Sign in to follow this  
Guyau

Quantum Insight

Recommended Posts

Physicists have succeeded in separating the magnetic moment of neutrons from the neutrons, a possibility implicit in quantum theory: "Quantum Cheshire Cat" Becomes Reality. Pretty sure quantum theory does not also imply that neutrons (or other fairly elementary particles) can be separated from their mass-energy, their momentum, or their wavelength. More than pretty sure, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always good to keep in mind that discovering how things are does not make them what they are.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, that magnetic moment of elementary particles be discovered to be separable from their particles would be too coarsely described by saying that possessing magnetic moment should now be thought of as not essential to those particles as the kind of particles they are. In this case, neutrons. Magnetic moment is still part of their what, along with their mass.

Remember too that “neutrons” without wavelength (or separated from their wavelength), hence without momenta (or separated from their momenta), could not be any part of this matter-wave interferometer.

Observation of a Quantum Cheshire Cat in a Matter-Wave Interferometer Experiment

Tobias Denkmayr et al.

Nature Communications 7/29/14

As you know, neutrons have no electric charge. That property is another one implied by quantum theory to be separable from elementary particles possessing it. So for electrons, we should be able to separate their charge from them, but again, not their mass from them.

There is no thought in quantum mechanics or in these experiments along the lines of there being a concrete anything that exists, yet retains no concrete, distinct properties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, that magnetic moment of elementary particles be discovered to be separable from their particles would be too coarsely described by saying that possessing magnetic moment should now be thought of...

There's a lot of thought in physics... and it's all well and good that what is subjectively thought is constantly refined so as to better match objective reality. I'm all for scientific inquiry pushing the envelop as so many blessings filter down to our lives from it. I was only noting that discovering the order of preexisting laws governing the properties of particles does not make them what they are.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my earlier notes, I barred the false potential inference, from the experiment to metaphysics, that a thing might lose all its properties, yet continue to be. I should add that, as I understand the quantum Cheshire cat phenomenon so far, the separated property is not lost to its entity, which entity in the present experiment is a neutron. Also, the property does not itself here get turned into an entity. The magnetic moment remains a property of the neutron even though they have become spatially separated. This is a remarkable phenomenon, joining other nonlocal aspects of quantum mechanics.* To be sure, quantum mechanics in no wise implies that for a body such as one is, features such as temperature or mass or strength or susceptibilities or state of rotation or . . . can be spatially separated from one’s body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Experimental Test of Entangled Histories - Jordan Colter et al. (1/20/16)

“The researchers proposed and collaborated on an experiment that started and ended by measuring a particular property of a photon; in between, the experimenters subtly probed the photon without disturbing its delicate quantum state. The head-scratching result was that there was no way to create a single chronology that could describe how the photon changed. Instead, there must be multiple chronologies that are entangled, sharing a quantum connection usually reserved for groups of particles rather than chunks of times.

“‘There is something very deep going on here about the nature of quantum mechanics and time’, Colter says. ‘Our best description of the past is not a fixed chronology but multiple chronologies that are intertwined with each other’. The experiment may offer a new means of exploring and interpreting quantum weirdness.

. . .

“[Frank] Wilczek . . . calls the experiment ‘a rather direct realization’ of a 60-year-old interpretation of quantum mechanics known as ‘many worlds’, in which measuring photons and other environmental interactions split reality into alternate timelines. Sometimes the different branches are consistent on their own and remain separate, Wilczek says. But in this case, the separate chronologies are intertwined and eventually come back together.

“‘The deepest and most appealing aspect of this experiment’, he says, ‘is that it allows you in a mathematically precise way to nail what exactly “many worlds” is about’.” (Science News 2/20/16 – Andrew Grant)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the only way to knowing the unknowable is through the micro, not the macro. It's unknowable--at least so far--because small seems to keep pointing to ever smaller. The seduction of the macro is it seems knowable even though not fundamental.

Philosophy logically states there can be no such thing as non-existence per se. That's epistemological--that is, non-existence. Existence is metaphysical. An expanding universe doesn't create existence; it merely stretches it. It expands into nothing. We assume there's something within the universe accelerating the expansion. Maybe so, but it's not accelerating the speed of light, the true measure of expansion. If existence is a succession of big bangs consequent to contractions then the contraction would seem to have to be strong enough to pull back light itself--or does it? Maybe the light goes on regardless. Anyway, maybe "dark matter" doesn't exist. Maybe our universe is being pulled apart by an existential force, inferable but never observable as such.

The only really interesting question to me is why life? It's interesting because we think we'll eventually find out. The complexity of DNA at the simplest level in a complex organism implies it's going to be a long time before that's explained. (A complex organism is a single-celled animal.) That's when some scientists of a religious bent throw up their hands and exclaim, "God!"

--Brant

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2014 at 3:36 PM, moralist said:

It's always good to keep in mind that discovering how things are does not make them what they are.

Greg

The what of a thing determines the theory of a thing.  The theory of a thing does not determine the what of a thing, but it does constrain how we know the thing. All of our observations and experiments are theory laden.  In fact measuring the length of a plank is theory laden.  How so?  When you bring your measuring stick over to the plank (usually at a very moderate or low speed)  you assume the transport of the measuring stick does not change its length by any measurable degree.  In a word,  rigidity is assumed.  That is what makes this simple measurement theory-laden. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The what of a thing determines the theory of a thing.  

That's basically what I just said, Bob.

It is impossible to alter objective reality by subjective intellectual theorizing. Theory can only either agree or disagree with reality. It can only be about reality. It can never be reality.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, moralist said:

That's basically what I just said, Bob.

It is impossible to alter objective reality by subjective intellectual theorizing. Theory can only either agree or disagree with reality. It can only be about reality. It can never be reality.

Greg

Theory also guides how we look at things and how we look for things.  Fortunately serendipity  intrudes every now and again 

our expectations are theory influenced.  Most of the facts we learn are the facts we look for.  Some facts intrude.  they are "black swans". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, moralist said:

That's basically what I just said, Bob.

It is impossible to alter objective reality by subjective intellectual theorizing. Theory can only either agree or disagree with reality. It can only be about reality. It can never be reality.

Greg

A theory is reality unto itself. Then it can be incorporated into reality by a producing and creating human agency. (Then there are theories about theories.)

You are actually positing theory without the theorizers who use if not personally make theories too. They aren't all armchair intellectuals. Some got together in Philadelphia, for instance, and made a Constitution that helped make this country.

Your basic idea is valid enough in the sense of describing an automobile disassembled describes an automobile.

--Brant

you are the first I've ever read who wants to have his words and eat them too--if you were to eat yourself the principle would be the same except the first is only theory and the second hurts like hell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The what of a thing determines the theory of a thing.  The theory of a thing does not determine the what of a thing, but it does constrain how we know the thing. All of our observations and experiments are theory laden.  In fact measuring the length of a plank is theory laden.  How so?  When you bring your measuring stick over to the plank (usually at a very moderate or low speed)  you assume the transport of the measuring stick does not change its length by any measurable degree.  In a word,  rigidity is assumed.  That is what makes this simple measurement theory-laden. 

Basis of definition Date Absolute
uncertainty
Relative
uncertainty
1/10 000 000 part of the quadrant along the meridian, measurement by Delambre and Méchain (443.296 lines) 1795   500–100 μm 10−4
First prototype Mètre des Archives platinum bar standard 1799    50–10 μm 10−5
Platinum-iridium bar at melting point of ice (1st CGPM) 1889 0.2–0.1 µm (200-100 nm) 10−7
Platinum-iridium bar at melting point of ice, atmospheric pressure, supported by two rollers (7th CGPM) 1927 n.a. n.a.
Hyperfine atomic transition; 1650763.73 wavelengths of light from a specified transition in krypton-86 (11th CGPM) 1960     4 nm 4x10−9[31]

1983

Length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299               792,458 of a second     (17th CGPM)                                        

Absolute uncertainty: 0.1nm     Relative uncertainty: 10(-10)                                                                            

 

 

-------------

[The "theory" of the length of one metre]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 7:24 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

 Fortunately serendipity  intrudes every now and again...

...Some facts intrude.  they are "black swans". 

That's objective reality. It does NOT answer to intellectual theory.  :smile:

Objective reality inevitably destroys every false theory which does not subjectively agree with it.

Reality Uber Alles

I just finished Nassim Taleb's book "The Black Swan" and am just starting on "Antifragile". This guy is really onto something which has concrete practical applications for anyone's life. I highly recommend his approach because it actually WORKS. :smile:

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 7:24 AM, Brant Gaede said:

A theory is reality unto itself.

...only within the virtual world of the intellect... but not necessarily in the real world. 

Objective reality is the only Supreme Court with the absolute power render the final verdict on theory.

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No rendering if no theory.

You keep defaulting to reality when "God" doesn't seem enough. Basically all you've been saying is God got things going and reality took over. God's no longer a player. Isn't that the real message of Adam and Eve? They got kicked out of God's world into the world we live in today--our world. Now, I don't know the Old Testament/New Testament too well, but wasn't Jesus necessary for the transition, God being one nasty fellow? Okay, God, you did your job, your only son being the last one you did a number on giving us salvation through Jesus Christ. (I wonder how the Jews turned out so well not being Christians?)

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, moralist said:

...only within the virtual world of the intellect... but not necessarily in the real world. 

Objective reality is the only Supreme Court with the absolute power render the final verdict on theory.

 

Greg

Is Schroedinger's Cat  really dead or not?  What is the verdict of Reality? 

Electron tunneling -really- does happen. Electrons (sometimes)  are on both sides of a potential barrier. Reality, the Judge says both yea and nay. 

And reality really does say that The Cat is both alive and dead and will keep saying so until you look to see how the Cat is doing. 

Reality is not as real as it used to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Basically all you've been saying is God got things going and reality took over.

Yes. God created the absolute physical laws by which physical reality operates.

He also created the moral laws by which the consequences of human behavior operate.

The rest is totally up to use what we choose to do with both of them.

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Is Schroedinger's Cat  really dead or not?  What is the verdict of Reality?

Dead or alive is the verdict of course... and that's a final verdict. 

You, however, are not an amoral cat in a box. You are (assumably) a morally accountable adult human being. So objective reality is the sole judge which renders the final verdict on your actions by the consequences you set into motion by what you actually do... not by what you think. And you can know in no uncertain terms the morality of your actions simply by observing their results. Absolute objective moral law makes this possible.

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2014 at 3:36 PM, moralist said:

It's always good to keep in mind that discovering how things are does not make them what they are.

Greg

you might want to look up stuff on entanglement  and the falsification of Bell's inequality.  Apparently diddling one element of an entangled pair of particles affects the other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory A reference to Bell's inequalities here.  They have been falsified by experiment.  Reality apparently is NOT local

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 3, 2007 at 2:43 PM, Guyau said:

. . .

Solar-Neutrino Problem

Beginning in 1968 experimental counts of neutrinos reaching the earth from the sun were found to be less than half the number expected according to our understanding of the nuclear-fusion process by which they are produced in the sun. There are three types of matter neutrinos (and three types of anti-matter neutrinos, and perhaps, a seventh neutrino, called “sterile” [which might constitute the negative-pressure sea we call “dark energy”]). These are the electron-, muon-, and tau-neutrinos. Our detectors for the solar neutrinos were for the electron-neutrinos. One possible explanation for the missing solar electron-neutrinos was that they might be spontaneously converting into muon- or tau-neutrinos to which those detectors were blind. But such conversions could only occur if the rest-masses of neutrinos were nonzero (and different between the three types), and it was thought that neutrinos were massless, like photons. During the 90’s it was established experimentally that neutrinos do convert back and forth from one type to another (and, therefore, they have some mass). In 2001 it was established experimentally that electron-neutrinos coming from the sun were being converted into muon- and tau-neutrinos in an amount correct for explaining the electron-neutrino deficit. The solar neutrino problem was solved.

. . .

 

Sterile Neutrino or

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

you might want to look up stuff on entanglement  and the falsification of Bell's inequality.  Apparently diddling one element of an entangled pair of particles affects the other.

So?  :smile:

Just like everything else, the phenomenon of entanglement exists by the infinite wisdom of well ordered Divinely designed laws.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, moralist said:

So?  :smile:

Just like everything else, the phenomenon of entanglement exists by the infinite wisdom of well ordered Divinely designed laws.

Greg

Or just exists happenstancially.   The argument from Design is bogus. Random processes are capable of producing order. 

By the way all physical laws are human-made.  They are generalizations drawn from human experience.  The cosmos is what it is,  but the laws are man-made from the git-go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

By the way all physical laws are human-made.

Amazing. You actually believe that the intellectual wordy description of the law of gravity is actually the law of gravity itself. If that lunacy was true, then if you change the wordy description it would change how gravity operates! :laugh: 

You're the excreted end product of government education, Bob. The government told you that your finger pointing at the moon is the Moon and you're dumb enough to believe it. That lack of common sense awareness alone qualifies you to be a public union employee.

Jeez... what a sucker.

Greg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, moralist said:

Amazing. You actually believe that the intellectual wordy description of the law of gravity is actually the law of gravity itself. If that lunacy was true, then if you change the wordy description it would change how gravity operates! :laugh: 

You're the excreted end product of government education, Bob. The government told you that your finger pointing at the moon is the Moon and you're dumb enough to believe it. That lack of common sense awareness alone qualifies you to be a public union employee.

Jeez... what a sucker.

Greg

 

A law is just a generalization of things observed.  Humans do the observing.  Humans do the generalizing.  So-called laws  can be in error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

A law is just a generalization of things observed.

People can only generalize from their observations about how laws operate. Contrary to what your government told you, people have zero input on the design of those laws.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this