The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?  (Read 8843 times)

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #25 on: 23/07/2015 16:06:27 »
Quote from: lightarrow
I was talking of "Bohr's complementarity principle":
http://www.britannica.com/science/complementarity-principle
That's a core concept in quantum mechanics and is at the heart of the theory. So your assertion that its not in textbooks is quite wrong.

Quote from: lightarrow
Very synthetically, according to this idea, e.g., wave-like and corpuscle-like behaviours are complementary in the sense that experiments where one or the others appears are incompatible: in a single experiment either you see one or you see the other.
That's incorrect. An experiment is not to be confused with a measurement. And the complimentary principle is not about simultaneous measurements but about measurements that are taken in rapid succession. As such the value of the measurement of, say, position and momentum have an error that is as close to zero as one desires. The uncertainty comes in when there is an ensemble of identical experiments done and the measurements are repeated. Then, while the measured values are still have an error which as close to zero as one desires but the value is now different. The uncertainty principle is about ensembles, not single measurements in a single experiment.

Quote from: lightarrow
Unfortunately all this doesn't have a precise meaning in the QM formalism and for this reason is not considered as something clear.
Of course it has a precise meaning and it's very clear.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #26 on: 23/07/2015 18:16:52 »
Quote from: lightarrow
I was talking of "Bohr's complementarity principle":
http://www.britannica.com/science/complementarity-principle
That's a core concept in quantum mechanics and is at the heart of the theory. So your assertion that its not in textbooks is quite wrong.
It's not one of the postulates of QM.

--
lightarrow
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #27 on: 23/07/2015 18:23:20 »
The uncertainty comes in when there is an ensemble of identical experiments done and the measurements are repeated. Then, while the measured values are still have an error which as close to zero as one desires but the value is now different. The uncertainty principle is about ensembles, not single measurements in a single experiment.
And where I have wrote that?

--
lightarrow
 

Offline sciconoclast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #28 on: 24/07/2015 23:22:31 »
In answer to Lightarrow's as to whether a nuclear physicist would ever make the kind of comments I had attributed to some leading mathematicians and theorist: yes.

As I stated before in previous post, Lee Smolin stated in the early part of his book, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, "most physicist do not like quantum theory". Of course he was referring to the more crazy aspects that I mentioned. Lee Smolin was a co-founder of Perimeter Institute which was establish to study quantum physics. He also holds a Nobel prize in physics and is the Originator of Standard Nuclear Theory.

If you go to a thread that I started some time ago on this forum, "is remote entanglement not proven", you will find a lot of discussion about Sidney Coleman's lecture, "Quantum Physics in your Face". If one of the recognized leaders in quantum mechanics can demonstrate to an audience of nuclear physicist that concepts like remote entanglement and faster than light communication is unnecessary nonsense why would any physicist assume otherwise.

         
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #29 on: 25/07/2015 09:03:06 »
If one of the recognized leaders in quantum mechanics can demonstrate to an audience of nuclear physicist that concepts like remote entanglement and faster than light communication is unnecessary nonsense why would any physicist assume otherwise.         
It seems you don't have clear that quantum entanglement does exist but cannot imply faster than light communication in the sense you cannot use entanglement to send informations faster than light and this is alraeady known from decades.

--
lightarrow
« Last Edit: 25/07/2015 09:05:25 by lightarrow »
 

Offline sciconoclast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #30 on: 25/07/2015 20:17:19 »
lightarrow: Your last post did not make a lot of sense but I think I can figure out what you were trying to say. The concepts that I object to are remote entanglement (which is different from entanglement) and the faster than light communication required for the concept of total, non-local, instantaneous quantum field collapse.

Enistein and his colleagues designed the E.P.R. experiment to test some of the aspects of the Bohr interpretation of quantum theory. All of the models of light at the time, except the Bohr model, would require initially entangled particles to maintain their opposite symmetries even after prolonged separation. When the experiment went against Bohr he introduced the concepts of remote entanglement and instantaneous transmission of quantum data to save his concept of non-locality. I think this is called circular reasoning.

When a later version of the experiment, where the different particles were tested in different time frames and which test was first was different to different observers, the Bohr concepts ran in to trouble again. This led to the idea that quantum theory is not restricted to time constraints and wilder concepts such as retro-causality.

Recently it was shown that with multiple entangled particles and time frames the math for the Bohr interpretation becomes self conflicting.   

These concepts are the type of junk science that I was referring to has having been piled onto an other wise basically good theory.

As for quoting a popular book, most of my information comes from the physics societies that I am a member of and many of the forum members would not be able to access those references.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #31 on: 26/07/2015 22:37:06 »
lightarrow: Your last post did not make a lot of sense
Which part and why?
Quote
but I think I can figure out what you were trying to say. The concepts that I object to are remote entanglement (which is different from entanglement) and the faster than light communication required for the concept of total, non-local, instantaneous quantum field collapse.
Are you aware of the fact that relativity is not touched at all from that because there isn't any physical object, nor information, that can travel faster than light?
Quote
Enistein and his colleagues designed the E.P.R. experiment to test some of the aspects of the Bohr interpretation of quantum theory. All of the models of light at the time, except the Bohr model, would require initially entangled particles to maintain their opposite symmetries even after prolonged separation. When the experiment went against Bohr he introduced the concepts of remote entanglement and instantaneous transmission of quantum data
No, not "instantaneous transmission of data" at all; you seem not to distinguish that from "instantaneous influence"; they are completely different things.
Quote
where the different particles were tested in different time frames
What does it mean?
Quote
As for quoting a popular book, most of my information comes from the physics societies that I am a member of and many of the forum members would not be able to access those references.
Just to be sure we are talking of the same thing, how do you write an entangled state between two particles in Dirac notation?

--
lightarrow
 

Offline sciconoclast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #32 on: 01/08/2015 18:40:07 »
I thought if I waited someone else would jump in after your last comments; ques not.

I am not use to seeing the word influence in relation to quantum entanglement. When one entangled photon or electron, etc. is tested for and actualizes to a specific set of characteristics from a larger set of possible characteristics the other particle also actualizes from a larger set of possible characteristics to the opposite set of characteristics. How can this take place without transfer of information.?

We are both in agreement that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light; the question then is does Bohr's principle of remote entanglement require it.

As for the importance of relativity: If the actualizing of the first particle to be tested determines the characteristics of the other particle then which actualization occurs first becomes important and very complicated when they occur in different time frames.

As soon as I figure out how to upload an equation to this site I will post the one you asked for which is irrelevant to the discussion. If I cant post it I will send you a personnel message.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #32 on: 01/08/2015 18:40:07 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums