tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post493538298833012066..comments2017-06-19T11:53:03.105+02:00Comments on The SmartS Club: SchrÃ¶dinger's cat is alive and kickin'Carsten Huchohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08861377889894216646noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-53205251360270141792011-11-18T00:37:59.010+01:002011-11-18T00:37:59.010+01:00This paper, that was just communicated in Nature w...This paper, that was just communicated in Nature would be really earthshaking: http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-theorem-shakes-foundations-1.9392<br />A wavefunction would be a 'real thing' - not just a concept... we will see.Carsten Huchohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08861377889894216646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-47126675101583952342011-08-30T16:57:00.594+02:002011-08-30T16:57:00.594+02:00Mon coeur! Simplifications are always dangerous an...Mon coeur! Simplifications are always dangerous and prone to confuse instead to clarify. <br />But the central point of my simplification must not be lost: the mathematical descriptions of observable processes or events in nature are *models* of those processes or events. They are not the events or processes themselves. In this sense a probability-distribution can be written down without any dices being cast or statstical processes actually running in the background. The distribution is a model that, if done correctly, may be able to describe some observation - and give predictions of states, processes, events to be observed in the future. But the model exists also without any real states, processes or events.<br />The equal distribution of probabilities for the six numbers in a lottery-draw does exist even without the lottery, or also when there is only one lottery-draw ever.<br />My admittedly oversimplified picture aimed at demystifying the 'collapse of the wavefunctions' - a term used to describe the fact that the probability to find a quantum-mechanical partical at one given point at one certain time is fixed and either zero or one, once the particles' position is measured - as compared to the distribution of probabilities (given by a wavefunction) at any instant before measurement.<br />The probability for any combination of six numbers (out of a set of 49) to win the lottery is equal - until the numbers are actually drawn. After that the probability is zero for almost any combination, except one - for which it is 1.Carsten Huchohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08861377889894216646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-27796547198864064172011-08-29T16:34:02.549+02:002011-08-29T16:34:02.549+02:00Carsten, Dear,
let's try to explore your expl...Carsten, Dear,<br /><br />let's try to explore your explanation of the double slit experiment. You assert "It is this probability-distribution that passes the double-slit and, quite logically...". Is this really that logical?<br /><br />Why is it a probability function, that passes the slit? Why not a particle, why not a wave? I do not (well, only partially) pose the question what an electron actually *is*. I merely ask how exactly a thing may move in terms of probability functions?<br /><br />If we think about Newtonian motion, say a thrown stone, we could ask a similiar question: How exactly do things move in parables? A parabola is a mathematical object, like a wave-function, too. Isn't it?<br /><br />I'd say, there is a fundamental difference. We can interpret a parabola. It somehow describes where to find the stone - or its center of mass - at a given time point. <br /><br />We are, however, unable to interpret quantum mechanical probabilities. If I measure the position of an electron once, what does this psi-square probability refer to? The point is btw not, whether or not we deal with abstract entities (or descriptions, for that matter). The point is rather, if we have a interpretational framework, into which these entities can be integrated. The dice-analogy does not help much either, because dice-probabilities are known a priory from many castings. If we had a new dice with an unpredictable behaviour (e.g. its mass is distributed irregularly) and were allowed to cast it only two times: what probabilities would we use and how could we justify our choice?<br /><br />My understanding goes as follows. If we adopt a frequentist view, we must postulate that quantum mechanical objects are the manifestation of underlying processes, which can be seen as a (fast) repititions of dice-castings. These processes may be thought of as if they constitute the QM-object, much like spinning water constitutes (by its spinning motion) a vortex. Instead of the spinning water we'd have a dice-cast-generator. <br /><br />If, on the other hand, we adopt a Bayesian view, we end up with the idea, that a physical system (be it as small as a QM-particle) has some sort of "knowledge" about the world. I think Leibniz purported something like this.<br /><br />To me, both consequences are hard to accept. The first idea does neither explain much (we are referred to other, more basic "dice generators") nor does it really come to a happy end (what causes the "dice-generators" to work?). The second idea borders at the edge of esoterics and does not really explain what "knowledge" means.<br /><br />Another side of the question "how things move in terms of probability functions" is the following. A probability other than 1 or 0 can only assigned to processes which have a propensity to happen or not to happen. In other words it just refers to the fact, that something is changing/moving. So. There we have a circular thought. A thing, which moves in terms of probability functions, is nothing more than a thing that moves. But why does it exhibit all that strange double slit behaviour then?<br /><br />Waddaya think?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-40295057503170293082011-07-07T08:26:45.355+02:002011-07-07T08:26:45.355+02:00Thanks for that. Your explanation seems straightf...Thanks for that. Your explanation seems straightforward to me, not that I'm a physicist. I wonder if the people who publish information about the supposed duality are just sincerely mistaken, or if they are engaged in a cynical form of scientific publishing where confusing / incomplete / incorrect ideas are somehow intriguing to readers. Maybe it's convenient for them to jump to strange conclusions in order to sell books? Imagine a publisher who has a correct understanding but publishes books that are popular because they contain sensational but incorrect conclusions. Duality sells, perhaps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com