The post that was quoted here has been removedLooks like a series of lectures for undergrads (with a book to accompany them). I don't quite feel like watching 20 hours of lectures to form an opinion on them, but when I was an undergrad we used Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by David Griffiths. I quite liked that book.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWe were recommended to use Quantum Mechanics by L.I. Schiff. The section on scattering theory sticks in my mind as really clear, especially with regard to explaining the way a particle track in a cloud chamber experiment is straight in terms of forward scattering.
Looks like a series of lectures for undergrads (with a book to accompany them). I don't quite feel like watching 20 hours of lectures to form an opinion on them, but when I was an undergrad we used Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by David Griffiths. I quite liked that book.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAt that thread about dBB in Science, you appear unable to understand that the dBB pilot wave theory employs two equations, one describing an actual wave and the other describing the path of an actual particle and how it interacts with, and is guided by, the wave equation😵
I don't think it can simply be dismissed as "silly". What you've just done is assert a strong form of naturalism where no theory can contain "supernatural" elements. Since some form of dualism is inherent to the interpretation, the minds involved are supernatural. However we know minds exist, so the interpretation does not involve unobserved elements. ...[text shortened]... an assertion of the reality of a particle between measurements takes on a metaphysical flavour.
Originally posted by black beetleAm I required to give a complete description of every theory I'm going to criticise? The pilot wave tells the bohmion what to do yes. But there is no back-reaction from the bohmion and the bohmion never directly interacts with anything else. So there is no way of detecting it and what it is doing is irrelevant to any measurement.
At that thread about dBB in Science, you appear unable to understand that the dBB pilot wave theory employs two equations, one describing an actual wave and the other describing the path of an actual particle and how it interacts with, and is guided by, the wave equation😵
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIn dBB theory there is no collapse of the w/f, so when we observe a particle whose Schroedinger wave is split into a superposition of two macroscopically different waves we in fact see just the component of the superposition which has the Bohmian particle inside.
Am I required to give a complete description of every theory I'm going to criticise? The pilot wave tells the bohmion what to do yes. But there is no back-reaction from the bohmion and the bohmion never directly interacts with anything else. So there is no way of detecting it and what it is doing is irrelevant to any measurement.
As shown by Englert et al. (1992), the empty wave in configuration space does not influence the motion of the Bohmian particle in configuration space until the particle is inside the wave and the wave ceases to be empty. Also, when the particle moves inside a special bubble chamber, the time delayed picture we observe as a trace of bubbles is the particle moving from the left to the right, while the Bohmian Particle moves from the right side, stops and goes back to the right (but in a real time motion the Bohmian particle moves together with the trace of bubbles)
😵
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleDo you mean this:
In dBB theory there is no collapse of the w/f, so when we observe a particle whose Schroedinger wave is split into a superposition of two macroscopically different waves we in fact see just the component of the superposition which has the Bohmian particle inside.
As shown by Englert et al. (1992), the empty wave in configuration space does not influenc ...[text shortened]... t (but in a real time motion the Bohmian particle moves together with the trace of bubbles)
😵
35. BGEnglert, G. Sussmann, M. O. Scully, and H. Walther
(a) “Surrealistic Bohm Trajectories”
Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung 47a, 1175–1186 (1992)
That is not a paper in support of dBB. It's not available on the internet so I can't comment directly on it, but I read a reply to it on Arxiv.org [1] which makes clear that Englert was criticising the theory, so I don't understand why you are quoting it. The last paper on quantum theory Englert wrote was called "On Quantum Theory" [2] where he seems to whole-heartedly support the Copenhagen Interpretation.
[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9809006v1.pdf
[2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.5290v2.pdf
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThen methinks Aharonov-Vaidman
Do you mean this:
35. BGEnglert, G. Sussmann, M. O. Scully, and H. Walther
(a) “Surrealistic Bohm Trajectories”
Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung 47a, 1175–1186 (1992)
That is not a paper in support of dBB. It's not available on the internet so I can't comment directly on it, but I read a reply to it on Arxiv.org [1] which makes clear that Englert ...[text shortened]... on.
[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9809006v1.pdf
[2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.5290v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9511005.pdf
would help us understand in full each other
😵
Originally posted by black beetleOk. I've downloaded it but it's 3am here so I'll read it over the next few days and come back in the thread over in Science to avoid cluttering this one.
Then methinks Aharonov-Vaidman
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9511005.pdf
would help us understand in full each other
😵
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm sorry I won't have time this weekend to go into the basic ideas of QM and how they relate to AV. Hopefully I'll get to it on Monday.
Consider this thread a follow up on some ideas presented by myself in the "Design Argument" thread with some clarifications as far as my thinking. I'd like to discuss a nondualist view of reality and present some scientific evidence and theory which make it likely IMO. These views has been heavily influenced by Advaita Vedanta Hinduism and some recent th ...[text shortened]... ness in the universe and how I think they offer scientific support for a nondualist perspective.
In the meantime, here's some "light" reading on Henry Stapp's ideas concerning consciousness and QM for our physicists: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/stapp/
Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm sorry I won't have time this weekend to go into the basic ideas of QM and how they relate to AV. Hopefully I'll get to it on Monday.
In the meantime, here's some "light" reading on Henry Stapp's ideas concerning consciousness and QM for our physicists: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/stapp/
[...] one thing that quantum mechanics does is restore indeterminism [...]
This is wrong. This is an open question in quantum mechanics, for which no conclusive empirical answer has been found.
Much of the rest of the article rests on the (empirically unfounded) assumption that the indeterminism of wave function collapse is fundamental in nature, whereas it is a process we simply don't understand nor have described in a satisfactory way (regardless of whether or not the universe is deterministic). It gets even worse when the article adds a bunch of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo about minds, which of course has nothing to do with physics. Once we understand how minds work, then we can ask questions about the quantum mechanics of it. But our understanding of the human brain is poor and certainly not at the level of the individual constituents of it. It's hasty and speculative at best, and plain ridiculous at worst.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI find it very interesting that every time a theory is advanced who's implications you don't like, you feel free to dismiss it even though you admit that there is no satisfactory theoretical explanation at present. That there is "a process we simply don't understand nor have described in a satisfactory way" doesn't mean that attempts to describe it are "ridiculous" just because they clash with your world view.[...] one thing that quantum mechanics does is restore indeterminism [...]
This is wrong. This is an open question in quantum mechanics, for which no conclusive empirical answer has been found.
Much of the rest of the article rests on the (empirically unfounded) assumption that the indeterminism of wave function collapse is fundamen ...[text shortened]... ndividual constituents of it. It's hasty and speculative at best, and plain ridiculous at worst.
Not to make an Argument from Authority, but Stapp worked with some of the greatest physicists of the 20th Century: Pauli and Heisenberg. Your sneering dismissal of his theories seemingly based on "I'm sure we'll figure out something in the future" shows extreme arrogance but little else.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHere's recent "ridiculous" research:[...] one thing that quantum mechanics does is restore indeterminism [...]
This is wrong. This is an open question in quantum mechanics, for which no conclusive empirical answer has been found.
Much of the rest of the article rests on the (empirically unfounded) assumption that the indeterminism of wave function collapse is fundamen ...[text shortened]... ndividual constituents of it. It's hasty and speculative at best, and plain ridiculous at worst.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm
The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations. In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons.
"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."
After 20 years of skeptical criticism, "the evidence now clearly supports Orch OR," continue Hameroff and Penrose. "Our new paper updates the evidence, clarifies Orch OR quantum bits, or "qubits," as helical pathways in microtubule lattices, rebuts critics, and reviews 20 testable predictions of Orch OR published in 1998 -- of these, six are confirmed and none refuted."
Not bad considering how "poor" our understanding of the human brain is.