“The Unravelling of Space-Time”

[steve_bank]

.A coin toss is the same principle. A wave function can be derived to model the toss.

The way I remember it put is as you go from quantum to Newtonian scale the density of states is such that it appears continuous. Like a piece of copper. What we seen as a Newtonian scale block of metal is the superposition of all the instantaneous states of each atom in the block.

The problem with QM is the relative energies. In electronics it usually easy to s reduce the interaction of apparatus and what is being measured such that the effect is inconsequential.and quantfy the effect of a measurement apparatus.

Put6v a battery at exactly 10 volts acrostwo resistors in series each at exactly 1 ohm and the voltage across each resistor will be exact 5 volts. Put a meter across a resistor to measure the voltage an it will not read exactly 5 volts. The meter reads the voltage due to the subsystem inclusive of the circuit and measure mt apparatus. The input resistance of the meter becomes part of the circuit.

Does what we perceive as a particle in an experiment a a manifestation of the measurement or does the particle exist as we model it?

Regarding the coin toss. Why not consider the entire process, including the state when the coin is in mid-air and its outcome is still undetermined, as part of a single state? Is it not possible that the coin’s undetermined state isn’t just a precursor to the determined state but is itself an essential part of determined state?

The undetermined state is not something that can be directly measured. right? That's telling. We can calculate the probabilities (e.g., 50/50 chance of heads or tails), but we can't definitively capture its exact outcome until the coin lands.

In quantum mechanics, the brainiac's seem to be dealing with probabilities until measurement "collapses" the wave function. So, my taking an uneducated guess, both the undetermined and determined states are part of a unified process, rather than separate states. The states determined/undetermined might seem separate do to some other phenomena giving us that illusion. Could it be that the act of measurement introduces a form of space/time interference, not actually changing the state from undetermined to determined, but instead giving us the illusion that these states are separate? Perhaps the distinction between undetermined and determined states is an artifact of limitations in our measurement tools, rather than a true reflection of our underlying reality?

It reminds me of those old cheap baseball cards you’d find in cereal boxes—when you slowly tilt the card, you can see the batter swing and hit the ball. The image changes as you adjust your perspective, but it’s really just one card showing different phases.

Please forgive me—but my formal education is not strong, my imagination is.

Coin tosses and rolling dice are good examples easy to imagine.

My point is that any physical system is always in a state. In Schrodinger's problem the cat is either dead or alive regardless if we observe it or not.

I had to understand QM for work, to me QM is a set of predictive equations used routinely in electronics. For others it has became a kind of mysticism. Space time is a loaded term invoking scifi images.

Space time is three coordinates in space x,y,z in meters and time in seconds. A continuum means we take it all to be continuous. Space time continuum is a definition not a kind of reality.

Spacetime - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In physics, spacetime, also called the space-time continuum, is a mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum. Spacetime diagrams are useful in visualizing and understanding relativistic effects, such as how different observers perceive where and when events occur.

The problem in QM is the degree of which the experiment apparatus interacts with what is being measured. When we make a measurement and interpret a quantum state does the state exist if we are not measuring? That is a philosophical question, it can not be answers.

What we can say objectively is that wen QM is applied the results much theory.

A gas laser tube can be looked at as a QM rectangular potential well with an infinite barrier on one end and a partial barrier on the other end. Sounds comcated, but it is box with a mirror on one end and a partial mirror the other. Photons, partcles, boiunce back and forth in the box, and sone escaoe out one end. A laser. The solution of the wave equation for the box is sines and cosines. The probabil;ity of a phton being at a certan xyz spot at a time t is predicted by the wavefunction.
\
Nothng realy myserious. Oce you get past tecnical jaergon of QM the overvoew images like coin tosses are simple.

Flipa cn and the result is 50/5 probabilty. Look at a point in a gas laser tube at an imnstant in timne for a photon and there is a probabilty of seeng one.


That is my view.

 

[Gospel]

I think what keeps drawing me in is how these fundamental principles of QM seem to challenge our intuitions about reality. The coin toss analogy, for example, simplifies things down to probabilities, but the fact that QM applies these probabilities to particles we can't directly observe with certainty feels... mind-bending. Like the "cat" in the box. Even if the cat is alive or dead, regardless of observation, it’s still wild to consider that we can’t know which until we observe it—and that uncertainty is built into the equations we use. I can’t help but wonder why. That’s where my curiosity led me to think—maybe our measurements are from the prospective of an observer looking at a lenticular card. One reality manifested in two phases—determined and undetermined. We lack the tools to observe the undetermined directly and can only approach it through mathematics.

I appreciate the clarification on space-time. It’s easy to associate it with sci-fi or mysticism when it’s just a mathematical model—a way of defining coordinates in space and time. That helps ground the concept a lot more, so thank you for that.

 

[steve_bank]

As science progressed there were problems that Newtonian physics and law could not answer,.

Einstein became known for the Photoelectric Effect that indicated light was quantized, the photon.

Millikan demonstrated that electric charge was quantized, the electron. It was an amazing bit of inspiration and deduction.

Oil drop experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quantum mechanics is very small and slow. Newtonian mechanics is large object's like baseballs and planets, relativistic mechanics is very fast.

I used to have a copy of this book. It was written by a group of Japanese students who started out with no math and science.

https://www.amazon.com/What-Quantum-Mechanics-Physics-Adventure/dp/0964350416

What is Quantum Mechanics? A Physics Adventure comprehensively traces the historical development of quantum mechanics, treating a complex subject in a light-hearted, user-friendly manner. It not only introduces the reader to the concepts of quantum mechanics, but also tells the story behind the theories. It is easy to understand for beginners because it was written by people going through the learning process themselves. Yet, even the seasoned scientist will enjoy the controversy and drama as the development of physics unfolds in the book.Dr. Yoichiro Nambu, 2008 Nobel Prize Winner in Physics, served as a senior adviser to the student authors of What is Quantum Mechanics? A Physics Adventure at the Transnational College of LEX throughout their journey of discovery.

 

[DBT]

"Our studies give arguments supporting the statement that the outcome of the coin tossing procedure is fully determined by the initial conditions, i.e., no dynamical uncertainties due to the exponential divergence of initial conditions or fractal basin boundaries have been identified. We analyze the dynamics of general 3D model of a coin. The cases of uniform and nonuniform coins as well as the influence of air resistance and the impacts between the coin and surface are considered."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157308003098

 

[bilby]

"Our studies give arguments supporting the statement that the outcome of the coin tossing procedure is fully determined by the initial conditions, i.e., no dynamical uncertainties due to the exponential divergence of initial conditions or fractal basin boundaries have been identified. We analyze the dynamics of general 3D model of a coin. The cases of uniform and nonuniform coins as well as the influence of air resistance and the impacts between the coin and surface are considered."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157308003098

Why would we take the word of a self-confessed bunch of tossers?

 

[DBT]

"Our studies give arguments supporting the statement that the outcome of the coin tossing procedure is fully determined by the initial conditions, i.e., no dynamical uncertainties due to the exponential divergence of initial conditions or fractal basin boundaries have been identified. We analyze the dynamics of general 3D model of a coin. The cases of uniform and nonuniform coins as well as the influence of air resistance and the impacts between the coin and surface are considered."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157308003098

Why would we take the word of a self-confessed bunch of tossers?

It's how you toss that counts.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes a coin toss is deterministic in that if you know the exact initial conditions and all variables are exactly known the outcome is predictable.

Cup a coin in your hands and shake for a minute, what are the exact initial conditions when the coin is tossed in the air?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Yes a coin toss is deterministic in that if you know the exact initial conditions and all variables are exactly known the outcome is predictable.

And QM would tell you that all variables cannot be exactly known. If you believe that.

 

[pood]

And QM would tell you that all variables cannot be exactly known. If you believe that.

Well that’s the thing, right? A coin toss is still fundamentally quantum, which means you can’t know all the variables even in principle for such a macro event.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes a coin toss is deterministic in that if you know the exact initial conditions and all variables are exactly known the outcome is predictable.

And QM would tell you that all variables cannot be exactly known. If you believe that.

The Uncertainty Pr5inciple says you can not simultaneously maximize knowledge of two conjugate variables. It appears in a spectrum analyzer, time and frequency.

The Fourier uncertainty principle states that a nonzero function and its Fourier transform cannot both be sharply localized. This means that if a function is restricted to a narrow region of space, then its Fourier transform must spread out over a broad region of frequency space.
The uncertainty principle is a general mathematical phenomenon that has many applications, including in quantum mechanics and sound waves:

Quantum mechanics
The uncertainty principle states that the position and momentum of a particle cannot be measured simultaneously.

Sound waves
A pure tone is a sharp spike at a single frequency, while its Fourier transform is a completely delocalized sine wave.

The uncertainty principle is often used to describe the natural tradeoff between the stability and measurability of a system. For example, in Doppler radar, the uncertainty principle limits how well you can measure the position and speed of objects based on the radio waves that bounce off of them.

In electronics measurements there is a fundamental noise floor set by quantum noise in a resistance. It sets the smallest measurement that can be made.

The quantized electron sets a quantum measurement limit.

I am not an expert in QM, I needed to have some undertaking for work.

A chaotic system is deterministic and causal, but initial conditions can not be defined enough to predict lomg term outcomes. Local weather is an example.

Chaos can be demonstraed by experiment.

 

[pood]

A chaotic system is deterministic and causal, but initial conditions can not be defined enough to predict lomg term outcomes. Local weather is an example.

Chaos can be demonstraed by experiment.

That’s right, but in QM it really is indeterministic. But probabilities can be calculated.

 

[steve_bank]

I know this is a philosophy thread and terms are used loosely, but indeterminate has a spefific mathematical meaning.

Nothing to do with probabilities. In mechanics here bis class of problems called statically indeterminate. Number of variables and number of equations do not match.

Indeterminate equation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The question of probability versus deterministic is much broader than QM.

You sit in front of the doorway of a business and record each time a customer enters and leaves. Given enough data you can find a probability of a number of customers in the store at any time during the day

Why somebody enters and leaves the store is not knowable(causalities), but probabilities can be derived. You can not predict exactly when a customer enters or leaves the store, but you can find a probably for any time of the day.

Likewise exactlywhen uranium emits a particle is not knowable, but we can find a probability versus time.

Stochastic Systems

Stochastic process - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[pood]

Well, probabilities in QM are calculated by the Born rule. Indeterministic as a description of this is often used to distinguish it from the determinism of classical physics.

 

[bilby]

That's the problem with your average Quantum Mechanic. He thinks he was Born to rule, because he didn't study the classics.

 

[steve_bank]

Well, probabilities in QM are calculated by the Born rule. Indeterministic as a description of this is often used to distinguish it from the determinism of classical physics.

The general idea of the example holds regardless.

QM is a matemnatcal odel of relaity not telity itself.

It is more p[philosophical interpretation than hard science. Is an electron as we model it or is an artifact of measurement and dies it exist as an electron we we are not measuring it?

All we really know is what macro scale instruments tell us, the rest is a lost supposition. We can not isolate and test an isolated electron. What we know objectively is that QM is proven in that we can use it to design lasers and transistors.

My view is from something by Carver Meade, not as well known as others but did a lot of early work on sold state electronics.

'I do not know if an electron exists, but I know I can do useful things with the concept. An electron can be as large or as small as it needs to be'.

Notes on Quantum Indeterminacy

In the early days of QI, the physicists seemed to be making that mistake. Some of them claimed that QI was an implication of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Heisenberg pointed out that we can measure an electron's position, but in doing so we destroy any possibility of measuring it's momentum, and vice versa. So the combination of position and momentum of an electron is uncertain.

Notice that "uncertainty" is a characteristic that is an epistemological concept -- it is defined in terms of knowability. The argument seemed to be Uncertainty, therefore Quantum Indeterminacy:

We can't know both an electron's position and momentum, therefore an electron does not have a determinate position and momentum. (If we can't know it, it doesn't exist.)

But that was a mistake, and physicists now think more like this:

We can't know both an electron's position and momentum because electrons do not have simultaneous determinate positions and momentums.

In other words, QI, therefore Uncertainty. (You can't know something that doesn't have a determinate truth.)

There are things we can measure directly, and things we can not. What actually goes on inside an atom is not knowable, or indeterminate if you prefer.

It is rightly in philosophy forum. How do we know something?

I read Popper;s book on objective knowledge. The only thing we can consider objective scientific knowledge is the result of an experiment. As debate expands arou8nd experiment it becomes less objective. Ecdenced by the link, philopshcal debate aroud QM.

 

[pood]

Well, probabilities in QM are calculated by the Born rule. Indeterministic as a description of this is often used to distinguish it from the determinism of classical physics.

The general idea of the example holds regardless.

QM is a matemnatcal odel of relaity not telity itself.

It is more p[philosophical interpretation than hard science. Is an electron as we model it or is an artifact of measurement and dies it exist as an electron we we are not measuring it?

All we really know is what macro scale instruments tell us, the rest is a lost supposition. We can not isolate and test an isolated electron. What we know objectively is that QM is proven in that we can use it to design lasers and transistors.

My view is from something by Carver Meade, not as well known as others but did a lot of early work on sold state electronics.

'I do not know if an electron exists, but I know I can do useful things with the concept. An electron can be as large or as small as it needs to be'.

Notes on Quantum Indeterminacy

In the early days of QI, the physicists seemed to be making that mistake. Some of them claimed that QI was an implication of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Heisenberg pointed out that we can measure an electron's position, but in doing so we destroy any possibility of measuring it's momentum, and vice versa. So the combination of position and momentum of an electron is uncertain.

Notice that "uncertainty" is a characteristic that is an epistemological concept -- it is defined in terms of knowability. The argument seemed to be Uncertainty, therefore Quantum Indeterminacy:

We can't know both an electron's position and momentum, therefore an electron does not have a determinate position and momentum. (If we can't know it, it doesn't exist.)

But that was a mistake, and physicists now think more like this:

We can't know both an electron's position and momentum because electrons do not have simultaneous determinate positions and momentums.

In other words, QI, therefore Uncertainty. (You can't know something that doesn't have a determinate truth.)

There are things we can measure directly, and things we can not. What actually goes on inside an atom is not knowable, or indeterminate if you prefer.

It is rightly in philosophy forum. How do we know something?

I read Popper;s book on objective knowledge. The only thing we can consider objective scientific knowledge is the result of an experiment. As debate expands arou8nd experiment it becomes less objective. Ecdenced by the link, philopshcal debate aroud QM.

I think the gist of what you quote pertains to the early dispute over whether the indeterminancy of QM was ontological or epistemological, and the consensus now seems to be that it is ontological — it’s not a matter of what we can or can’t know, (epistemic) it’s a matter of there being literally nothing to know outside of a measurement (ontic)

If we want to remove science from philosophy, it can’t be done. Science is shot through with metaphysical assumptions.

If we want to say “shut up and calculate,” which is the Copenhagen view of QM, that’s OK, but it is also giving up on any attempt to discover what nature is “really” like, if that is even possible. That’s one thing Einstein didn’t like, and one of the reasons he opposed the QM he helped discover.

All the quantum oddities, I think, are introduced by the wave function collapse. Take that away and qm becomes fully local, realistic and deterministic. But there is no way to test competing meta-theories of collapse vs. non-collapse. Maybe there will be someday, and as a matter of fact I was recently reading a study that disconfirmed Bohmian qm.

Finally there is superdeterminism, championed by the physicist Sabine Hossenfelder as a replacement for QM. In it, the world is fully pre-determined at the big bang. This means, among other things, that it was pre-determined at the big bang that any test we make of qm will falsely yield indeterministic results. How Hossenfelder thinks such a conspiracy of nature should arise eludes me. She also claims superdeterminism is testable, but so far as I know no such test as been made and anyway, such a test would be worthless, as would all scientific tests, if superdeterminism is true.

 

[DBT]

A work in progress, it seems.

"Recent experiments have mobilized the extreme sensitivity of particle physics instruments to test the idea that the “collapse” of quantum possibilities into a single classical reality is not just a mathematical convenience but a real physical process — an idea called “physical collapse.” The experiments find no evidence of the effects predicted by at least the simplest varieties of these collapse models."

Physics Experiments Spell Doom for Quantum ‘Collapse’ Theory | Quanta Magazine

Physical-collapse theories have long offered a natural solution to the central mystery of the quantum world. But a series of increasingly precise experiments are making them untenable.

www.quantamagazine.org

 

[pood]

A work in progress, it seems.

"Recent experiments have mobilized the extreme sensitivity of particle physics instruments to test the idea that the “collapse” of quantum possibilities into a single classical reality is not just a mathematical convenience but a real physical process — an idea called “physical collapse.” The experiments find no evidence of the effects predicted by at least the simplest varieties of these collapse models."

Physics Experiments Spell Doom for Quantum ‘Collapse’ Theory | Quanta Magazine

Physical-collapse theories have long offered a natural solution to the central mystery of the quantum world. But a series of increasingly precise experiments are making them untenable.

www.quantamagazine.org

The article doesn’t really address this, but if “physical collapse” models are ruled out, doesn’t that just leave us with the no-collapse model of the many worlds interpretation? As the article notes, collapse is nowhere to be found in QM. Collapse and the statistical Born Rule are put in ad hoc.

 

[DBT]

Who knows....the de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave model seems to have been ruled out, but there are several objective collapse theories.