General -  Where God Came From (12502 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
 
From: NETIZEN_JDec-26 3:14 PM 
To: srragland  (596 of 1328) 
 14694.596 in reply to 14694.566 

>To try to equate religion with science is the fallacy of false equivalency.<

No, what is 'false equivalence' is pretending that 'spiritual reality' is equivalent to 'reality'.

In reality, there are no spirits.

N_J

 

 
From: NETIZEN_JDec-26 3:26 PM 
To: YoungGandalf DelphiPlus Member Icon  (597 of 1328) 
 14694.597 in reply to 14694.595 

Okay - so between the two of you - maybe you can help me out here.  What's this about 'spooky action at a distance' as Einstein put it with respect to 'entanglement'?

This is what I've got, tell me how I'm wrong:

we can break up a something into an A-part and a B-part in such a way as to separate the two, but not know which is which.

We can then send one of the two parts way far away.

And then, by looking at the part that we have close to home, and seeing that it's the A-part, we have now determined that the part that's way far away is the on that's the B-part.

That doesn't seem all that miraculous or reality-bending to me, so apparently I'm missing something!

N_J

 

 
From: YoungGandalf DelphiPlus Member IconDec-26 3:49 PM 
To: NETIZEN_J  (598 of 1328) 
 14694.598 in reply to 14694.597 

I don’t know that Einstein said that about entanglement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance

What he did address can easily and meaningfully be applied to entanglement though.

Entanglement does not just refer to two objects. It deals with the quantum mechanical wavefunction of two objects, so the objects have to be elementary particles. At least, no one can work out how it would play out for macroscopic objects. At any rate, entanglement is the result of a mixed wavefunction. Perhaps you have heard about Schrödinger’s Cat? Its state between death and life is such a mixed wavefunction.

One intended purpose in information technology aims at unbreakable encryption. Another at faster computing. The spooky action at a distance comes in from the mixed wavefunction not changing during the travel to a far away place. If one keeps the counterpart with whom the messenger particle’s wav3function is mixed, then one can manipulate the far away particle instantaneously via manipulating the counterpart one has kept nearby.

The original spooky at a distance was reserved for fields mediating force.

 
 Reply   Options 

 
From: Delphi ForumsSponsored Message 
To: All 
 

 
From: NETIZEN_JDec-26 4:18 PM 
To: YoungGandalf DelphiPlus Member Icon  (599 of 1328) 
 14694.599 in reply to 14694.598 

"Mixed wavefunction" doesn't mean anything.

If you can't explain it like you would to an ten-year old...

"We separate something into an a-part and a b-part."  Is that part wrong?  

>It deals with the quantum mechanical wavefunction of two objects, so the objects have to be elementary particles. At least, no one can work out how it would play out for macroscopic objects.<

But wait, we've seen huge molecules (for molecules!) do the 'wave-icle' thing through the two slit business, yes?

How macro is macro - or is it simply a matter of getting it moving quickly enough?

>Perhaps you have heard about Schrödinger’s Cat?<

Yes, as a thought-experiment to demonstration of how nonsensical it is to pretend that the cat is both alive and not-alive simultaneously, and that it's simply a matter of how we don't yet KNOW which it is until we open the box.  (or seal up the box with wax and wait a half-hour - then we'll *know* that it's dead! - but of course that would be horrid!)

N_J

  • Edited December 26, 2021 4:21 pm  by  NETIZEN_J
 

 
From: YoungGandalf DelphiPlus Member IconDec-26 4:37 PM 
To: NETIZEN_J  (600 of 1328) 
 14694.600 in reply to 14694.599 

I know that the two slit experiment has been done for a number of particles. I am not aware that it was done on larger molecules. The question is a good one though: when does macro start? The answer in a sense is: nowhere specifically.

Zeilinger’s entanglement did originally deal with very small assemblies of particles and the averaging did already lead to quantum behaviors being extinguished. In Quantum Computing, entanglement within molecules like the coffee molecule were used.

https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.456079567.7260/ap,550x550,16x12,1,transparent,t.u1.png

Those are pretty big suckers. Particles do not just “do” waveicle things, they are such. 
Schrödinger’s Cat is anything but a demonstration how nonsensical it is to talk about dead versus alive, it illustrates what the quantum mechanical rules of the universe actually ARE. 

The thought experiment’s effect is so b3cause of the radioactive decay that kills the cat with a certain probability, not because of some weird property of the cat.

 

 
From: srraglandDec-26 9:48 PM 
To: NETIZEN_J  (601 of 1328) 
 14694.601 in reply to 14694.596 

>To try to equate religion with science is the fallacy of false equivalency.<

No, what is 'false equivalence' is pretending that 'spiritual reality' is equivalent to 'reality'.

No, what is 'false equivalence' is pretending that 'material reality' is equivalent to the only 'reality' that exists.

In reality, there are no spirits.

Got any proof of that?  Otherwise it is a bald assertion, a personal opinion.

 

 
From: NETIZEN_JDec-27 8:23 AM 
To: YoungGandalf DelphiPlus Member Icon  (602 of 1328) 
 14694.602 in reply to 14694.600 

>Particles do not just “do” waveicle things, they are such.<

Until they're not, by being part of macro-objects, like bowling balls and animals.

I don't think they've gotten a bacterium to produce a wave-pattern in the 2-slit apparatus.  Would it survive being a 'smear of probability', or would that destroy it as an organism?

"Schrodinger constructed his imaginary experiment with the cat to demonstrate that simple misinterpretations of quantum theory can lead to absurd results which do not match the real world. Unfortunately, many popularizers of science in our day have embraced the absurdity of Schrodinger's Cat and claim that this is how the world really works." (https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/07/30/what-did-schrodingers-cat-experiment-prove/)

N_J

 

 
From: NETIZEN_JDec-27 8:25 AM 
To: srragland  (603 of 1328) 
 14694.603 in reply to 14694.601 

Things that are real leave empirical evidence of that reality.

There is no empirical evidence that suggests that 'spirits' exist.

Thus, the reasonable conclusion is that spirits are imaginary.

QED.

N_J

 

 
From: YoungGandalf DelphiPlus Member IconDec-27 11:01 AM 
To: NETIZEN_J  (604 of 1328) 
 14694.604 in reply to 14694.602 

No, those balls are all waves too. Standing waves, to be precise.

The situation with the cat is more complex than that quote suggests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger%27s_cat
 

It comes down to where you stand on the Copenhagen Interpretation. Most physicist stand firmly behind it in a practical-thinking kind of way, because it is what gives us all these results that make things like computer chips possible. Some newer research explores other ways:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/this-twist-on-schroedingers-cat-paradox-has-major-implications-for-quantum-theory/
“…  proponents of most quantum interpretations will not lose any sleep. Fans of retrocausality, such as himself, have already made peace with superdeterminism: in their view, it is not shocking that future measurements affect past results.“


 

 

 
From: NETIZEN_JDec-27 12:26 PM 
To: YoungGandalf DelphiPlus Member Icon  (605 of 1328) 
 14694.605 in reply to 14694.604 

But, unlike with phthalocyanine we can't get a bowling ball to exhibit the 'interference wave' through the two-slit apparatus, now can we?  Or is that merely a function of our ability to measure really really small differences?

How are computer chips based on the Copenhagen Interpretation?

I thought computer chips were based on the 'tunneling' made possible through 'uncertainty'...

N_J

 

Navigate this discussion: 1-5 6-15 16-25 ... 576-585 586-595 596-605 606-615 616-625 ... 1306-1315 1316-1325 1326-1328
Adjust text size:

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved.