Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: pittsburghjoe on 06/08/2019 18:33:30

Title: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 06/08/2019 18:33:30
The Uncertainty Principle is a side effect from repeated requests to make the QM object real.

It's a delay/smear from the system not being able to process quick enough. Swapping from wave to particle is apparently taxing, especially if it has to do it each observable event (frame/timeline), for momentum.

The double slit shows us that a particle can be requested to decohere and remain decohered until it hits the detector. The Uncertainty Principle test requires several requests of decoherence to get the momentum.

What's newly discovered is that each request is causing the particle to cycle from wave to particle, setting fuzziness because it wasn't fast enough to do the swap.

This proves that consciousness is involved and detectors are not the cause of wave collapse, because you are measuring something that isn't remaining in the same state. It was ridiculous to assume a detector capable of displaying both coherence and decoherence was the cause anyways.
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: flummoxed on 06/08/2019 18:42:56
You are mixing some unrelated ideas and getting a wrong conclusion.

If you design an experiment to measure a wave effect, you measure a wave effect. If you design an experiment to measure a particle you measure a particle.

How the hell do you think consciousness is involved in the double slit experiment, partial entanglement maybe ?
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 06/08/2019 18:45:50
None of the OP is wrong.
You can't measure a wave except to get a fringe.
Look at the delayed choice quantum eraser to be more of a fan.
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/08/2019 18:56:38
QM object
You need to define that.
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 06/08/2019 18:58:43
Zoomed in on an atom
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: jeffreyH on 06/08/2019 20:18:29
Joe, I observe that you are badly misinformed. I didn't need a detector to come to that conclusion. You idea has collapsed like a wave hitting the reef.
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 06/08/2019 20:20:45
Stunning rebuttal including only insults and nothing to refute what I said.
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: jeffreyH on 06/08/2019 20:36:35
The Uncertainty Principle is a side effect from repeated requests to make the QM object real.

Define real in the context that you are using it.

Quote
It's a delay/smear from the system not being able to process quick enough. Swapping from wave to particle is apparently taxing, especially if it has to do it each observable event (frame/timeline), for momentum.

How can a particle be taxed? It doesn't have any income?

Quote
The double slit shows us that a particle can be requested to decohere and remain decohered until it hits the detector. The Uncertainty Principle test requires several requests of decoherence to get the momentum.

Define decoherence in the context that you are using it.

Quote
What's newly discovered is that each request is causing the particle to cycle from wave to particle, setting fuzziness because it wasn't fast enough to do the swap.

Define request in the context that you are using it.

Quote
This proves that conscientiousness is involved and detectors are not for wave collapse, because you are measuring something that isn't remaining in the same state. It was ridiculous to assume a detector capable of displaying both coherence and decoherence was the cause anyways.

Define ridicule in the context that you are using it.
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 06/08/2019 20:44:20
real
to bring it's quantum information to our scale

taxed
you get to witness it with fuzziness

decoherence/request
a human requesting a particle be real

ridiculous
clowns thinking detectors can swap coherence
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: alancalverd on 06/08/2019 21:03:09
It is a mistake to take "uncertainty" too literally  or to confuse the thought-experiment of bouncing a photon off an electron as defining the mechanism of quantum mechanics.

We know that the electron in a hydrogen atom occupies a fuzzy sphere much larger than the nucleus, and we have no reason to believe that "observed" hydrogen atoms are any different from unobserved ones. The better approach therefore is to consider "indeterminacy" as a fundamental property of matter: the electron can be anywhere in space but it is most likely to interact with other particles or photons as if it were located somewhere within the s orbital. Heisenberg postulated that the minimum product of the indeterminacy of position and momentum Δx.Δp has a universal value h, and Schrodinger gives us the means of predicting orbital shapes, which consist with crystallographic and spectrometric measurements.
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: jeffreyH on 06/08/2019 21:10:01
So apparently "Swapping from wave to particle is apparently taxing, especially if it has to do it each observable event (frame/timeline), for momentum" becomes "Swapping from wave to particle is apparently witnessing it with fuzzines, especially if it has to do it each observable event (frame/timeline), for momentum".

So you are a bit fuzzy in your idea of observation then?

Then "The double slit shows us that a particle can be requested to decohere and remain decohered until it hits the detector. The Uncertainty Principle test requires several requests of decoherence to get the momentum" becomes "The double slit shows us that a particle can be requested by a human to become real and remain requested by a human to be real until it hits the detector. The Uncertainty Principle test requires several requests of the particle to become real by a human to get the momentum".

So you believe particles are not real unless requested by a human to be real. Your idea has collapsed like a wave hitting the reef.
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/08/2019 21:13:17
You need to define that.
Still...
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 06/08/2019 21:19:47
Alan, I don't like "indeterminacy" being a thing. And I don't like the idea of everything in the world shaking around. I fail to see why my theory doesn't explain the orbitals.

mad libs are super fun Jeff.

"quantum information" Bored Chemist
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: alancalverd on 06/08/2019 23:01:17
Alan, I don't like "indeterminacy" being a thing.
I think it's a better translation of unbestimmtheit - a property of the object, not the observation.

Quote
And I don't like the idea of everything in the world shaking around
We all find the real world disappointing in some respects, but accepting it is the first step away from philosophy and towards understanding. Not that indeterminacy has much to do with shaking anyway.
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 06/08/2019 23:20:40
Where is the energy coming from for everything to shake? My theory represents something much more likely.
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/08/2019 02:50:39
Alan, I don't like "indeterminacy" being a thing. And I don't like the idea of everything in the world shaking around. I fail to see why my theory doesn't explain the orbitals.

mad libs are super fun Jeff.

"quantum information" Bored Chemist

I am not the one making absurd unscientific claims.
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/08/2019 02:53:30
I tell you what Pitts, here is something to ponder. When does a probability become something definite?
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 07/08/2019 02:58:14
What does this have to do with the thread? Are you fishing for something unrelated to "get" me on?
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/08/2019 03:17:06
So you think probability has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Or is it that you just don't know what you are talking about.
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 07/08/2019 03:19:36
clever! you just jumped in the lake and became the fish.
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/08/2019 03:31:26
What about eigenvectors and eigenvalues? Maybe you have heard vaguely about linear algebra. If you don't know what I am talking about just stop embarrassing yourself.
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 07/08/2019 03:40:32
"Lets say you and I go toe to toe on Bird Law and see who comes out the victor"
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: Colin2B on 07/08/2019 06:39:49
"Lets say you and I go toe to toe on Bird Law and see who comes out the victor"
Letís not get into more of your rubbish.
Also, you have been warned about posting false information and new theories in the Physics section of this forum. I sorry you decided to ignore our requests.
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: Colin2B on 07/08/2019 07:00:25
Not that indeterminacy has much to do with shaking anyway.
Alan is right and you (Pittsburgh) would do well to understand what he is saying, it is a point of common confusion.
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: alancalverd on 07/08/2019 09:56:32
I've never had much time for Schrodinger's cat, so here's Calverd's penny, which I think is a lot closer to what we observe.

There's a coin in a box. It might be a head or a tail, and if you shake the box with enough amplitude to flip it, it may or may not change. Now open the box. Nearly all the time it will be in one or other state, but if it is a quantum penny, there's a very small probability that it has actually tunnelled out of the box altogether. It is obviously absurd to suggest that opening the box actually determined the state of the penny, but if your fortune (or at least the opportunity to bat first) depends on the discovered state of the penny, the act of observation has significant consequences for everything else.

So what? Here's what. The object of quantum mechanics is to provide a mathematical description of what we have observed, with sufficient generality that it can predict what we may observe in the future. Hence the collapsing wave function: it's a sufficient description of observed phenomena, with some predictive value (substitute a pair of dice for the penny, then use your wave functions to predict the most likely score) but not a necessary explanation of what actually happens.  The fun bit is that our best wave functions extend outside the box and predict tunnelling!
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: alancalverd on 07/08/2019 12:11:48
As for what causes indeterminacy, the answer is it doesn't have a cause: it is a cause. Let's consider two models:

If you want to know the speed of a car, you have to measure how long it takes to travel between two points. That will give you the average speed between those points. If you move the points closer together, your calculation will approach the instantaneous speed at one point, but you can't actually measure that because the time taken to traverse an infinitesimal point is zero. However for large objects, we can state position and momentum with sufficient accuracy for practical purposes.

Now suppose you could measure the instantaneous position and momentum of an electron in a hydrogen atom, to an infinitesimal precision. That would give it the qualities of a macroscopic object  with a negative charge, close to another macroscopic  object with a positive charge. So either the electron would move directly towards the proton and the atom would collapse, or it would orbit like a planet round the sun. The atom plainly doesn't collapse, and an orbiting electron would radiate electromagnetic energy, which doesn't happen either.  So it seems that there is a fundamental limit to the determinacy of the product of position and velocity, and since it applies to all objects from electrons to planets,  we can generalise the statement by substituting momentum for velocity.

So much for the hypothesis. The fun begins when we discover that the same arbitrary constant h which describes the energy of a photon (E = hf) also limits the determinacy of the position and momentum of a particle (Δx.Δp = h) and is consistent with the observed diameter of a hydrogen atom. But these derivations are best left to textbooks, of which there are plenty.
Title: Re: What causes quantum uncertainty | Detectors are not the cause of collapse
Post by: yor_on on 10/08/2019 01:55:41
Joe, there is quantum mechanics, relativity, and then there is 'common sense'. If we went by common sense only your computer shouldn't work. There is something called 'tunneling' that is used, 'Josephson junctions' if I remember right. I might be wrong there although I have some memory of it being used. http://www.w2agz.com/Library/Superconductivity/Anacker,%20IBM%20Josephson%20Project%20IBMJ.Res.Dev.24-2-107-112.pdf

Common sense change from generation to generation, but what lasts may be if you can define it as locally realistic. Cause and effect following what we normally expect around us. It doesn't quantum mechanically and as I see it neither in relativity.