6 ms·

As soon as I read "those that fail to comprehend, or factor in, the ontological advantages" I roll my eyes and stop reading. It matches my quote: "it is more at

by acqq 10y ago

As soon as I read "those that fail to comprehend, or factor in, the ontological advantages" I roll my eyes and stop reading. It matches my quote: "it is more at the boundary between physics and philosophy." So, again, for physicists, it still doesn't matter. http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/p/shut-up-and-calculate-3/ http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/p/shut-up-and-calculate-3/ Whenever I read the texts of philosophers and see the "ontology" mentioned as argument, I just conclude "one more guy who wants to find the proof that his god exists." Or remain being paid for something close to the religious thinking which is not called so. I enjoyed watching the videos with the drops jumping above the waves, it is nice and visual, but the things the physicists have to work with in QM still aren't drops but the measurements and the formulas. If you like to imagine the waves visually, you're free to do it, but it's still not physics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is Feynman: "I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here. I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell."

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
The "Doesn't matter" argument is nonsense. Of course it matters. Your ontological beliefs define the questions you feel you're allowed to ask and the kinds of experiments you will design. Copenhagen is just as much "at the boundary between physics and philosophy" as any other interpretation is. The foundation of QT has been stuck for almost a century now. There's been a lot of detail filled in, but no truly fundamental movement towards answering the hard questions - what does quantum collapse really mean in physical terms, and how do you get from QT to relativity and back again? What's so terrible about supporting alternative views that may shed some light on those questions? Physics is ontology. There is nothing else involved. If you're going to pretend the true nature of reality is either irrelevant to physics or is somehow mystically unknowable, you may as well stop doing science altogether.
- acqq 10y ago
  I'm very sure that as soon as you make any useful prediction from your favorite interpretation you'll get a Nobel prize (and then it would be a real discovery in physics and not a philosophic talk) but nobody produced anything from these interpretations up to now, except maybe getting paid for doing a non-physics work. To me it sounds only like a philosophy question when you write "what does quantum collapse really mean in physical terms" and that "really" exposes it. To compare, there's no "real meaning" in the existence of atoms, electrons and them making molecules, but we still know it makes calculations of chemical reactions obvious. What does it "really" mean? It doesn't matter, they exist, and behave as they behave. What does it "really mean" that the electrons exist can be pushed through the conductors? It doesn't matter if you formulate the question like that, but without them existing, I wouldn't be typing this on the computer, I wouldn't even be sitting on my chair etc. Even more profound, without the electromagnetic force existing there would be no stars and no galaxies. We know that because physics. You can talk about the "meaning of it" but you won't make any discovery unless you actually do some physics.
  - lisivka 10y ago
    It's looks like we are talking about differences of use of physics in practice versus advancing of physics as science. No doubt, if I will need to calculate something, being paid for that, I will use proven formulas. Totally agree with you at that point. However, current major theories are in stuck, they cannot explain what we see, because now we have more data. So it is better to look for something else, which will explain everything we know already and more.
    - acqq 10y ago
      The theories aren't stuck, the existing ones cover everything we can measure, and that is amazing. Once the experiments make any new discovery which wouldn't match with the current theories the changes will be needed. So if you want the faster progress, support the experimental physics and the advancement in astronomy, don't repeat the talk of philosophers who do the equivalent to "how fairies really dance on the pin." But don't forget: Einstein didn't disprove Newton, Newton's formulas are just a good approximation under the circumstances that were easier for us to observe. So most of what we now know will also remain as a "set of simpler models", as it is based on the valid experiments.
lisivka 10y ago
I had good teacher of physics. He always told to us that we must fully understand what happens at physical level, and only then start to calculate. „Shut up and calculate“ is not an answer for me. I also don't feel frightened not knowing things, but now we know more than before. It's hard to imagine that particle must go through all slits and then God must play dice when you saw above video at least once. General Relativity is based on assumption that speed of light is constant regardless of direction, and tests, done with 1E-17 accuracy, are proving that. But tests done with 1E-21 accuracy shows that speed of light is not constant, so whole theory was built on wrong assumption, but it still accurate to 1E-17, which is huge accuracy, much more than we need in practice.
- acqq 10y ago
  I don't know what you talk about, if you give some links, maybe it would help. You are free to believe whatever you will, and these "god playing dice" arguments I don't even want to discuss, I'm curious just about the seriousness of this light "tests" you claim, given that the speed of light in vacuum is by definition now fixed -- it is the basis "meter" for the other things to measure. Thanks.
  - lisivka 10y ago
    It's hard to discuss with someone, which don't want to discuss. :-) About "light" claims: I'm talking about "non-null effect": http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0030v2.pdf http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0030v2.pdf .
    - acqq 10y ago
      The paper of the guy who can't even publish it on arxiv because he's banned there (it seems that's why it's on vixra instead)? And not because of what he writes but because it is below the necessary scientific literacy level. Arxiv's standards aren't particularly high. Is there any physicist in the world taking his papers seriously? The comment of his previous work: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1021214/pg134#pid19597777 http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1021214/pg134#pid1... "I'm serious --- the writing appears to be that of a very intelligent schizophrenic who was trained in physics. It alternates between true statements and nonsense like rap rhymes. A key symptom is the various forms of "holistic fields" or what not that connect to DNA and brains --- this is part of the schizophrenics search for the origin of his internally-created hallucinations and delusions and feeling of "understanding the Universe"." Regarding the paper you quote: it is... weird... and had he really found anything that would disprove the Michelson-Morley results (what he tries to claim between the lines) he'd already be famous and with his Nobel prize or just wait to get it. You know "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? It appears he doesn't even know (or doesn't want to know) what the necessary evidence for his claims would be. Is your name by any chance Stoyan Sargoytchev (or B.M. Quine)? If not, where have you even heard/read about that paper? Edit: (the answer to the response) thanks for answering with "I used first link with keywords similar to what I expected to find. I read linked articles and they are crap, so let dismiss this paper. Sorry." Regarding your question: "Can you accept, after confirming of gravitational waves, that there is field, called „gravitational field“, which affects speed of light, at least temporary?" the answer is: no, it seems you don't understand the basics of physics -- that is, the issues that were known before Einstein and the way he solved them, making the testable predictions. As the Michelson–Morley experiment was performed around 130 years ago, and confirmed many times since, it's really a lot that you miss, so I'm not going to continue the discussion.

by acqq 10y ago

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

The "Doesn't matter" argument is nonsense. Of course it matters. Your ontological beliefs define the questions you feel you're allowed to ask and the kinds of experiments you will design. Copenhagen is just as much "at the boundary between physics and philosophy" as any other interpretation is. The foundation of QT has been stuck for almost a century now. There's been a lot of detail filled in, but no truly fundamental movement towards answering the hard questions - what does quantum collapse really mean in physical terms, and how do you get from QT to relativity and back again? What's so terrible about supporting alternative views that may shed some light on those questions? Physics is ontology. There is nothing else involved. If you're going to pretend the true nature of reality is either irrelevant to physics or is somehow mystically unknowable, you may as well stop doing science altogether.

acqq 10y ago
I'm very sure that as soon as you make any useful prediction from your favorite interpretation you'll get a Nobel prize (and then it would be a real discovery in physics and not a philosophic talk) but nobody produced anything from these interpretations up to now, except maybe getting paid for doing a non-physics work. To me it sounds only like a philosophy question when you write "what does quantum collapse really mean in physical terms" and that "really" exposes it. To compare, there's no "real meaning" in the existence of atoms, electrons and them making molecules, but we still know it makes calculations of chemical reactions obvious. What does it "really" mean? It doesn't matter, they exist, and behave as they behave. What does it "really mean" that the electrons exist can be pushed through the conductors? It doesn't matter if you formulate the question like that, but without them existing, I wouldn't be typing this on the computer, I wouldn't even be sitting on my chair etc. Even more profound, without the electromagnetic force existing there would be no stars and no galaxies. We know that because physics. You can talk about the "meaning of it" but you won't make any discovery unless you actually do some physics.
- lisivka 10y ago
  It's looks like we are talking about differences of use of physics in practice versus advancing of physics as science. No doubt, if I will need to calculate something, being paid for that, I will use proven formulas. Totally agree with you at that point. However, current major theories are in stuck, they cannot explain what we see, because now we have more data. So it is better to look for something else, which will explain everything we know already and more.
  - acqq 10y ago
    The theories aren't stuck, the existing ones cover everything we can measure, and that is amazing. Once the experiments make any new discovery which wouldn't match with the current theories the changes will be needed. So if you want the faster progress, support the experimental physics and the advancement in astronomy, don't repeat the talk of philosophers who do the equivalent to "how fairies really dance on the pin." But don't forget: Einstein didn't disprove Newton, Newton's formulas are just a good approximation under the circumstances that were easier for us to observe. So most of what we now know will also remain as a "set of simpler models", as it is based on the valid experiments.

lisivka 10y ago

I had good teacher of physics. He always told to us that we must fully understand what happens at physical level, and only then start to calculate. „Shut up and calculate“ is not an answer for me. I also don't feel frightened not knowing things, but now we know more than before. It's hard to imagine that particle must go through all slits and then God must play dice when you saw above video at least once. General Relativity is based on assumption that speed of light is constant regardless of direction, and tests, done with 1E-17 accuracy, are proving that. But tests done with 1E-21 accuracy shows that speed of light is not constant, so whole theory was built on wrong assumption, but it still accurate to 1E-17, which is huge accuracy, much more than we need in practice.

acqq 10y ago
I don't know what you talk about, if you give some links, maybe it would help. You are free to believe whatever you will, and these "god playing dice" arguments I don't even want to discuss, I'm curious just about the seriousness of this light "tests" you claim, given that the speed of light in vacuum is by definition now fixed -- it is the basis "meter" for the other things to measure. Thanks.
- lisivka 10y ago
  It's hard to discuss with someone, which don't want to discuss. :-) About "light" claims: I'm talking about "non-null effect": http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0030v2.pdf http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0030v2.pdf .
  - acqq 10y ago
    The paper of the guy who can't even publish it on arxiv because he's banned there (it seems that's why it's on vixra instead)? And not because of what he writes but because it is below the necessary scientific literacy level. Arxiv's standards aren't particularly high. Is there any physicist in the world taking his papers seriously? The comment of his previous work: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1021214/pg134#pid19597777 http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1021214/pg134#pid1... "I'm serious --- the writing appears to be that of a very intelligent schizophrenic who was trained in physics. It alternates between true statements and nonsense like rap rhymes. A key symptom is the various forms of "holistic fields" or what not that connect to DNA and brains --- this is part of the schizophrenics search for the origin of his internally-created hallucinations and delusions and feeling of "understanding the Universe"." Regarding the paper you quote: it is... weird... and had he really found anything that would disprove the Michelson-Morley results (what he tries to claim between the lines) he'd already be famous and with his Nobel prize or just wait to get it. You know "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? It appears he doesn't even know (or doesn't want to know) what the necessary evidence for his claims would be. Is your name by any chance Stoyan Sargoytchev (or B.M. Quine)? If not, where have you even heard/read about that paper? Edit: (the answer to the response) thanks for answering with "I used first link with keywords similar to what I expected to find. I read linked articles and they are crap, so let dismiss this paper. Sorry." Regarding your question: "Can you accept, after confirming of gravitational waves, that there is field, called „gravitational field“, which affects speed of light, at least temporary?" the answer is: no, it seems you don't understand the basics of physics -- that is, the issues that were known before Einstein and the way he solved them, making the testable predictions. As the Michelson–Morley experiment was performed around 130 years ago, and confirmed many times since, it's really a lot that you miss, so I'm not going to continue the discussion.