic theory underlying QM is, quite frankly, illustrative of the macroscopic bias of their cognition. But the real point is that even if they are right, the existence of deterministic causation underlying quantum dynamics is irrelevant to the validity of QM. QM is a model for cataloguing and predicting quantum dynamics, period. That it could someday find itself subsumed within a more general deterministic theory implies only that all along, QM was merely what it is: a scientific theory.
To further clarify. I am not saying that QM is worthless or invalid. I am saying that QM is a perfectly good tool for predicting the results of experiments when measuring something that consists of a large quantity of microscopic events. The fact that it successfully predicts these types of experiments has no meaning in physical reality. Where I believe we have gone wrong is in the interpretation that was provided to us years ago by Bohr and the other pioneers of QM. There is no scientific basis for suggesting that statistics and probabilities represent anything physical.
I would correct your statement above (“QM is a model for cataloguing and predicting quantum dynamics, period. “), by changing just one word. Remove the word model and replace it with the word method. “QM is a method for cataloguing and predicting quantum dynamics, period. “ I could completely agree with that statement.
What I believe you are having trouble with is in separating what we believe to be true with what is actually true. This I believe is because you do not believe in an objective reality that is separate from your consciousness and your existence. We are creatures of a cognitive nature. Humans can articulate the nature of the world to themselves and to each other in the form of abstract principles. All of our mathematical models fall into this category. Principles which strike a particular person as true qualify as that person’s belief. Correspondingly a person’s system of beliefs constitutes that person’s philosophy.
I am saying the philosophical belief system that supports QM is incorrect. It appears that you are a person who does not believe in a reality that is purely physical and separate from our consciousness and cognitive bias. I believe that all of our modelling is abstract because we have conceived them by using our minds and our minds use abstract methods and symbols to explain and represent what see in nature. The trick is in discovering the one and only true abstract representation of our physical reality. “The combination to the Lock mentioned above.” We disagree in what we believe the combination is. You say QM is the solution I say something else. You believe in the quantum objects and that which is discontinuous. I believe that the quantum objects and interactions are a subset of something greater which is continuous.
More to come later as I get the time.
-- Updated June 25th, 2012, 11:10 am to add the following --
For Alan Masterman
I agree with what you say above. I believe also that Einstein was on the correct course. If he were still alive today and had the knowledge of the standard model of particle physics that we have today he would have seen the pattern that exists. A pattern that no one has seen so far. He would have been able to construct a model using differential equations that would be able to explain the origin of mass. I believe we have enough information do to that now. Physicist Michio Kaku has said the very same thing in one of his TV specials. I agree with him.
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