3 ms·

You seem to be saying that the uncertainty principle is hiding the underlying reality from us, and that objects are simultaneously wave like and particle like a

by Reelin 8y ago

You seem to be saying that the uncertainty principle is hiding the underlying reality from us, and that objects are simultaneously wave like and particle like and we just can't see it because we're "stuck in the system" so to speak. I'd point out that this line of reasoning is fundamentally untestable - it assumes that things are a certain way, and that because things are that way you can never falsify it. As to life "in the system", wave functions certainly do appear to collapse in experiments limited to drab reality. Below are links to a couple Nature papers (freely available pdfs) from the past few years which you might find interesting. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep12518 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep12518 https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.0270 https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.0270 Editing to add that it would seem we actually can disprove realism (ie the particle view) for certain awkwardly medium sized systems which behave in ways that can only be consistent with a QM based interpretation. And apparently also achieve interaction-free measurement by setting up a system where we measure later in order to make inferences about what must have happened earlier. Or possibly I've completely misunderstood this paper, not being a quantum physicist myself. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.011003 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.011003

da_chicken 8y ago
Of course it's fundamentally untestable. The point isn't to make a testable hypothesis or an accurate model of what's actually happening. It certainly can't describe how a delayed-choice quantum eraser [0] works. The point is to conceptualize a model that doesn't hurt your brain. The point is to get your mind to allow subatomic particles to just be what they are and not to try to force yourself to fight against the apparent paradox of something being simultaneously/alternately wave-like and simultaneously/alternately particle-like. To get your mind to start to just let reality be what it is. That's basically what you have to do. You've got to let go of your need to know what quantum particles "are", because the universe isn't going to show it to you. All you can really do is mathematically describe and predict behavior. That's a lot, but it's still limited. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
- Reelin 8y ago
  I suppose I'm fine with flawed or untestable models as teaching or reasoning tools as long as they are clearly labeled as such. It was more that your original post seemed to be saying "this is the way the universe really works", and that didn't seem right to me on account of the untestability. > You've got to let go of your need to know what quantum particles "are", because the universe isn't going to show it to you. I'd argue that it does show it to us, and quite clearly. It's just that us big macroscopic beings are sometimes confused or dissatisfied with how different and unintuitive (for us) things are at that scale. > All you can really do is mathematically describe and predict behavior. That's a lot, but it's still limited. Of course it's always important to be actively aware that there could be more going on under the surface that we haven't yet come across evidence for. But if your model fits reality perfectly, who's to say that it's not how things really work? By definition you could never prove it one way or the other.

by Reelin 8y ago

da_chicken 8y ago

Of course it's fundamentally untestable. The point isn't to make a testable hypothesis or an accurate model of what's actually happening. It certainly can't describe how a delayed-choice quantum eraser [0] works. The point is to conceptualize a model that doesn't hurt your brain. The point is to get your mind to allow subatomic particles to just be what they are and not to try to force yourself to fight against the apparent paradox of something being simultaneously/alternately wave-like and simultaneously/alternately particle-like. To get your mind to start to just let reality be what it is. That's basically what you have to do. You've got to let go of your need to know what quantum particles "are", because the universe isn't going to show it to you. All you can really do is mathematically describe and predict behavior. That's a lot, but it's still limited. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser

Reelin 8y ago
I suppose I'm fine with flawed or untestable models as teaching or reasoning tools as long as they are clearly labeled as such. It was more that your original post seemed to be saying "this is the way the universe really works", and that didn't seem right to me on account of the untestability. > You've got to let go of your need to know what quantum particles "are", because the universe isn't going to show it to you. I'd argue that it does show it to us, and quite clearly. It's just that us big macroscopic beings are sometimes confused or dissatisfied with how different and unintuitive (for us) things are at that scale. > All you can really do is mathematically describe and predict behavior. That's a lot, but it's still limited. Of course it's always important to be actively aware that there could be more going on under the surface that we haven't yet come across evidence for. But if your model fits reality perfectly, who's to say that it's not how things really work? By definition you could never prove it one way or the other.