/sci/ - Science & Math

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle and observer effect are not the same thing.

Because you can prove that it's not a measurement problem. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle doesn't exist because we can't measure both states. It's because there is a genuine uncertainty in how particles act at a quantum level.

This means there's an absence of causality at such a level-- precisely what determinism is.

I never understood either. Even though it's more of a physical limit and not just a human observation limit (That is, it is a constraint on our capacity to observe matter due to being a property of matter: It is impossible to observe), though it doesn't really disprove determinism: It still holds at a macroscale since quantum fluctuations have little effect on overall stuff, but if you want to get picky: It's "probabilitism".

Still Heisenberg Uncertainty does not allow for free will. Har, har.

it does not only mean it is impossible to observe it, you could say not even the universe knows more than allowed by the uncertainty principle, and because nothing knows if a particle is in point A or B, physics just kind of assumes it in both places, so to speak. you could argue that when the wave function collapses it collapses to a predetermined state or position, but its impossible to know that before hand, this makes it impossible to predict what will happen, and if nothing knows what will happen we cant really call it determined.

>>2893537
If, based on the same initial state, the outcome is always the same, then yes, it is determined, whether or not we actually can know if the initial states are the same.

So which is it
Are the particles actually undefined? Or can we just not tell what they are?

>>2893550
>based on the same initial state, the outcome is always the same
That's not how it works though. There's a probability inherent in every system, especially small ones like electrons. Even if you start out at the same initial conditions, the result will never be exactly the same. Sure, there are macroscopic properties, things like temperature and volume can be estimated reasonably with statistical mechanics. But the system can never be determined 100% accurately, determinism on the atomic level is 100% false. Of course, randomness doesn't imply free will, but that's a different argument.

>>2893588
>that's not how it works though
Based on what? We can't possibly know if it works like that or not, since the "initial conditions" can never be known.

>>2893555
its undefined, no physical proses can determine the position of the particle (if the momentum is known by some thing) because is is completely unknowable by any physical particle even if we say it is still actually in position A, it doesn't matter because it has no influence on the surrounding system, and never will.

>>2893621
lets take 2 muons as an example. every muon is identical, if it is not, our theory are in trouble. now every time unit there is a chance that the muon will decay, but in general, the 2 will not decay at the same time. these are 2 systems that were identical but the outcome was different.

The uncertainty principle puts a precision limit on the measurement of noncommuting observable at the same time. Like location and momentum. This is a fundamental "problem" of the mathematical model of quantum mechanics and not a problem of measurement itself. In other words: Even if we could build infinitly precise measuring devices, we'd still be bound by the uncertainty principle.

But if everything in the universe was predetermined, every measureable entity (observable) would have to have an exact predetermined value. And everthing that is going to happen would have to be deducible from the events before and therefore also predetermined.

This is a contradiction to the uncertainty principle.

>>2893642
Just because a particle is identical to another particle doesn't mean that the factors influencing that particle are identical.

Or gee, maybe we're looking at it all wrong.

No, we better make up more models to support our other rickety models, pack some exceptions in there and downplay how much we're relying on indirect evidence (and therefore, deduction.)

And then we should shoo away any creative people with smugness and the false science/creative dichotomy, so our rickety model doesn't get knocked over.

Like take a look at tau. Who the fuck cares about tau. So what if it makes everything more clean and elegant to base the circle constant on its radius. It's not how I learned it and anyhow math is for making shit/money so get back to work.

>>2893655
what factors influence particle decay? if the difference in quantum results are all based on certain factors, then those factors need to both be invisible as fuck but somehow still relevant physically and not subject to locality

>>2893671
>hidden variables are hidden
Who the fuck would have thought?

>>2893655
the position of the particle in space or time cant have an effect, nor can how long the particle existent or its spin state or its movement. what else is there?

>>2893684
Hidden variables don't exist.

>>2893691
Prove it.

>>2893684
the point is that they're so hidden they're even hidden from the particles they influence, ie they dont exist

>>2893694
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

>>2893704
Predictable. But definitely doesn't prove the non-existence of hidden variables. Just supports it.

>>2893684
hidden variables arnt compatible with our experimental results

>>2893656
>rickety models
our models are accurate to within a factor of a billionth, using it we could predict things that were only discovered 40 years after it was predicted and you call it "rickety models". what the hell does a model have to do to be a good model then?

>>2893691
>LOCAL hidden variables don't exist
fixed

>>2893710
Well, if you're going to take that route, you can't objectively disprove something's existence. Unless you think God is a hidden variable.

>>2893723
Exactly. And until someone can propose a mechanism by which matter can do different things in exactly the same conditions, hidden variables are still a viable alternative.

>>2893732
We already have a mechanism though. Atomic orbital theory is based off probability yet we still get results to a ridiculously accurate degree. Evidence points to probability. You can't "disprove" atomic determinism, but there's a point when it's pointless to support. You can't just say there's a magical force influencing reality, but it's "hidden." The burden of proof was on Einstein and his buddies, and they never came up with a satisfactory answer. No one really has. That's why the dominant quantum theory is based off the Uncertainty Principle.

>>2893732
we already have a mechanism, it that particles form linear superpositions. im going to explain a experiment and the superposition explanation, and you tell me how a hidden variable can explain that:

take a K0 meson (made from down and anti strange) now the d and anti-s quarks can exchange a W- boson and turn into anti-d and s quarks turning the K0 into its antiparticle (K0bar)
but this happens internal so it cant be detected, thus it forms a superposition of the 2 particles. this superposition can be taken in 2 forms; KL (long) and KS (short) with different half lives and parity, meaning it decays into different particles.

>>2893770

Of course orbitals don't actually exist... but they model reality really well.

>>2893712
>we could predict things that were only discovered 40 years after it was predicted and you call it "rickety models". what the hell does a model have to do to be a good model then?
Leaving behind the necessity to jump on one foot while rubbing your belly while solving problems. That doesn't exactly happen obviously, but how many fucking things does alpha stand for? And why?

And discarding that as a "function > form" thing is idiotic, because they are obviously inter-related. For instance, the rampant notation redundancy inhibits cross-field growth.

>>2893783
>really well some of the time

>>2893781
Are you saying that it is impossible for quarks and bosons to have dynamic properties?

This thread is full of motherfuckers who have obviously never taken a physics course or an optics course.