Philosophy Discussion Forums

Skakos wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Too much imagination... Too many definitions... Too much abstraction...

Could we be creating a cosmos of our own? A cosmos that exists only in our mind?

How much imagination do you require to accept what the conventional interpretation gives us. If you might have noticed the debate is as confusing as the subject. This constant attempt to explain this illogical idea that particles only exist when you look at them. Ropes maybe not quite right but it surely explains why we see what we see. The observer becomes part of the experiment. The observer does not influence the experiment as all this argument appears to centre on. We must carry on imagining we are the masters of the universe and our simple gaze can influence matter. I do enjoy observing the quandary quantum concepts of particles inspire.

You know watching the show "The Big Bang theory" ( mah fav) anyway, Sheldon keeps waiting for himself to appear from the future ( hoping he was there when they invented time travel), my point is...is it possible that we don't see people coming from the "future" because our planet was destroyed before they discovered time travel? just a silly thought.

-- Updated December 9th, 2012, 5:38 pm to add the following --

Teh wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Consciousness is not required in any current respectable interpretation of quantum mechanics. There maybe some crackpot theories knocking around the internet however.

Agreed, and if it isn't required why do WE have it? Also, what exists in those extra dimensions? ( assuming that gravity is weak because we have the extra dimensions ) What is inside a black hole? Can't really argue about things beyond our understanding..Rome wasn't built in one day so we can't be arrogant into thinking that we can understand and prove that some things do or don't exist just cause we think we're advanced and logical..even the Big Bang theory has a flaw that no one can explain yet.

Xris:

The pin experiment, are you not missing the point so to speak. He is saying these are not waves but points of contact...

Maybe. But he did seem to be claiming that a wave model of electron diffraction wouldn't result in any interferance of electrons diffracting around a single barrier.

When Einstein claimed that the photons were bouncing of the edge of slit, he is indicating the same argument.

I don't know the details of what Einstein said here but it's an analogy. Photons and electrons aren't bouncy balls in a 70's video game. All analogies like that have to be taken as rough illustrations only.

If you are admitting that electrons are not orbiting particles but EM waves when are they particles?

You may have mixed up what I was saying here. I was talking about the fact that, according to the classical laws of electromagnetism (i.e. nothing to do with quantum mechanics), a moving electric charge induces a constant magnetic field and an accelerating electric charge induces a varying magnetic field which in turn induces a varying electric field, which induces a varying magnetic field which ... is an EM wave. Any object moving in a circle is accelerating. So if an atomic electron is to be regarded as a classical ball of electric charge moving in a circle, then it must radiate away its energy. This was one reason why the electron cannot be regarded as orbiting the nucleus in the classical sense.

As I have said previously his concept is not fully explained and he may be only a mad man meddling in a science he does not fully understand but I see no reasonable reason why his concept can not be fully explored.

Neither do I. He should fully explore it. I don't see him doing that. He doesn't seem to produce any testable predictions of things that aren't predicted by other theories.

I am still not sure what your argument is concerning gravitational lensing are you saying the mass of an object influences the amount of lensing?

Yes. He is postulating that gravitational lensing is produced by an interaction with the outer layers of the object doing the lensing. This would surely give completely different results from the theory of General Relativity which postulates that the mass of the star causes the lensing.

So that means that planet Earth is older than any other planet in our solar system because we're the ones that rotate/accelerate faster?..sorry I'm no physicist but that makes no sense to me...

To tell the truth Vick, it doesn't make much sense to me either. Were you referring there to something that I said?

Steve3007 wrote:To tell the truth Vick, it doesn't make much sense to me either. Were you referring there to something that I said?

"You may have mixed up what I was saying here. I was talking about the fact that, according to the classical laws of electromagnetism (i.e. nothing to do with quantum mechanics), a moving electric charge induces a constant magnetic field and an accelerating electric charge induces a varying magnetic field which in turn induces a varying electric field, which induces a varying magnetic field which ... is an EM wave. Any object moving in a circle is accelerating."

I guess I missed the context but the last sentence seemed like a statement, sorry.

-- Updated December 9th, 2012, 7:34 pm to add the following --

Don't mind me, I got drunk and suddenly felt like I can make sense ..;op

Vick: OK. thanks.

Objects moving in a circle at constant speed are not moving at constant velocity. They are accelerating towards the centre of the circle. The Earth orbits in approximately a circle. So it is accelerating towards the Sun. It isn't accelerating the most. And this has nothing to do with its age.

Steve3007 wrote:Vick: OK. thanks.

Objects moving in a circle at constant speed are not moving at constant velocity. They are accelerating towards the centre of the circle. The Earth orbits in approximately a circle. So it is accelerating towards the Sun. It isn't accelerating the most. And this has nothing to do with its age.

Yes, what you're saying is gravitational pull...whoever has the most gravitational pull pulls the planets and stars beside it...nothing to do with the age- indeed , the shape is the consequence of gravity. Agreed.

-- Updated December 9th, 2012, 7:48 pm to add the following --

So what was the point again? That the objects with lesser gravitational power will orbit the the object with more gravitational power? , my eye caught your statement of the "Any object moving in a circle is accelerating." which I disagree on...it all depends on the gravitational power of the object that pulls them in...

A Poster He or I wrote:

Oh, I see your distinction now. My disagreement now is reduced to the level of a quibble (at least by my assessment) revolving around what qualifies as direct in "directly experienceable." Certainly we apply a quantum-scale-appropriate conceptual schema of wavicles and superpositon to one, and a more familiar macroscopic schema to the other. But the raw experiences of both still filter (are conceived) via these schemata. Rather than be mystified that one does not follow everyday logic; isn't it more productive to see the mystery as caused by misapplication of the wrong schema to the quantum-scale experience? Rather than say the first experience is not direct (or less direct) than the second, I just recognise our cognition evolved in response to a macroscopic interpretation of reality (essentially pattern-makers) so we have to re-adjust our interpretations to wield the experience of the quantum-scale.

I don't think it is in the least 'mystifying' that QM, for example, doesn't follow everyday logic, if we don't presume that 'reality' must conform to our perceptions.I guess this is just a question of emphasis. I was emphasising the 'more familiar macroscopic schema' and its relationship with our common logical formulations and actual perception of patterns.Hume attempted to show that we do not 'perceive' causality, but against this Searle argues that we 'experience' causality, for example when someone pushes us, we stub our toe, or when we formulate the intention to raise an arm and the arm invariably rises.Whatever we might think about these questions it seems undeniable that perception can only be rendered coherent by the imputation of causality, at least in respect of its explainability.

In an analogous sense, since we have been talking about different geometries, it might be plausible to argue that perceptual space, at least, is ineluctably Euclidean, inasmuch as the shortest distance between two points in this space is always a straight line. We can easily, seemingly intuitively, visualise the geometry associated with such a space and hence our building practice adheres to this understanding and visualisation of geometry, quite apart from the practical reasons determining why this geometry is the most suitable for building.

I would argue that, try as we might, we cannot visualise curvature or warping of a three dimensional space. A three dimensional perceptual space cannot be warped.

"Hume attempted to show that we do not 'perceive' causality, but against this Searle argues that we 'experience' causality, for example when someone pushes us, we stub our toe, or when we formulate the intention to raise an arm and the arm invariably rises." Ok THAT me laugh out loud, wahahhahaha. * Hume is "walking away scratching her head"

Vick wrote:"Hume attempted to show that we do not 'perceive' causality, but against this Searle argues that we 'experience' causality, for example when someone pushes us, we stub our toe, or when we formulate the intention to raise an arm and the arm invariably rises." Ok THAT me laugh out loud, wahahhahaha. * Hume is "walking away scratching her head"

I'm glad you are amused. Did you experience your amusement as being caused by what I had written? I'm gathering you're on Hume's side on this one.

I'm not saying I agree with Hume or Searle on this, but for some reason their arguments do not cause me to laugh as they seem to do to you.

Obviously Hume's argument is that when a billiard ball strikes another, we do not see, hear, smell, taste, touch or in any sense feel the force that causes the balls to change their direction and momentum; that in other words, we do not in any sense experience causation.

Searle is asserting with his examples, that we 'feel' the force of the push that sends us flying, the resistance of the kerb or the muscular tension that raises the arm, and thus, that we do experience causation.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter, if you can pick yourself up off the floor long enough to return to your computer.

Steve3007 wrote:Xris: (Nested quote removed.)


Maybe. But he did seem to be claiming that a wave model of electron diffraction wouldn't result in any interferance of electrons diffracting around a single barrier.


(Nested quote removed.)


I don't know the details of what Einstein said here but it's an analogy. Photons and electrons aren't bouncy balls in a 70's video game. All analogies like that have to be taken as rough illustrations only.


(Nested quote removed.)


You may have mixed up what I was saying here. I was talking about the fact that, according to the classical laws of electromagnetism (i.e. nothing to do with quantum mechanics), a moving electric charge induces a constant magnetic field and an accelerating electric charge induces a varying magnetic field which in turn induces a varying electric field, which induces a varying magnetic field which ... is an EM wave. Any object moving in a circle is accelerating. So if an atomic electron is to be regarded as a classical ball of electric charge moving in a circle, then it must radiate away its energy. This was one reason why the electron cannot be regarded as orbiting the nucleus in the classical sense.


(Nested quote removed.)


Neither do I. He should fully explore it. I don't see him doing that. He doesn't seem to produce any testable predictions of things that aren't predicted by other theories.


(Nested quote removed.)


Yes. He is postulating that gravitational lensing is produced by an interaction with the outer layers of the object doing the lensing. This would surely give completely different results from the theory of General Relativity which postulates that the mass of the star causes the lensing.

Steve you still have not formed a picture of an electron in relation to an Atom. Einstein was quite specific, he concluded that photons must be bouncing off the side of the slits to give the image on the screen.As you well know I do not see photons as particles but the impression they give is synonymous with this concept and Gaedes ropes answers this quandry in a most profound way. If we accept that the image formed is not a representative of a wave action then we might search for an alternative. Gaede has asked several universities to accept his theory in a critical examination but all appear to find his persona some kind of barrier. Yes he does question Einstein and his theory on relativity.His theory questions everything science holds dear but should that be a reason not to listen to him. I find a certain logic in his reasoning that makes me ask why he is so easily dismissed in academic circles. No one can deny his reasoning overcomes all the anomolies we see in quantum science.

Gravitational lensing never appeared logical to me. The idea that space is some how warped. That light that has no mass can be effected by gravity. They are such important questions we can not simply dismis what might be the equivalent to the second coming. When we have no idea what gravity is can we deny his EM ropes are causing the tension between atoms. I must admit trying to imagine ropes is extremely difficult but they are more logical than electrons or photons.Thanks xris.

Hi Vick.

my eye caught your statement of the "Any object moving in a circle is accelerating." which I disagree on...it all depends on the gravitational power of the object that pulls them in...

I probably shouldn't get too bogged down on little bits of physics because then the other posters will complain that this is a philosophy forum, not a physics forum. And they'd be right. I guess, in the context of the philosophy of science, discussions about physics (or other sciences) should be restricted just to what is necessary for properly illuminating the philosophical arguments that they provoke. If a very large amount is necessary, then I guess links or references to external sources are probably the way to go.

But, just to finish off:

My point wasn't really about gravity at all, but it is true that, given the normal definitions of words like "acceleration", objects moving in a circle are accelerating towards the centre of that circle. Acceleration is rate of change of velocity and velocity is speed and direction. An object travelling at constant speed in a straight line is not accelerating. An object travelling at constant speed in a circle is continuously changing its direction of travel. And the direction of that change is toward the centre of the circle.

-- Updated Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:52 am to add the following --

Xris: (I started off by answering more of your points, but cut it down to these ones. Because otherwise it always balloons into far too many seperate points that drift away from what was originally being discussed.)

Steve you still have not formed a picture of an electron in relation to an Atom.

It depends what you mean by a "picture". Would you count any representation as a form of picture? For example, could you see a mathematical equation as a kind of picture? Or would it have to be a graphical thing?

Einstein was quite specific, he concluded that photons must be bouncing off the side of the slits to give the image on the screen.

As I understand it, he introduced this idea as a way of using conservation of momentum arguments to try to show that the uncertaintly principle could be violated, by measuring the recoil of the wall of the slit. But this doesn't work because the wall of the slit is made of the same stuff, so is subject to the same uncertainties. Can you expand on what you mean when you say that photons are both bouncing and being absorbed in the same experiment?

Gravitational lensing never appeared logical to me. The idea that space is some how warped. That light that has no mass can be effected by gravity.

Questions on this one specific point: You regard the idea that something with no mass can be affected by gravity as illogical. Why? One possible reason: Because Issac Newton came up with a law relating mass to gravitational force. Is there any other reason? And what is mass?

A Poster He or I wrote:Some technical clarification: These statements are true for "positive" curvature only and the shape would be a hypersphere, not a sphere (Curvature is 4-dimensional here). General Relativity allows for "negative" curvature, and zero curvature also, and in those 2 alternatives space is infinite and unbounded: the traveller does NOT return to his starting point on a straight line trajectory.

Relativity may allow for different curvatures, but we do not know which applies to the Universe. Einstein assumed a positive curvature, which is also implied by the Big Bang. Actual measurements have indicated the geometry of the Universe is flat within .05% , so no help there on deciding which shape the Universe may be. Further, if the Universe is infinite or constantly expanding, with the farthest portions receding at light speed and beyond, the concept of "shape of the Universe" may be meaningless. Or at least beyond any hope of true determination.

I don't see that a 4-dimensional curvature is needed unless the extra dimension is just time. Of course, I have read in the case of an accelerating expanding universe with the outer regions moving much faster than the speed of light, that the far edges will curl back into the center of the slower moving portions. Is this something like your 4-dimensional sphere? As an aside, it would seem like this idea would result in the torus universe Xris likes to talk about.

Janus D Strange wrote:In an analogous sense, since we have been talking about different geometries, it might be plausible to argue that perceptual space, at least, is ineluctably Euclidean, inasmuch as the shortest distance between two points in this space is always a straight line.

The shortest distance between two points in a 4-dimensional space-time continuum is a geodesic, not a straight line. This arises from the idea of curved space caused by matter. The path taken through curved space is straight to the traveller, but curved to other observers. In perceptual space, we are rarely dealing with distances where curvature is noticeable, but it is still there. As pointed out above, though, the local spacial environment is quite flat and Euclidean, as you say.

It is important, in all these arguments, to remember that these differing views are all just models. For some ideas, some ways of thinking work better than others. In the end, they are all just tools for understanding. The Real may turn out to be something different from any of them. I think it is important to try to avoid being seduced by any particular view because it is currently more successful, but I also think you have to stay with the most successful until you have greater knowledge. A working platform, even if defective, is better than no platform at all.

Steve,if you are going to deny the original concept of an electron you have tell me what you are going to replace it with. This idea that a mathematical formula can give a particle credence, I believe, creates this strange anomaly that has plagued science. I have to be told why this formula restricts itself to describing a particle.Why can it not be a EM rope?


I will bow to your knowledge on Einstein. I believed he did not believe the double slit experiment was fully understood. That the slit edge would need to be of zero thickness before its effects could be discounted. I must have misunderstood, believing he had assumed the edge was causing electrons to bounce of the edge of the slit.I assumed, he had assumed, the change in the momentum of certain electrons passing through was due to this effect.

Mass, I have always assumed to be a quantity of matter that could be weighed. Gravity acts on mass. If by simple implication of an observed phenomena it is then believed to be not the case, I am truly amazed that's all it takes for science to change its mind. From that observation the consequences are enormous.