|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
 Posted - 04/02/2009 : 21:03:01
|
This is not exactly astronomy, but it's very important to astronomy! Does anyone know much about quantum mechanics? I am not sure if everything I say here is accurate because I do not entirely understand the subject. I've read some pop science books about it, which obviously is not rigorous.
I do not understand how (or if) it is proven to be a complete theory. Most physicists accept it in some form and the most commonly accepted interpretation (by physicists) is the Copenhagen Interpretation. This interpretation suggests the probabilistic prediction of the motion of particles (within the size range to which quantum mechanics applies) is not simply "the best we can do," but rather it is a complete theory that is in no way a reflection of our imperfect understanding. How can experiment make us certain that there is no underlying deterministic explanation? I am not sure Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle works here because that just means it is impossible to measure both momentum and location at the same time, which does not seem to give evidence for or against a deterministic explanation.
Einstein never accepted it entirely despite making some of its pioneering discoveries, and spent the second half of his life trying to disprove it. (Ironically, he won his Nobel Prize for a paper that explained the photoelectric effect by a theory of light quanta.) Einstein's lack of acceptance of course does not give evidence against it as many other brilliant scientists accept it, but his uneasiness was also based on the loss of determinism.
|
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2009 : 18:49:20 [Permalink]
|
One, you've got to remember that interpretations are not the actual science. Both the Copenhagen Interpretation and its most-popular competitor, the Many-Worlds Interpretation, are attempts to make the mathematics of quantum physics mean something relative to the rest of the natural world. It's sort of like arguing about whether gravity is the result of giant invisible rubber bands or the result of angels pushing on stuff: since all interpretations must match observations, and it's impossible to devise a test to determine which is the correct interpretation (or so say many), the choice of which interpretation to "believe" is mostly subjective, and (as far as the math is concerned) inconsequential.
Second, and most pedantically, nothing has ever been "proven to be a complete theory." Because...
Third, one can always posit another "level" of reality, and say that what we think is reality, isn't. But that's a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2009 : 22:24:07 [Permalink]
|
| This video of Robert Anton Wilson (a now-deceased author, philosopher, & agnostic about everything) addresses some of the philosophical considerations about quantum physics and, further, about any method of observation & interpretation. (First 1/3 is about quantum physics. Somewhere between 3:00 - 3:30 the more philosophical stuff starts.) |
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2009 : 00:04:50 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks Dave W., I am assuming there exists an objective reality and that we do actually perceive it just so that science can mean something. But past that, I did not understand how one could "prove" there is no underlying mechanism that we do not understand (of course it may still be of some worth to debunk supposed evidence for its existence), which was I guess more of an assumption than actual scientific fact. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2009 : 00:06:18 [Permalink]
|
| Good vid also Zebra! Thanks for that. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2009 : 22:01:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
But past that, I did not understand how one could "prove" there is no underlying mechanism that we do not understand (of course it may still be of some worth to debunk supposed evidence for its existence), which was I guess more of an assumption than actual scientific fact. |
We can't prove that there's no underlying mechanism.
We actually know (for example) that the Standard Model of particle physics is incomplete, because the model doesn't predict the masses of many particles. They just mass whatever it is that they mass. We don't know why. (And no quantum theories help right now.) This is why we can only put a lower value on the mass of the Higgs Boson (because if its mass were lower, we would have seen it already). We don't know how much it actually masses (or if it even exists!).
So anyone who claims that we've already proven that there is no underlying mechanism to what we know is simply talking out his butt.
But even if we did have a bullet-proof Particle Model and no questions left to ask about Quantum Physics, there's still no way to prove that there isn't some mechanism that we haven't yet discovered that makes it all possible. Even if we had all physics theories unified to such an extent that every calculation we made were derived from a single "unification constant" called Q (and Q would, for example, allow us to calculate such disparate values as the speed of light, the strength of gravity and the number of common spatial dimensions), we still couldn't say that we've proven that we've reached the ultimate truth (even ignoring philosophical considerations). Because the question will remain of why Q has the value that it does.
So anyone who claims that we can prove that we've "hit bottom" in the pile of physical mechanisms will also be talking out his butt. Probably. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanics
