December 8th, 2016, 02:58 PM  #31 
Math Team Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 1,555 Thanks: 597 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timeywimey stuff. 
Okay, I've been letting Benit13 go through this because he's expressing himself better than I do. However I've gotten totally lost on the main point here. I'll ignore the Monty Hall parts because I have no clue how that pertains and I don't want to ask you to (re)explain how that all works in. But I want to ask a question here: How does Heisenberg come into play in a question about Bell's inequality? I have no clue how the two connect. Dan Last edited by skipjack; December 8th, 2016 at 04:52 PM. 
December 8th, 2016, 03:22 PM  #32  
Newbie Joined: Mar 2016 From: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada Posts: 29 Thanks: 1 Math Focus: Logic  Quote:
The Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is about either simply our limits of practice OR to both practice and nature. One interpretation is that this uncertainty only reflects our limitations "in practice"; the other, the Copenhagen interpretation, treats this both as about our practical limitations AND to reality distinct from human concerns. That is, to those supporting the Copenhagen interpretation, they think that, LIKE the Schrodinger's Cat example, nature permits a cat to be LITERALLY dead AND alive simultaneously UNTIL you open the box. They insist that even "God" would NOT be able to determine the reality! That is where Einstein's famous remark about God not being one to throw dice comes from. Last edited by skipjack; December 8th, 2016 at 04:53 PM.  
December 8th, 2016, 03:58 PM  #33  
Math Team Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 1,555 Thanks: 597 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timeywimey stuff.  Quote:
I am curious about how you seem to be understanding Heisenberg. Referring to your comment above Heisenberg has nothing at all to do with our limitations "in practice". There is simply no way to precisely measure incompatible observables simultaneously. Nature is imposing this and we've got plenty of evidence for it. As far as Copenhagen is concerned, no one really expects macroscopic objects such as the Moon to disappear when no one is viewing it, nor a cat to be in a simultaneous live/dead state. This is a strictly Quantum effect, so I wouldn't expect it to be valid unless talking about things like nucleons and electrons. I wouldn't even apply it to individual atoms. But finding something to replace it isn't so easy. As far as I know, the main contender is Many Worlds and that has just as many uncomfortable concepts as Copenhagen. We simply lack a good intuitive background to view Quantum Physics from. Is it simply that you don't like the QM explanations? Excepting the Copenhagen interpretation, which is mainly a Philosophical viewpoint, these effects have been measured. Dan Last edited by skipjack; December 8th, 2016 at 04:50 PM.  
December 8th, 2016, 06:01 PM  #34  
Newbie Joined: Mar 2016 From: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada Posts: 29 Thanks: 1 Math Focus: Logic  Quote:
The Schrodinger Cat was never meant to be interpreted as 'macro' objects. It was an analogy to show precisely what the claim of Copenhagen refers to. I, as with Einstein et al, had already understood the distinction and it makes no sense of their purpose to complain at all if it wasn't for the case of interpreting that superposition is a real phenomena. The 'evidence' being used to argue for the Copenhagen interpretation is false because it uses Bell's Theorem in a 'fuck you' way by using it to prove precisely what cannot be proven. It does so by trying to trip up those interpreting probability as the 'truth' but that nature 'disobeys' the math. Thus, it justifies that our personal human interpretation MUST be correct while the rest of nature is wrong, in the same exact way that religions use the "Godworksinmysteriousways" argument. That is, it feigns that the math is itself explicitly 'true' but Nature, proving itself to differ from the math, is what is AT FAULT! Thus 'superposition' is treated as true for assuming the math correct but nature 'wrong'. No doubt this is intended for some political/economic goal. Perhaps if people are intimidated with the 'weirdness' of QM, they'll give up trying and default to trusting the authorities ready to complete their con by selling us phony "quantum computers" or some other perceived functional gain. If you are sincere, please drop the faith and assume NOTHING before you trust that 'rules of statistics' represent something intrinsic about reality BEYOND our human practical uses. That is the worst area of math because it gets falsely interpreted as representing something more 'accurate and precise' than it is even possible to do. It's no wonder gambling addiction is real. This kind of thinking is falsely giving people HOPE in something that doesn't exist. The logic of QM's interpretation THAT the Uncertainty principle is true is based on believing they have found a REAL means to prove this in defiance by using the Bell's Theorem argument to 'trip up' the way that people interpret what 'should' be true or not. I ask you to HOW you should accept that 'superposition' is real? PLEASE give me proof! Show me HOW you know that, for instance, light CANNOT be both a particle and a wave? This is where it all started. Interpreting it 'odd' that you get a wave pattern based on the interpretation that matter 'should' be like a solid rocklike essence through two slits is itself dumb. Light IS both a particle AND a wave WITHOUT CONTRADICTION!! As such, it needs no superposition myth to explain it. You just have to understand that what you don't know isn't a justification to assert that "What you don't know" is thus some magical phenomena as the Copenhagen interpretation does. That is transferring the meaning of some unknown, like "Totality" to mean that it has to be filled with "God" because it at least posits some theory rather than none.  
December 8th, 2016, 07:44 PM  #35  
Math Team Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 1,555 Thanks: 597 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timeywimey stuff. 
Wow. I thought I knew something about this when I got my MS in QFT. Clearly I've been wrong with all of my studying and experience in the field! Thank you ever so much for politely telling me what I do and don't know and what I have and have not been indoctrinated on! (Dear God, even my sister treats me better than this.) Now, can we get the aggressiveness out of the way and just talk about things? I can see that the issues are far broader than Bell's inequality. Quote:
I don't see that the Copenhagen interpretation causes much of a problem here. True, it doesn't really do the job for explaining how QM is different than Classical Physics and there are other candidates around. But I don't personally think that Copenhagen was ever meant to really explain: it's there because we don't really have anything better. As you say one of the things it supports is the linear superposition principle and, aside from some experimental results, there really is no a priori reason to suspect that QM should obey it. There are two major reasons a theory is usually imbued with linear superposition: 1) It makes the equations easy, and 2) It is usually a good model if we don't forget that we might be only talking about a low energy approximation. A nonlinear theory may be needed to extend the solutions to a higher energy level. In fact, QM's greatest result so far is QFT and most of the useful QFTs are YangMills theories, which are nonlinear. So linear superposition may not be correct, it's just that it's been useful for the problems we've been able to use it for. That's about as good as it gets in Physics until a new "revolution" comes around. As for Bell's inequality being a "(*&& you" I fail to understand your obvious feelings about it. Bell's inequality was derived to represent the probability of measuring certain results according to a simple hidden variable system which was, at the time, a more comfortable idea than QM. Experiments showed the QM calculation was the correct one. This is the Scientific Method in action. I can't see how feelings have any bearing? Look I don't like the apparent ad hoc construction that QM rests upon either. (Even GR has a "dodgy" derivation.) I just know that it makes accurate predictions. Probably it will be supplanted by something along the lines of String Theory (which has conceptual problems of its own) but until then we have to use what we know works and try to derive experiments and ideas to move along. Dan Addendum: Incidentally, so far as I know the standard wave/particle interpretation is that "particles" are neither what we would call a wave nor particle. They are something else and its when we take a measurement that we get something that looks like a particle or looks like a wave. Last edited by topsquark; December 8th, 2016 at 07:49 PM.  
December 8th, 2016, 09:37 PM  #36 
Newbie Joined: Mar 2016 From: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada Posts: 29 Thanks: 1 Math Focus: Logic 
topsquark, I apologize for the emotional emphasis in my language and sincerely mean no disrespect in the least. I am in the minority and am thus speaking with partial emotions here but am rational enough to recognize that I need to convey the significance of what I'm saying WITH such stronger language and hope that you know I'm not being personal if you are rational enough to understand this. I think you misinterpret those concerned in the past with what has been adopted in the present as being somehow mistaken in their logic. The physical interpretation by nature to be 'indeterminate' was based on the interpretation that somehow light, from the initial history of wave/particle duality from the slit experiment was contradictory. Then, the focus of some were to interpret Indeterminacy via the Copenhagen interpretation as meaning that there is NO possible means which appropriately repairs the contradictions in a more clearly logical way we can relate to locally. You mentioned 'Sting theory' of which I too have a positing form of. I differ in that of the ones I've learned of thus far are closed strings or 'loops' where mine are open. But the point I'm discussing here is to the error of using Bell's theorem in a way that has lead many to think those like the Alan Aspect experiments of the nineteeneighties was correct in proving Nature has sincere weirdness LOCALLY. Bell's Theorem is correct mathematically (and thus logically) but cannot be used appropriately to deem QM to have what is called, "superposition", as it is credited for and what is used to dismiss the EPR paper's paradox as superficial. My purpose here is to argue one particular, but pivotal, argument that has been used to overturn Einstein's (et al) concern on whether quantum reality literally is about being 'spooky at a distance'. While we can agree that if I send you a 'lefthand glove', it implies you are missing a 'righthand' one, the Copenhagen interpretation asserts that what I send is BOTH simultaneously. To me, this works given a multiworld interpretation and am fine with that. But when this is treated as reality WITHIN our particular world, I am troubled. How can a glove be BOTH a right AND left handed glove if I were to wrap it up and send you one of these in the mail? [ignore those gloves that are indistinguishable as these do not count] And the question to determine this as either true or false was the use of Bell's theorem using a logical relation between the fact that some quantitative realities logically are able to COVER other conditions simultaneously...IN REALITY. [Such as, if (A and B) true and (B and C) true, this assures that B is AT LEAST 'true'] The inequality was used by comparing the assumed mathematical relationship of an expectation to be absolutely inerrant. Then it measured this by Nature to deem Nature disobeying and why the weirdness interpretation of QM has been deemed itself indeterminate even to itself. I'm defending  and what I believe the EPR paper was defending  that Nature in OUR contingent world can never prove nor disprove that Nature itself can have what we now call, "superposition", the state of something to be locally true dependent upon who observes it first, regardless of the quantity of space between them. I actually ARGUE that this IS true with respect to 'Totality' (an inclusive grand 'class'). But it is NOT possible logically to determine this locally within any contingent world (our Universe) without breaking the speed limit of light, as Einstein proposed within the confines of 'science'. We cannot determine THAT Nature is itself directly conflicting with our reasoning because we are trapped within the reality that determines us. This matches with Godel's second theorem on Incompleteness: that no system of rational (logic or math) can PROVE itself by using the logic derived within it. So this is where I question the QM's Copenhagen interpretation about reality. If reality is able to be proven 'contradictory', then we can't even trust our observations that determine this without appropriately questioning that our observations of this particularly are themselves as likely 'contradictory'. 
December 12th, 2016, 03:32 AM  #37 
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2014 From: Glasgow Posts: 1,963 Thanks: 639 Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions 
On a different note... when I get some time I'll see if I can reply to your previous message, but I think things have digressed onto a general discussion of quantum mechanics. I'm not sure I have the time to revise my old course material from 10 years ago and respecify it here, but I'll see what I can do.

December 13th, 2016, 04:58 AM  #38 
Newbie Joined: Mar 2016 From: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada Posts: 29 Thanks: 1 Math Focus: Logic 
I'm in no rush at all, guys. Just thanks for your time. Scott. 

Tags 
bell, error, theorem 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Bell's theorem: simulating spooky action at distance of Quantum Mechanics  humbleteleskop  Physics  17  July 25th, 2015 03:38 AM 
Interpolating (I think?) from a bell curve.  marlan  Probability and Statistics  1  March 10th, 2015 08:20 PM 
Something about Bell's Theorem  J Thomas  Physics  4  January 13th, 2015 09:47 PM 
Percentage error and Binomial theorem  Sam1990  Applied Math  1  October 18th, 2014 01:53 PM 
Taylor's theorem. Usage + Quantify error?  bentley4  Calculus  1  May 19th, 2011 10:23 AM 