cool stuff

He's delusional in this whole conversation as he thinks he can disprove the unprovable with an infantile science.

Yes Infantile.

It's a new science and to say with any sort of certainty that it's even borderline accurate is asinine.

EDIT: Not to say the studies are farce or heading in the wrong direction.

It's just ridiculous to state with certainty over such a new idea.

This post was edited by piddywiffle on Mar 2 2012 01:25am

I just wanted to point that out, and add I don't think you can be entirely certain of what you're claiming. If you read further on that wikipedia paragraph, you'll read why.

"Some (including Albert Einstein) argue that our inability to predict any more than probabilities is simply due to ignorance."

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I am saying you're not necessarily right.

i just want to point out that ive said the whole thread other possibilities exists and also that einstein was wrong about most of quantum mechanics. i.e. entanglement

its weird how the word suggests gets transformed into "im trying to prove"

and you can criticize quantum mechanics all you want, whether or not its correct is irrelavent

what ive said is that quantum mechanics suggests against events controlled by any sort of hidden variable (i.e. god)

maybe quantum mechanics is wrong, who knows. But the current, most commonly accepted interpretation of it, is that the quantum world isnt deterministic

i want to add that im glad you posted this it really shows what im having to deal with.

I never said anything with certainty starting from the first post, but everytime you post you say how im trying to prove something or i talk about certainity.

Let me try and explain this to you, because you dont seem to get it. Whether or not the currect interpretation of quantum mechanics is right or not doesnt matter. What I said is still right in its context. The context being, that, in its current state, quantum mechanics suggests your wrong.

Its like if i said Im probably not going to win the lottery, and then i won the lottery. What I said at the time was still correct. Just because that unlikely 1/1000000 chance i was going to win played out doesnt mean i was wrong in saying i probably wasnt going to win

You have completely failed to understand that you cannot argue with unknown against the unknown.

Your inability to grasp that concept has shown a great deal of bias in your statements, whether or not you've included suggests in every sentence.

Bias begets certainty and your argument has displayed just that.

novocane, you are desperatly trying to dodge making any statement that you can't waffle on by pointing out "I said Probably" or "Suggests". It's like you are Afraid to be wrong. Don't be, you need to embrace when you are mistaken so you can improve.

Here is a gaggle of quotes from you in this post that are absolutes, no chance to dodge (imo)



Firstly, understand no-one here is a quantum physicist, this is JSP. We are all sharing our "Opinion" as we understand it. So that should just be a given.

I'd like to address your last reply to my post when you posted an example of quantum randomness, and the comment on colapse of a probability wave.

There was an excellent article about the apparent random decay of atomic particles. that went on to say that this parodox might just mean that "Future Events" influence past action. Testing to show this turned up some bizzare results that did not disprove that theory, but as I recall remained inexplicable beyond saying that there was a significant difference based on the future.

And the Probability wave issue is similar, you can't know Where and what at the same time because the action of measuring interferes. The point is if you knew everything infulencing the Wave with certainty, you would know "Exactly" where it would be at any time. We just don't have that ability just yet.

This is not my personally developed and tested conclusion, this is my understanding of all the material I have been exposed to thus far

Life is a journey, Enjoy the ride, dont' forget to stop and smell the roses once and awhile. and don't be afraid to be Wrong. It is much more valuable than playing it safe and always being right.....

and p.s. Einstien wasn't wrong about Entanglement. He said it was "Wierd" or "Spooky action at a distance", specificly because he didn't understand it and didn't like that it was apparently not following any "law". And if "HE" didn't understand it, then you and I sitting here on JSP don't stand a chance

thats not a real thing. "you cant argue unknown vs unkown:

1) by definition everything is unknown to a degree, so you wouldnt be able to argue about anything in the world
2) qauntum mechanics isnt completely unknown, and what we think we know about it is that its random and isnt controlled by any hidden variables (i.e god). and you CAN make that arguement. and guess what, IM NOT THE FIRST PERSON TO DO IT.

type determinism into wikipedia, and scroll down to quantum mechanics:

"Thus, the world of quantum physics casts reasonable doubt on the traditional determinism that is so intuitive in classical, Newtonian physics. At the small scales, our reality does not seem to be absolutely determined."

yes, other possibilities exist, but in its current state quantum mechanics suggests randomness



The first quote is the only thats absolute, and when i said it i was refering to the statement itself, not what the statement is saying. I know that that's confusing. Its like what I said in my post:

"Let me try and explain this to you, because you dont seem to get it. Whether or not the currect interpretation of quantum mechanics is right or not doesnt matter. What I said is still right in its context. The context being, that, in its current state, quantum mechanics suggests your wrong.

Its like if i said Im probably not going to win the lottery, and then i won the lottery. What I said at the time was still correct. Just because that unlikely 1/1000000 chance i was going to win played out doesnt mean i was wrong in saying i probably wasnt going to win "

The statement is correct in its context - quantum mechanics suggests randomness. Even if quantum mechanics isnt actually randomness, the statement is still current in its context. The same way that if i say the probably isnt going to end tomorrow, and then it ends, the initial statement was still correct - because the probability was that it wasnt going to end

No of those others are absolutes. I.e. I can argue that i think something is correct while still recognizing that its not a definite. Everyone understands that the big bang theory isnt 100%, and that you cant prove the big bang theory, but you can still argue for it. I bolded that because its a good analogy and people apparently dont read what i say (i.e piddle)



I dont need to be a physicist to know that the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the most wideley accepted. Yes, other possibilities exist, but most people subscribe to the copenhagen interpretation

and ps, einstein said entanglement wasnt possible. he described it accurately but initially he said it wasnt possibile

This post was edited by novocane on Mar 3 2012 12:30pm

Okay, but disproving a dissenter on one topic doesn't prove your claims about another topic. Also, Einstein's ideas are integral to quantum mechanics IE the photoelectric effect, so I think citing that he wasn't entirely correct about one facet of quantum mechanics doesn't prove your claim that he was, "wrong about most of quantum mechanics"

In other words, you have yet to show why it's true that quantum mechanics is complete enough to demonstrate that our universe isn't deterministic.

I'd also like to add that I've heard other lecturers (including Leonard Susskind) discuss that given enough information, determinism holds true.

This post was edited by Derkaderk on Mar 3 2012 01:02pm