"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Tue Sorensen on 5 Mar 2010 13:57 On 5 Mar., 18:13, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > :: Now, the question is: what does 'real' mean? Actually, this is not > :: as easy as you think. 'Real' means something like observable. But > :: relativity tells us, that observations are depending on the point of > :: view, hence on the observer. I would guess, this would include the > :: 'realness' of particles, too. > > That turns out not to be the case. Relativity in and of itself > deals in an objective universe. But don't worry, it's a common > misconception. Given a time machine, it would probably be a mitzvah > to go back and rename it "invariant theory" instead of "relativity theory". > And also, get people to talk about "observers" less and coordinates more. > > For an analogy, I can observe that object X is to the right of object Y. > Fred, across the room there, observes that Y is to the right of X. > Does that mean that the "real"ness of X and Y are called into question? > No. No it doesn't (you will hopably agree). > > Similarly, in relativity, one feller observes clock A is slower than clock B, > but another feller observes clock B is slower than clock A. Again, is the > reality of the clocks, or any of their ticks, called into question? > No. No it isn't. > > Consider the barn-and-pole so-called-paradox. Somebody sitting on the > ladder uses coordinates in which the barn is shorter than the ladder. > Somebody sitting on the barn uses coordinates in which the ladder is > shorter than the barn. But at the end of the day, both agree that both > ends of the ladder miss both barn doors. They just disagree on the > precise reasons and timing, just as they might disagree which object is > to the left of another. Bottom line, barn, ladder, and the operation > of both barn doors, is all entirely objective, even though whether the > barn or the ladder is longer is not. > > Similarly, in considering the twin so-called-paradox, the ages of both > twins when they meet again are entirely objective, even though the > clock rates at various events along the way are not. Yearp, I agree! :-) - Tue
From: Tue Sorensen on 5 Mar 2010 13:59 On 5 Mar., 18:36, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > Tue Sorensen schrieb: > > > > > On 5 Mar., 14:00, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > >> Tue S rensen schrieb:> On 5 Mar., 03:55, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > >>>> I would guess, that the very idea of fundamental particles is wrong. We > >>>> have particles, but those are -in my view- certain structures, that we > >>>> can identify and model, but they are not 'real' in the sense of distinct > >>>> and separable entities. > >>> Well, in order to make up a real macroscopic world, they must become > >>> real at some point... > >> Now, the question is: what does 'real' mean? Actually, this is not as > >> easy as you think. 'Real' means something like observable. But > >> relativity tells us, that observations are depending on the point of > >> view, hence on the observer. I would guess, this would include the > >> 'realness' of particles, too. > > > But presumably there is still a single universal frame of reference, > > isn't there? Otherwise we're getting into absolute idealism; that > > reality is created by the observer, which negates objectivity (and > > hence most science). > > No, it's not that though. I think, that what we usually call 'real' > depends on our point of view. But it's not created by our observation. > We observe something, that is the same for all observers. But the > observations are different. > Guess, you see me and I see you. Than we have different impressions, but > don't create each other. > So we had to build the world out of invariants. That are in GR terms > intervals. I prefer complex-four-vectors for this purpose. That is a bit > counter-intuitive, but would make some sense. They are sometimes called > bi-quaternions. They have a subset called quaternions. These constructs > are great for intervals. > Now, believe it or not, it is possible to model atoms and particles with > these numbers. It's not particularly easy, but possible. > If you like to learn more about this model, I would recommend Peter > Rowland: "Zero to Infinity". Or - of course- my own paper. Its a bit > amateurish, but easier to understand and you may find it here:http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 Sorry, I pretty much understand no math at all! :-) - Tue
From: Tue Sorensen on 5 Mar 2010 14:17 On 5 Mar., 18:47, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > : Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> > : Ouch, getting very woolly there... > > Meh. Doesn't seem that complicated to me. :-) It's not so much the things themselves as the way we use the words (and try to communicate with them) that's complicated. There's a lot of confusion going around... > Causality is all about > relationships between events (and their time-ordering). Determinism is > all about whether the effects of a given cause are necessarily unique. > > Or put another way, causality says that after the fact, effects have > specific causes. Determinism says, that even before the fact, > all causes have specific effects. Sort of. I'm still having difficulty telling them apart. Surely both causality and determinism are essentially saying that everything that happens in the universe is deterministically causal (and causally deterministic)? > : So, anything governed by probabilities is not deterministic? > > The notion of being "governed by probabilities" will likely lead > to misunderstandings and such. Because "probability" is most often > used to mean "it's real complex and I don't have enough information", > not "there's no information to be had". Actually, that is exactly the point I was trying to work towards! > In QM, the assertion is that > there's no additional information to be had; no "hidden variables". Which is precisely why I claim that QM is bad science. It has just decided that the rabbit hole doesn't go any deeper, and stopped trying to go further. It's more philosophy and mysticism than science. Despite being a Dane myself, I am totally on Einstein's side and totally against Bohr and Heisenberg. We need to uncover a deeper structure, and once we do it will become clear that there isn't anything truly random and merely probabilistic. God indeed does not play dice. The only reason people think that probabilities interfere with determinism is that they are thinking only in terms of classical, material determinism, and ignoring that the quantum level naturally has its own laws of determinism, which we are so far only dimly aware of. We just need better theories and new ways of looking at things. - Tue
From: Luke Campbell on 5 Mar 2010 14:59 On Mar 5, 11:17 am, Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Which is precisely why I claim that QM is bad science. It has just > decided that the rabbit hole doesn't go any deeper, and stopped trying > to go further. It's more philosophy and mysticism than science. This makes no sense. In science, you come up with a hypothesis to explain an observation, devise a way to test the hypothesis, and if the hypothesis fits the facts, you advance the hypothesis to a tentative theory. After the theory is confirmed by several more experiments, it becomes accepted as a good model of the way the universe works. If the experimental facts disagree with the hypothesis (or theory), it is discarded. Quantum mechanics follows exactly this pattern. It is a model that describes our observations of how the universe works. It has been confirmed by experiment to very high degrees of accuracy. There are no credible experiments that disagree with quantum mechanics. Attempts to come up with theories that "make more sense" than quantum mechanics (such as local hidden variable theories) have been shown not to agree with experiment. Thus, quantum mechanics is good science. It is confirmed science. It works. It is a very successful model of the world we live in. Attempts to come up with "theories" that seem to make more sense, but which are not based on observable evidence, are, to use your terms, philosophy and mysticism. They are not science. If this bothers you, well tough cookies. The universe does not have to conform to our human prejudices. When we adapt our thinking to use models that describe the way the universe works to whatever level of accuracy is needed, we become more successful. Luke
From: Luke Campbell on 5 Mar 2010 15:20
On Mar 4, 5:37 pm, Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2. > Isn't it obvious to anybody that mammals are more complex than, say, > amphibians? No. Not obvious at all. This is an example of species chauvinism with no biological support. In fact, the biochemistry of amphibians tends to be more complex than that of mammals, if for no other reason than they need proteins which work over a wide temperature range, whereas we mammals can hyper- specialize to a very narrow temperature range at which to carry on our bio-chemical processes necessary to life. > > 3. About the dual nature of a wave/particle; when a particle and an > anti-particle annihilate and become energy, does this represent a real > transition from matter to energy? Or does "energy" here just mean a > jumble of teensy-weensy elementary particles? If the particles really > become energy, do we know exactly how? What "releases" the matter from > its material shackles and lets it become energy? In physics, energy has a precisely defined meaning. It is the ability to do work, where work is defined as the product of an applied force over the distance it is applied. Keep thin in mind when talking about energy. All mass has an intrinsic ability to do work - an associated energy - although it can be difficult to release that energy. Matter is not quite so well defined. In everyday life, it means the stuff of which objects are made. This is as distinct from, for example, fields, such as electromagnetism or gravity. However, at the microscopic level, the distinction breaks down and the stuff of which objects are made includes the fields that permeate them. Sometimes, people talk as if only certain kinds of particles (the so called fermions) are matter, as they tend to be rather persistent, unlike other, more ephemeral particles that appear or vanish without constraint. In this description, matter does not become energy. Matter has mass which has an energy associated with it - a frozen energy bound to its mass, which can be released under certain circumstances. When matter gains more energy yet remains at rest, it gains more mass. If it loses energy in its resting state, it loses mass. The two are intrinsically tied. Matter-as-fermion-particles can be destroyed in certain circumstances. When this happens, its energy-bound-as-mass may manifest in various forms. It may become energy-of-motion of the remaining particles. It may become particles-of-fields. It may become mass of other kinds of particles. > And for that matter, > are we really sure that photons, etc. have a dual nature, and that > they don't just become particles when they need to interact with > something as particles, i.e. that they are actually not waves and > particles at the same time, but can change between those states > depending on the environmental circumstances? The whole wave-particle duality thing is a red herring, based on outmoded ideas of an understanding of nature that was in the process of being replaced. It is not dual in the sense of two natures. All particles are waves. All waves are composed of particles. It is not one or the other, it is both, always, all the time. When observed in certain ways, they behave as classical waves. When observed in other ways, they behave more like classical particles. Luke |