scientists prove reality is not real


jts

Recommended Posts

That is not what is "proven". What is proven is wave particle duality. Electrons which we think of as particles also behave like waves under some circumstances. And particles of matter with mass if they are small enough do not have a strict deterministic trajectory when they move through space. This was show by De Broigle in the 1920s. In short, the world of the very small is not like the world at our scale.

A one scale fits all kind of physics is just not correct.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not what is "proven". What is proven is wave particle duality. Electrons which we think of as particles also behave like waves under some circumstances. And particles of matter with mass if they are small enough do not have a strict deterministic trajectory when they move through space. This was show by De Broigle in the 1920s. In short, the world of the very small is not like the world at our scale.

A one scale fits all kind of physics is just not correct.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's not the part where they proved reality is not real. There is the story of Schrodinger's cat. It goes something like this. Put Schrodinger in a box with a container of poison and something radioactive and it's 50-50 whether Schrodinger dies. I don't remember how the cat comes into the picture. The theory is he is half dead and half alive until you open the box. Reality is not real until someone observes it. Nope, this idea did not come from a lunatic asylum. It came from scientists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly, at least one of us is living on the planet of the apes. Schrödinger offered the story as a argument against the "Copenhagen interpretation" of Niels Bohr's student, Werner Heisenberg. And -- as Ba'al Kolker said above -- it also was meant to show the disconnect between the macro world we live in and the states of the extremely small quantum events (protons, photons, and all that). And moreover, he came up with it five years after the quantum mechanics of Bohr was debated at the Fifth Solvay Conference of 1927. (In other words, he gave it a lot of thought.)

Schrödinger's cat is a though experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents a cat that may be considered as being simultaneously both alive and dead, this state being tied to an earlier random event. The thought experiment is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. In the course of developing this experiment, Schrödinger coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement). Wikipedia Schrödinger's Cat here.

Furthermore, the wave-particle duality is supported by the Schrödinger Equation.

The Schrödinger equation predicts that if certain properties of a system are measured, the result may be quantized, meaning that only specific discrete values can occur. One example is energy quantization: the energy of an electron in an atom is always one of the quantized energy levels, a fact discovered via atomic spectroscopy. (Energy quantization is discussed below.) Another example is quantization of angular momentum. This was an assumption in the earlier Bohr model of the atom, but it is a prediction of the Schrödinger equation.

Another result of the Schrödinger equation is that not every measurement gives a quantized result in quantum mechanics. For example, position, momentum, time, and (in some situations) energy can have any value across a continuous range.[6]:165–167

Your computer works on this principle. We have a lot of models for electrons and their companions. From Benjamin Franklin (a Fellow of the Royal Society) on forward, electrons have been positives and negatives, raisins in the pudding of the atom, little balls orbiting the nucleus, and participants in a field. Argue it as you want, the telegraph, telephone, and television all work. Edison lit up cities never knowing Planck's Constant, but Thurman John "T. J." Rodgers - founder and chief executive officer of Cypress Semiconductor; and an Objectivist - got his Ph.D. at Stanford for inventing VMOS (vertical metal oxide semiconductor) process technology.

As for the cat, all Bohr's quantum mechanics asserted was that whether light is a wave or a particle depends on the apparatus we use to observe it. (See the Encyclopedia Britannica online here. That fact is demonstrable via experiments known in high school physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is: realism and materialism live on. Quantum physics has considerable flaws in its claims. The micro and macro world, physically and mentally, have essentially all the same properties. This video is religious propaganda and trickeration. If god exists, he's disgusted by it, and sides up with the realists and materialists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is: realism and materialism live on. Quantum physics has considerable flaws in its claims. The micro and macro world, physically and mentally, have essentially all the same properties. This video is religious propaganda and trickeration. If god exists, he's disgusted by it, and sides up with the realists and materialists.

quantum field theory has yet to falsified by empirical (experimental) means. Most of the criticism leveled against quantum physics is philosophical rather than scientific. Philosophy in matters of science is about equal to a bucket of warm spit in value.

Warts and all, quantum physics has made this conversation over a computer network possible. Nothing else has.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A proper, correct, and consistent philosophy consonant with the facts of reality would not have those problems. Short of that, I agree with Ba'al Kolker. Ayn Rand herself said that in matters of philosophy, reality is the final arbiter. As I noted above, Edison lit up cities never knowing Planck's Constant. Telegraph, telephone, and television, all came from empirical discoveries. If the rationalists cannot devise a consistent theory, that speaks to their own failures. Perhaps Kyrel would like to take a moment or a month or a lifetime to construct an Objectivist Theory of Subatomic Experience… that leads to the implementation of matter transporters, hyper-c warp drive, or time travel… While we are waiting for him to do that, perhaps empirical investigators will produce them while wanting a rationalist theory to explain the previously impossible. (… or maybe I just do not understand Kyrel…)

BTW: 8 mins 20 sec in "… in certain cases…" Do not gloss over that. What about the other cases? Do they not in truth confirm the existence of objective reality?

And just a caveat: You should be aware that Nature and Science both were hoaxed by Jan Hendrik Schoen who was condemned for falsifying experiments and having his research across several fields published by both of them. An article published in Nature "proving that reality is not real" may itself not be real. Read the original paper and judge for yourself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is: realism and materialism live on. Quantum physics has considerable flaws in its claims. The micro and macro world, physically and mentally, have essentially all the same properties. This video is religious propaganda and trickeration. If god exists, he's disgusted by it, and sides up with the realists and materialists.

quantum field theory has yet to falsified by empirical (experimental) means. Most of the criticism leveled against quantum physics is philosophical rather than scientific. Philosophy in matters of science is about equal to a bucket of warm spit in value.

Warts and all, quantum physics has made this conversation over a computer network possible. Nothing else has.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Philosophy in science, aside from the philosophy of science, is about integrity.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is: realism and materialism live on. Quantum physics has considerable flaws in its claims. The micro and macro world, physically and mentally, have essentially all the same properties. This video is religious propaganda and trickeration. If god exists, he's disgusted by it, and sides up with the realists and materialists.

No dammit! The micro and macro world do NOT have the same nature. The laws of physics are very scale sensitive. That is why classical physics not only failed at the subatomic level it failed miserably. There is no way of reconciling physics in the large with physics in the very, very small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is: realism and materialism live on. Quantum physics has considerable flaws in its claims. The micro and macro world, physically and mentally, have essentially all the same properties. This video is religious propaganda and trickeration. If god exists, he's disgusted by it, and sides up with the realists and materialists.

No dammit! The micro and macro world do NOT have the same nature. The laws of physics are very scale sensitive. That is why classical physics not only failed at the subatomic level it failed miserably. There is no way of reconciling physics in the large with physics in the very, very small.

Sure you can, use calculus. Someday somebody will. Since micro makes macro they are both different and the same. There are simply not enough data yet to see what happens in the transit. This tool can help find it--the "scale sensitive.")

--Brant

of course I don't know what I'm talking about, but neither do you for ignorance isn't knowledge which "God-doesn't-play-dice" Einstein knew quite well, willing to die ignorant, just like Newton, but unwilling to stop looking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is: realism and materialism live on. Quantum physics has considerable flaws in its claims. The micro and macro world, physically and mentally, have essentially all the same properties. This video is religious propaganda and trickeration. If god exists, he's disgusted by it, and sides up with the realists and materialists.

No dammit! The micro and macro world do NOT have the same nature. The laws of physics are very scale sensitive. That is why classical physics not only failed at the subatomic level it failed miserably. There is no way of reconciling physics in the large with physics in the very, very small.

Sure you can, use calculus. Someday somebody will. Since micro makes macro they are both different and the same. There are simply not enough data yet to see what happens in the transit. This tool can help find it--the "scale sensitive.")

--Brant

of course I don't know what I'm talking about, but neither do you for ignorance isn't knowledge which "God-doesn't-play-dice" Einstein knew quite well, willing to die ignorant, just like Newton, but unwilling to stop looking

Yoo Hoo. The underlying laws are different. Calculus is just a mathematical technique. It is not a physical theory.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very funny. That's like saying a microscope is just a tool, not a physical theory. The problem with the formulation is "just" for the "just" is just in how you use it. First there were Einstein's theories then the use of tools to validate them, which in turn made them "physical." The physicality was always there--in nature--the theories in the head, where they still are. Science is merely the search for congruence and, we hope, for good and valuable technology. The philosophical (scientific) brain meets reality = scientific discovery and application(s). If we have two working and workable physical theories, one for micro and one for macro--use both; what comes from them is where you'll find the unity. Maybe a theory will catch up someday. That will be valuable if it helps us make even better stuff.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very funny. That's like saying a microscope is just a tool, not a physical theory. The problem with the formulation is "just" for the "just" is just in how you use it. First there were Einstein's theories then the use of tools to validate them, which in turn made them "physical." The physicality was always there--in nature--the theories in the head, where they still are. Science is merely the search for congruence and, we hope, for good and valuable technology. The philosophical (scientific) brain meets reality = scientific discovery and application(s). If we have two working and workable physical theories, one for micro and one for macro--use both; what comes from them is where you'll find the unity. Maybe a theory will catch up someday. That will be valuable if it helps us make even better stuff.

--Brant

The functions of a microscope are theory laden. There is a physical theory of optics behind the microscope. Calculus is abnstract mathematics. It is inspired by our intuitions of motion, but stands on its own logical foundations. Microscopes and Telescopes need an underlying physical theory. Calculus really does not. Calculus is abstract by the way. Microscopes and Telescopes are solid and have to be made by people.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is: realism and materialism live on. Quantum physics has considerable flaws in its claims. The micro and macro world, physically and mentally, have essentially all the same properties. This video is religious propaganda and trickeration. If god exists, he's disgusted by it, and sides up with the realists and materialists.

There's no reason to assume that god would favor creating a one-law universe instead of two. Or three, actually as the field equations for fermions and bosons are as distinct form each other as they are from newtonian-einsteinian classical mechanics.

Or, as Bohr replied to Einstein's comment that god does not play dice wiith the universe: 'Quit telling god what to do!"

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is: realism and materialism live on. Quantum physics has considerable flaws in its claims. The micro and macro world, physically and mentally, have essentially all the same properties. This video is religious propaganda and trickeration.

Is there more you can tell us about this: "Quantum physics has considerable flaws in its claims"?

What are one two of the claims? -- and what are the 'considerable flaws' of the claim you identify?

I hope you can expand on the meaning of this phrase: "The micro and macro world, physically and mentally, have essentially all the same properties." I take it to mean that the micro (sub-atomic) world has the same essential properties as the macro world, but I don't know what that means. What mental property does the sub-atomic world share with the macro world? Or, more simply, can you describe the kind of property you have in mind?

I agree that the video is trickeration. It's part of a series of Apologetics videos put up by a Christian ministry. The aim of the video is to bring folks to Jesus, not give a scientific education. It's not designed to dispel illusion, but to inculcate it. From the concluding moments of the video:

trickeration.png

The same outfit put out this odd offering, "The Trinity Explained (with Reason)"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no reason to assume that god would favor creating a one-law universe instead of two. Or three, actually as the field equations for fermions and bosons are as distinct form each other as they are from newtonian-einsteinian classical mechanics.

Or, as Bohr replied to Einstein's comment that god does not play dice wiith the universe: 'Quit telling god what to do!"

Think real carefully how you are going to answer this. (Yeah, I know I'm an asshole.)

This is your umpteenth attempt to sign up and discuss things on OL under different names after burning out the goodwill of this community on your first rounds.

What do you want here?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now