Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Ktulu]

This is nonsense. A water wave is a physical thing. The equations describing it refer to an element of reality. The wavefunction is not a physical thing (an experimentally verified fact) and it does not refer to an element of reality.

Can you please provide some sources? I, for one, would be very interested.

To everyone else...

I've missed quite a bit in this discussion, and trying to play catch up. I think my views are best mirrored by Steve's. I would like to add one more analogy, which is bound to be poor because it is regarding QM. This is how I imagine attempting to "observe" a particle. Imagine that the only sense you had was the sense of touch. The particle is represented by a pendulum in motion. You have no other instrument but your hand. You may find the position by holding out your hand and grabbing it, but you cannot know how fast it was going, or what exact path it has taken to get there. The pendulum is following a wave like motion, until you stop it with your hand. You can try and find out the speed, by lightly touching it without stopping it, but then you no longer know its position because you have affected it by touching it. Particles are like a swinging pendulum, only in three dimensions. At the quantum level, the only sense that we have is touch. We can't hear, smell, see or taste a particle. We can only touch it with another particle.

I hope this helps in some way.

One more comment, if I may. The "observer effect" that I've described is only the experimental confirmation of the underlining wave mathematics. In that, you may not know both the position and velocity of a particle with a degree of accuracy greater then h(reduced Plank's constant).

[Quotidian]

Isn't the difficulty implied by 'superposition', that the particle doesn't have a location until it is measured? It is not as if it is there, waiting for someone to measure it. Until you measure it, it isn't really there. What is there, is a 'probability wave' - that is, locations within which it has a greater or lesser degree of being found when it is observed. Which is exactly why it isn't really 'a particle' and why it poses such philosophical problems.

[Steve3007]

Ktulu:

I don't remember having heard that pendulum analogy before. I think it is a great way of putting it. But I'm also interested in the way that different people think about things. I'd be interested to know what the more skeptical people think of it. I suspect that some of the kinds of minds that don't like abstract analogies as ways of approaching phenomena that cannot be directly experienced will just suspect it of being more obfuscation and trickery.

Logicus:

If it slows the planet down very slightly there is another effect: the planet moves to a slightly more distant orbit.

Yes, I hadn't considered that.

Quotidian:

In fact, I think 'they' are neither particles, nor waves. Both particles and waves are the nearest real-world analogies that we can come up to what we are dealing with.

I completely agree with this, with a slight exception to the use of the term "real world". As I've said in other posts, I think that saying an electron is a particle (or is a wave) is analogous to saying that the Sun is an orange. An orange makes a good model of the Sun, for some purposes. Clearly not for others.

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)


When dealing with fundamental particles like the photon or electron, it is an experimental and theoretical fact that you never encounter a partial effect associated with them. You only ever measure whole electrons or photons, and never a part of them. Take light for example. If you lower the power of a light source (e.g. a laser) eventually the beam stops getting gradually weaker, and starts to blink on and off as you detect the individual photons.

There are two ways of explaining entanglement, neither suffers from real instantaneous effects, otherwise they would be wrong.

Sorry but you are not answering my question.What description of a photon or an electron gives you the right to state it is a particle. The idea that these particles exist is the essence of this experiment. If particles are nothing more than a mathematical description, it fails to give them credence, the experiment is flawed.

I have read several articles on entanglement and they all speak of instantaneous effects between separated particles. How am I misrepresenting their claims?

I can not remember who I asked but if particles are reported to be bouncing of the edges of the slits when are they absorbed and when do they bounce? Balls in a china shop make hell of mess.


STEVE, you are doing it again. When is particle not a particle? When is a wave not a wave? The nearest is not good enough. As for all these silly analogies they just make me want to scream.

[Steve3007]

Xris:

STEVE, you are doing it again.

Sorry.

When is particle not a particle? When is a wave not a wave? The nearest is not good enough.

We've been round and round this, including entire threads dedicated to the subject. I've tried every approach I can think of. I think we have to conclude that the meeting of minds, on this kind of subject, is unattainable in principle and practice.

As for all these silly analogies they just make me want to scream.

LOL. (Well, smile). I don't want to make you have to scream, and I presume Ktulu and others don't either. But I'm afraid when trying to understand things you can't directly sense, analogies are a fact of life.

---

P.S: I really wouldn't waste your time trying to engage in a conversation with the one called "Teh". Most posts suggest that it's a stamp-collecting point-scorer with very little evidence of any desire for genuine understanding or debate.

[Teh]

Sorry but you are not answering my question.What description of a photon or an electron gives you the right to state it is a particle. The idea that these particles exist is the essence of this experiment. If particles are nothing more than a mathematical description, it fails to give them credence, the experiment is flawed.

OK, I know these particles exist as they are the only known consistent system of explanation. If I were to develop a theory that they do not in fact exist in reality, then this new theory would actually have to contain the particle theory as the calculation device, plus an explanation of why the calculation device works despite it being unrelated to reality.

If you take that point of view, you will find yourself constructing an arbitrary barrier between your mind and reality: you will become to some degree a solipsist. A solipsist is someone who claims the world is not real, but can't explain why, given it's not real, it behaves as if it were. In my view, solipsism (which is self-consistent), and the idea that certain fundamental particles don't exist, are unnecessary, and unhelpful complications. Also, since the theory that particles don't exist has ZERO explanatory content, it cannot be true, and because it cannot be true, it cannot lead to progress.

I know particles exist, because I am a realist.

I have read several articles on entanglement and they all speak of instantaneous effects between separated particles. How am I misrepresenting their claims?

There is no such thing as real instantaneous action at a distance. It is physically impossible, contradicts relativity, and will get you laughed out of any physics department. If your articles claim that, then they are wrong.

I can not remember who I asked but if particles are reported to be bouncing of the edges of the slits when are they absorbed and when do they bounce? Balls in a china shop make hell of mess.

This is one of the reasons I think the Mach-Zehnder Interferometer is a much better system to discuss than the double slit. Look out for a new thread!

[Xris]

Statements of faith are not sufficient. I believe Electrons and photons do not exist. They are the mirage of quantum. A result of our inability to imaging the microscopic world beyond the material concepts of mass. What description of a photon gives it substance? Is not flippant question. It is crucial.

http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_ ... lement.asp If this article disputes your reasoning can you explain, please.

I would still like to hear from anyone who can understand why Einstein saw particles bouncing one minute and the next being absorbed. Or is it just another consequence of our inability to understand the quality of the said particle?

Steve you have never answered the question in form that can be substantiated. You see another's reply to the same question. It becomes a point of faith rather than reasoning. When no one really understands, people turn to illogical explanations. Analogies where water and waves or balls bouncing around, still do not accept the problem lies with the illogical consequences of the initial reasoning. There is no medium for waves to permeate. There are no visible or tangible particles to bounce around. The experiment indicates in a most sufficient way. There are no particles no waves.

[Steve3007]

I would still like to hear from anyone who can understand why Einstein saw particles bouncing one minute and the next being absorbed.

Are you talking about the photoelectric effect?

Steve you have never answered the question in form that can be substantiated.

My personal answer to the question in your previous post "when is a particle not a particle?" is "never".

A particle is always a particle. A wave is always a wave. The sun is always the sun. An orange is always an orange. An electron is always an electron. etc.

[Teh]

Statements of faith are not sufficient. I believe Electrons and photons do not exist. They are the mirage of quantum. A result of our inability to imaging the microscopic world beyond the material concepts of mass. What description of a photon gives it substance? Is not flippant question. It is crucial.

So, you subscribe to theory that reality behaves exactly as if photons and electrons exist, but they do not exist. You also have no explanation why reality looks that way.

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)


So, you subscribe to theory that reality behaves exactly as if photons and electrons exist, but they do not exist. You also have no explanation why reality looks that way.

I do not subscribe to a theory. I am asking you to explain a theory that does prescribe to the idea that particles can communicate faster than light. There is a distinct difference.

[Naughtorious]

Science isn't limited. We are limited in practice.

[Steve3007]

Xris: As this is quite a slow way to communicate, just in case you get back onto me, I've taken the liberty of filling in your side of our next conversation in advance. It's a conversation we've had before, so we probably both know how it goes, but in this version I've tweaked it just a bit to get a happy ending! If you're worried about being misrepresented I will just state in advance that the story you're about to read is fiction. Any resemblance to real persons is entirely coincidental. I don't want Leverson getting me.

---

Steve3007: A particle is a particle. A wave is a wave. An electron is an electron.

Xris: So is an electron a particle or not?

Steve3007: Is the Sun an orange?

Xris: What the heck has this got to do with oranges?!?

Steve3007: Just answer the question. Humour me.

Xris: OK. I'll humour you. No. Of course the Sun isn't a bloody orange.

Steve3007: I agree. Next question: Can you think of any situation where you might find it useful to represent the Sun using an orange? (Hint: school classroom. Solar System project.)

Xris: OK, yes. You could use it in a model of the solar system. A grape for Jupiter. An apple pip for the Earth. Something like that?

Steve3007: Yes. Exactly. A model. And why might it be useful to use an orange to represent the Sun in this model?

Xris: Err, because it's round and orange? Duurhh.

Steve3007: Yes. And it's also about the right size, relative to the other fruit products in the model. It illustrates that the Sun is big, round and orange. In other words, it has some of the properties of an orange. Not all of them. But some of them. The ones we're interested in right now.

Xris: And this is relevant to electrons, how exactly?

Steve3007: Well, now comes the part where we transfer the useful information we've learnt about models over to a different situation. Remember we had this useful orange thing that had some of the properties of the Sun? We looked in the sky and observed something round and orange and thought "I've got something that I could use to model that". Well we have another useful thing called a particle which appears to have some of the properties that we see when we look in a cathode ray tube. So, in the same way, we use the particle as a model for the thing we call an electron.

Xris: I see! So the particle represents some of the properties of the electron, but not all of them. Just like the orange represents some of the properties of the Sun, but not all of them! Of course, it's all clear now. Thanks.

Steve3007: No problem. My work is done here.


I guess that's the beauty of fiction. Happy endings!

[Teh]

I do not subscribe to a theory. I am asking you to explain a theory that does prescribe to the idea that particles can communicate faster than light. There is a distinct difference.

You do subscribe to a theory that photons and electrons don't exist __and__ that reality behaves as if they do for no apparent reason. You have to explain why all the phenomena associated with these particles, from being able to see, to tracks in cloud chambers, to black-body radiation, to the photoelectric effect, to quantised mass, charge, spin, polarisation, lasers, electronic devices, medical imaging, and on and on... need particles to explain them, and the added complication that particles don't exist.

You have added an extremely complex layer of theory on top of the rather simple and elegant particle theory.

Scientists have just detected the Higgs Boson after many (I think it may have been 40) years after it was theoretically discovered.

You are going to have to work extremely hard to construct a theory that incorporates all of the Standard Model of particle physics, and include the reasons reality behaves as if it is true, when in fact none of the particles in it exist.

Good luck with that!!!!

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)


Are you talking about the photoelectric effect?


(Nested quote removed.)


My personal answer to the question in your previous post "when is a particle not a particle?" is "never".

A particle is always a particle. A wave is always a wave. The sun is always the sun. An orange is always an orange. An electron is always an electron. etc.

http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_ ... lement.asp

The proposed particle is an adapt fellow. It can bounce when you want it to but it can be absorbed. The double slit experiment has indicated that these pesky creatures can do both. What and when decides this strange anomaly?

I am still waiting for replies to so many questions they are queuing like excited particles.

Keep repeating the mantra and you might convince yourselves. Photons that have no mass, no shape. Has frequency. Does not experience time or acceleration. created at their maximum speed. Can not be see travelling. Can travel indefinitely. Can only be seen arriving. And this is supposed to be a likle ditsy particle.

-- Updated Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:11 pm to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


You do subscribe to a theory that photons and electrons don't exist __and__ that reality behaves as if they do for no apparent reason. You have to explain why all the phenomena associated with these particles, from being able to see, to tracks in cloud chambers, to black-body radiation, to the photoelectric effect, to quantised mass, charge, spin, polarisation, lasers, electronic devices, medical imaging, and on and on... need particles to explain them, and the added complication that particles don't exist.

You have added an extremely complex layer of theory on top of the rather simple and elegant particle theory.

Scientists have just detected the Higgs Boson after many (I think it may have been 40) years after it was theoretically discovered.

You are going to have to work extremely hard to construct a theory that incorporates all of the Standard Model of particle physics, and include the reasons reality behaves as if it is true, when in fact none of the particles in it exist.

Good luck with that!!!!

No need to invent particles when they are not required. Please do not make this leap of faith and somehow believe we have spotted them because we ain't. This god particle if you might have noticed is not a particle but a new aether, a clumpy substance that pervades the universe giving mass to mass less particles. What a load of invented rubbish we are constantly expected to believe in. Polarisation, spin, mass are not consistent with particles but observations we have made. Even when they break the laws of Einstein we ignore the consequences. We simply adjust the mathematics and put it down to the magic of quantum. Science does not need a concept of particles to make technological advances.

[Logicus]

Steve, I am so glad you managed to transplant one of your more humorous threads into this one.
Xris, you are at it again.

A particle is always a particle. A wave is always a wave. The sun is always the sun. An orange is always an orange. An electron is always an electron. etc.

Maybe, maybe not. Wave/particle duality is what we have been discussing in this thread. Whatever matter is, it sometimes behaves like particles; sometimes like waves.

Isn't the difficulty implied by 'superposition', that the particle doesn't have a location until it is measured?

Superposition is being in two states simultaneously. This is the source of the Schrodinger's Cat problem. Before the box is opened, the cat is considered to be in a superposition state of both alive and dead. When the box is opened, the probability wave "collapses" into one state or the other. The particle location/velocity difficulty is an indeterminacy problem subject to definition by the uncertainty principle by Heisenberg.

What description of a photon gives it substance?

The basic proof, if that's what you want to call it, was in Einstein's description of the photoelectric effect. Through experiment it was discovered that energy would be emitted by an illuminated metal surface, if the frequency and intensity of the light were at the right levels. The different levels that would work were found to be at regular intervals and not continuously variable. Under the wave theory environment of the time, this did not make any sense. Einstein developed a mathematical description of how the photoelectric effect was caused by absorption of "quanta" of light at the intervals observed, in his 1905 paper called, "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light". These "quanta" which Einstein had used as a device to simplify the explanation, are now called "photons". The word quanta coupled to the idea of packets of energy at particular discrete levels led to the idea of particles and Quant(a)um Theory.