Einstein’s Quantum Riddle

[cmason1957]

Unless you have kept up with particle and quantum physics over the last 20-30 years and kept the math part very fresh, arguing is pointless. I used to think I cared enough to try to keep up, but they have passed me by and The Calculus is but a distant memory. I remember taking a class in college called Semiconductors and Devices (at least now it's called that, I think it was something like Physical Electronics back in the day). The math in there got to be crazy talking about holes and non-holes and a whole bunch of magic.

 

[stickman]

Yea, I'm out of this one, I got lost just trying to figure out the concept of the experiment; using quasars as a random trigger......wtf

 

[G259]

I think the idea was, that the light pulse takes so long to reach us, it wouldn't be possible to alter the timing of it. I caught myself shaking my head several times watching this, and I went in with an open mind.

 

[Johnd]

I was just looking forward to seeing a scientific battle.

 

[ceeaton]

I was just looking forward to seeing a scientific battle.

I'll drink to that!

 

[JohnT]

Unless you have kept up with particle and quantum physics over the last 20-30 years and kept the math part very fresh, arguing is pointless. I used to think I cared enough to try to keep up, but they have passed me by and The Calculus is but a distant memory. I remember taking a class in college called Semiconductors and Devices (at least now it's called that, I think it was something like Physical Electronics back in the day). The math in there got to be crazy talking about holes and non-holes and a whole bunch of magic.

So you are then well acquainted with George Boole?????

 

[Dennis Griffith]

Like I said, I try to stay out of these debates. But here I am, dancing on the toilet rim, trying to maintain footing. I have strained some relationships (my sister being one) by addressing certain inconsistencies that many dogmatic (yes I said that) physicists and mathematicians seem to ignore, or seem oblivious to. It could be the hidden flaw in Calculus that makes many take an apparent 'leap of faith'. Some think we understand all that we need to and on the other end, some think/believe we don't know squat (that would be me). I have spent a lifetime learning just so that I can feel ignorant. Hmmm, nouf said.

 

[cmason1957]

So you are then well acquainted with George Boole?????

George Boole and Alan Turing are very good friends of mine. Somedays, I can even pass a Turing test.

 

[cmason1957]

Like I said, I try to stay out of these debates. But here I am, dancing on the toilet rim, trying to maintain footing. I have strained some relationships (my sister being one) by addressing certain inconsistencies that many dogmatic (yes I said that) physicists and mathematicians seem to ignore, or seem oblivious to. It could be the hidden flaw in Calculus that makes many take an apparent 'leap of faith'. Some think we understand all that we need to and on the other end, some think/believe we don't know squat (that would be me). I have spent a lifetime learning just so that I can feel ignorant. Hmmm, nouf said.

I prefer to think that Grand Architect of the Universe looks down upon us and chuckles every time we think we understand it all. Our math does a fair job of explaining what we can see and measure, but then we get to the edge cases and all heck breaks loose.

 

[Dennis Griffith]

George Boole and Alan Turing are very good friends of mine. Somedays, I can even pass a Turing test.

You must be VERY old to have such friends.

PS. My wife informs me that I fail the Turing test daily.

 

[cmason1957]

You must be VERY old to have such friends.

PS. My wife informs me that I fail the Turing test daily.

My children like to inform me that I am probably older than dirt. My knees tend to agree

 

[sour_grapes]

Don't worry: Nothing bad below (at least not that I know of!). It is not my intention to argue against your position, but just to state more clearly my own. My earlier answer to you was breezy, because I didn't perceive that you were all that serious. I thought you were just teasing. I see now that you are quite serious and passionate. I also believe, from previous posts of yours, that you know a thing or two about splitting atoms.

Like I said, I try to stay out of these debates. But here I am, dancing on the toilet rim, trying to maintain footing. I have strained some relationships (my sister being one) by addressing certain inconsistencies that many dogmatic (yes I said that) physicists and mathematicians seem to ignore, or seem oblivious to. It could be the hidden flaw in Calculus that makes many take an apparent 'leap of faith'. Some think we understand all that we need to and on the other end, some think/believe we don't know squat (that would be me). I have spent a lifetime learning just so that I can feel ignorant. Hmmm, nouf said.

I grant you, it is true that we physicists sometimes seem to ignore inconsistencies. Well, perhaps we don't really ignore them, but we get used to them. We keep them in the back of our mind for when a more complete picture (that could explain the inconsistency) starts to emerge. In the meantime, we get on about our lives, using what we can from our best current theories to learn more about the universe, learning new things that are consistent with current understanding, but all the while trying to disprove the current theories! (I'm reasonably confident that Dennis understands what I mean, but if that sounds nonsensical to anyone reading this, I am using shorthand to refer to something like Popperian falsifiability.)

Something like this:

There is a physics joke about the stages of learning quantum mechanics:

(1) You don’t know what it means, you don’t know how to calculate anything, and it doesn’t bother you.
(2) You don’t know what it means, you don’t know how to calculate anything, and it bothers you.
(3) You don’t know what it means, you know how to calculate things, and it bothers you.
(4) You don’t know what it means, you know how to calculate things, and it doesn’t bother you.

You also wrote:

Some think we understand all that we need to and on the other end, some think/believe we don't know squat (that would be me).

Those certainly seem to be the extremes! But I don't think I know anyone on these extremes (unless I take your self-description at face value, and I kinda doubt that fits, and I mean that as a compliment). Certainly, no physicist thinks that we understand all that we need to: Physicists work really hard, dedicate their entire lives, struggle constantly, just to try to learn a little more than we know now. Of course none of them think we understand all there is to know! (Plus, the realization that it appears that we cannot account for 96% of the universe should sure keep one humble! ) On the other hand, just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that we don't know anything.

You mentioned dogma: Yes, dogmatic belief in a theory is inimical to learning. However, there is also a dogma in rejecting what observations tell us about the universe merely because the implications bother us. Would that we fall into neither dogmatic trap.

 

[1d10t]

PS. My wife informs me that I fail the Turing test daily.

Is it really that hard to remember the square hole goes in the round peg?

 

[cmason1957]

Is it really that hard to remember the square hole goes in the round peg?

Dang Nabbit, I knew I was doing something wrong there. I'll try to remember that next time.

 

[Dennis Griffith]

We are talking quantum mechanics here, so round is the same as square, but in reverse (funny). I was approaching this topic lightheartedly, but I can get drawn in and spend hours opining on topics of this nature. I typically solve nothing and just create more questions for myself. I appreciate the joke, I've made it to step 3 (I think), but don't want to proceed to step 4 as I'm comfortable being bothered (except for proton decay, it really bothers me). I should not have lumped everyone into such stark categories when in reality it is shades of gray. It is that the ones that DO fit into those categories that are the most memorable and come to mind readily (my failing). And I sometimes get stuck on the silliest of things, like does 1 really equal .99999...? I accepted the logic of this statement eons ago, but in absolute terms how can a whole number equal another number that never makes it to a whole number? See, I can't turn lose of some things that don't fit (back to round pegs in square holes, or was it the other way). And I really do like most physicists, and some even like me back (on certain days).

 

[G259]

I grant you, it is true that we physicists sometimes seem to ignore inconsistencies. Well, perhaps we don't really ignore them, but we get used to them.

Denial?

 

[sour_grapes]

Denial?

No, not like that. I tried to explain above, let me try again.

We note the inconsistencies, and are thereby aware that we don't yet have a full understanding. We essentially always carry the uncertainty around with us for things that have unsettled bits. We expect that the description the we presently have (which well explains a given phenomenon) will be subsumed into a better theory later.

As an example, consider the way that Newtonian mechanics is the low-speed limit of relativistic mechanics. There were some inconsistencies (in predictions of electromagnetic phenomena) that led Lorentz and Poincaré and eventually Einstein to formulate special relativity. But you can still build a damn bridge or launch howitzer shells on target using Newton's laws, despite knowing that they are an incomplete description. (But you need special AND general relativity to use GPS, but I digress.) So you do what you can with what you do understand, all the while looking to resolve the parts that you cannot yet fully explain.

 

[G259]

That was supposed to be a humorous bit - I should have put the lol, lol!

 

[sour_grapes]

That was supposed to be a humorous bit - I should have put the lol, lol!

Ahh, I see!

 

[Dennis Griffith]

Hmm, you took the bait and ran with it. My mouth is sore from such endeavors.