You are here: Home > Message Board > General Talk > Does an object exist if no one observes it?
March 28 2024 11.01pm

Does an object exist if no one observes it?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 3 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

 

View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 03 Jan 18 7.19pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by chelys

Does a post on a football forum exist if no one reads it?

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 03 Jan 18 7.31pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by davenotamonkey

Even when they are not, they still are. It's pretty much one of the most fundamental tenets of wave theory, and by extension Quantum Mechanics. You set boundary conditions to analytically define the wavefunction. I don't recall instances where the integrals were ever indefinite.

The point is - the universe isn't "deterministic", it is probabilistic. I'm not quite sure where dimensionality comes into it to be honest. In QM, you generalise an N-dimensional wavefunction so that it applies to any M<N dimensional space: the equation describing the wavefunction of a rabbit in 3D also describes the rabbit in 2D.

As an aside, when I was super-hot at doing this stuff, I remember an exercise where I had to define the 3D Schrodinger equation (time-dependent: "TDSE" for the Hydrogen atom. I then made perturbations to the equation and re-worked the solution. The exercise asked me what had actually happened. I looked over the 6 or 8 pages of quantum mech. I'd written, and it dawned on me: the "orbiting" election (though it was of course described here as a wave) had jumped to the next energy level.

I had done this stuff starting at the very basic level from GCSE Chemistry - electron energy shells, chemical reactions etc. But here it was: the very nature of matter and essentially all of Chemistry in a pure mathematical formalism. Amazing stuff. There's no room left for mysticism and religion after dabbling under the hood of the universe like that.

Edited by davenotamonkey (03 Jan 2018 5.54pm)

I'd say that without extra dimensions you don't need a wave function.....what is the point of the collapsing wave and 'probabilistic' locations for particles if there are only three dimensions of space and time?

That's why I feel the wave function suggests extra dimensions......but then again. You have studied this far more than I have......though most physicists do believe in extra dimensions....string theory for example....old Professor Cox supports the 'many worlds' view.

I'm just tickling around the edges of the topic.....would be great to learn the maths for it.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Jan 2018 7.31pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 03 Jan 18 7.55pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Ray in Houston


You need to look up the scientific meaning of the word "theory". It's not what you think.

But we are talking about reality. Do you think that a goldfish has a theory about what is outside the bowl?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Ray in Houston's Profile Ray in Houston Flag Houston 03 Jan 18 9.28pm Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston Add Ray in Houston as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

But we are talking about reality. Do you think that a goldfish has a theory about what is outside the bowl?


You still need to look up the scientific meaning of the word "theory" because, if you had, you wouldn't continue to spout such nonsense.

 


We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Henry of Peckham's Profile Henry of Peckham Flag Eton Mess 03 Jan 18 9.35pm Send a Private Message to Henry of Peckham Add Henry of Peckham as a friend

I certainly missed it but quite often it's just easier to agree if they said it's there.

 


Denial is not just a river in Egypt

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 03 Jan 18 9.36pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Ray in Houston


You still need to look up the scientific meaning of the word "theory" because, if you had, you wouldn't continue to spout such nonsense.

Oh really?

A well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method.

There ain't nothing well confirmed about our grasp of quantum physics or parallel universes or any related topic.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View davenotamonkey's Profile davenotamonkey Flag 03 Jan 18 10.17pm Send a Private Message to davenotamonkey Add davenotamonkey as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Oh really?

A well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method.

There ain't nothing well confirmed about our grasp of quantum physics or parallel universes or any related topic.

Gargh! Are you kidding? Do you know how much modern technology is underpinned by quantum mechanics?!

Parallel universes are entirely hypothetical. Our understanding of the universe and the fundamental physics of matter in no way rely on them.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View davenotamonkey's Profile davenotamonkey Flag 03 Jan 18 11.01pm Send a Private Message to davenotamonkey Add davenotamonkey as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I'd say that without extra dimensions you don't need a wave function.....what is the point of the collapsing wave and 'probabilistic' locations for particles if there are only three dimensions of space and time?

That's why I feel the wave function suggests extra dimensions......but then again. You have studied this far more than I have......though most physicists do believe in extra dimensions....string theory for example....old Professor Cox supports the 'many worlds' view.

I'm just tickling around the edges of the topic.....would be great to learn the maths for it.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Jan 2018 7.31pm)

I'm not really sure how to answer this question, as I'm not sure why you intrinsically connect the notion of a wavefunction to how many dimensions you express it in.

The aforementioned 3D description of the Hydrogen atom is typically written in spherical polar coordinates (r, theta, phi). You could reduce this problem down to 2 dimensions, also in spherical coordinates (r, theta). When you "observe" the quantum state of the atom, you do so in the coordinate space you described the wavefunction in. If you have a 2D entity (like a disk), and embed this into a 3D space, you can still solve the wavefunction. But the 2D wavefunction does in no way imply the existence of the 3D space.

The "point" is the entire nature of fundamental science, and pretty much the nature of our reality, and indeed our very existence relies on it. Until observed, this Hydrogen atom exists in a superposition of states, separated and distinguished by quantised levels. Applying an "operator" to the eigenvectors (the "collection" of these states) yields an eigenvalue - this is the observation. A very common one is the Hamiltonian operator - this yields the energy (the eigenvector) of the system. At the fundamental level, this is the process by which all physical phenomena occur.

If you don't think there's any point of knowing the probabilistic location of particles in 3D space, I'd suggest you shut down your computer: those high-density circuits require consideration of quantum tunnelling of electrons through insulating layers.

You might also consider that our Sun relies on quantum tunneling for stellar fusion - the source of energy that permits our existence. We now understand, through calculating the quantum mechanical tunneling probability of a proton through the repulsive electromagnetic field, how two protons fuse to form deuterium (and in the process releasing energy).

I don't dispute there might well be extra dimensions: in science, a hypothesis must be falsifiable. Part of the problem with string theory is the lack of observables in experiments that could start discriminating between the "standard" model and those requiring extra dimensions.

If you were interested, the maths QM is built on is quite a mixed bag. Differential equations, calculus, vector calculus, matrix methods, complex numbers (essential for wave-based physics), coordinate transformation. Probably a tonne more stuff I've missed out :-)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Jimenez's Profile Jimenez Flag SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 03 Jan 18 11.13pm Send a Private Message to Jimenez Add Jimenez as a friend

Originally posted by davenotamonkey

I'm not really sure how to answer this question, as I'm not sure why you intrinsically connect the notion of a wavefunction to how many dimensions you express it in.

The aforementioned 3D description of the Hydrogen atom is typically written in spherical polar coordinates (r, theta, phi). You could reduce this problem down to 2 dimensions, also in spherical coordinates (r, theta). When you "observe" the quantum state of the atom, you do so in the coordinate space you described the wavefunction in. If you have a 2D entity (like a disk), and embed this into a 3D space, you can still solve the wavefunction. But the 2D wavefunction does in no way imply the existence of the 3D space.

The "point" is the entire nature of fundamental science, and pretty much the nature of our reality, and indeed our very existence relies on it. Until observed, this Hydrogen atom exists in a superposition of states, separated and distinguished by quantised levels. Applying an "operator" to the eigenvectors (the "collection" of these states) yields an eigenvalue - this is the observation. A very common one is the Hamiltonian operator - this yields the energy (the eigenvector) of the system. At the fundamental level, this is the process by which all physical phenomena occur.

If you don't think there's any point of knowing the probabilistic location of particles in 3D space, I'd suggest you shut down your computer: those high-density circuits require consideration of quantum tunnelling of electrons through insulating layers.

You might also consider that our Sun relies on quantum tunneling for stellar fusion - the source of energy that permits our existence. We now understand, through calculating the quantum mechanical tunneling probability of a proton through the repulsive electromagnetic field, how two protons fuse to form deuterium (and in the process releasing energy).

I don't dispute there might well be extra dimensions: in science, a hypothesis must be falsifiable. Part of the problem with string theory is the lack of observables in experiments that could start discriminating between the "standard" model and those requiring extra dimensions.

If you were interested, the maths QM is built on is quite a mixed bag. Differential equations, calculus, vector calculus, matrix methods, complex numbers (essential for wave-based physics), coordinate transformation. Probably a tonne more stuff I've missed out :-)


 


Pro USA & Israel

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
chateauferret Flag 04 Jan 18 1.39am

I don't know what disciplinary rules apply to Schroedinger's cat or whether it exists or not, but mine has been advised that she will be turned into a Russian hat if she ever s***es in the shower again.

 


============
The Ferret
============

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 04 Jan 18 5.40am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by davenotamonkey

I'm not really sure how to answer this question, as I'm not sure why you intrinsically connect the notion of a wavefunction to how many dimensions you express it in.

I thought I explained why I thought the wavefunction suggested extra dimensions. Anyway most physicists believe that our current level of knowledge leads us to this.

If you don't dispute it I'm not sure where the difference is...If you accept that extra dimensions exist then it's highly likely that the wavefunction is involved.

Oh I think the difference is that you said, ' the universe isn't "deterministic", it is probabilistic'.....well, yes...in our dimensions it is....I'm just suggesting that we don't have the full story.

I want to clarify that this is only my view based on what I've interpreted so far.....and that I don't make any claim for any standing on this.

What leads me to suggest that the universe is deterministic is the knowledge that we can't interact with other dimensions that we think exist.

We have the wavefunction and understand that knowledge about particles like elections is 'probabilistic' until we observe it. I tend towards the idea that we see it as 'probabilistic' only because our view of these other dimensions is blocked.

So to us it's probabilistic in our dimensions.....but it's probably deterministic when seen over all of them and that the wavefunction exists as the delivery system to enable particles to interact with multiple dimensions and appear 'probabilistic' until it is collapsed.

Again, just my take so far and no claim of authority on the subject.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 04 Jan 18 5.40am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by chateauferret

I don't know what disciplinary rules apply to Schroedinger's cat or whether it exists or not, but mine has been advised that she will be turned into a Russian hat if she ever s***es in the shower again.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 3 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > General Talk > Does an object exist if no one observes it?