ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th December 2015, 10:53 AM   #1
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
New Theory Claims Quantum Weirdness Only Exists In Our Imagination

New Theory Claims Quantum Weirdness Only Exists in Our Imaginations

http://www.outerplaces.com/science/i...r-imaginations

Quote:
Scientists just came up with the quantum version of the Matrix argument. According to a new theory in theoretical physics, quantum information doesn't have any objective existence, but rather is purely a function of our own minds.

Quantum mechanics satisfactorily explains many of the mysteries of our universe, but also yields many paradoxes. When the wave function, which is key to quantum theory, is treated as real, particles can be in two places at once, information can travel faster than the speed of light (which is impossible according to general relativity), and Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive. But according to Quantum Bayesianism ("QBism" for short), which was first theorized in 2001 but has gained prominence only in the last few years, the wave function is not real, but a state of mind that determines how we interpret quantum systems.

As explained in a new paper in Nature, this theory contends that the wave function is sort of a subjective filter, a paradigm through which an observer sees a quantum system.


I totally agree (and very similar to how the theory of gravity must have a fundamental flaw)

.......................

Last edited by Alan Lowey; 5th December 2015 at 10:54 AM.
Alan Lowey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 10:57 AM   #2
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,811
Good. So quantum physics and gravity are rubbish, but giant multi-trachea'd, jet-powered tail-hopping dragonflies aren't. Do I have that right?
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 11:16 AM   #3
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
New Theory Claims Quantum Weirdness Only Exists in Our Imaginations

http://www.outerplaces.com/science/i...r-imaginations





I totally agree (and very similar to how the theory of gravity must have a fundamental flaw)

.......................
Anyone which pretend that QM is BS without offering a different , better theory explaining the result, can be ignored safely. As for observer the summary make it think as if it is another person which think in QM observer is a human. Not really, it is the act of interacting with the system to extract a measurement. In a way it is simply an interaction, as many other happen. Whether a human exists or not, a double slit experiment would give the same result.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 11:23 AM   #4
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Good. So quantum physics and gravity are rubbish, but giant multi-trachea'd, jet-powered tail-hopping dragonflies aren't. Do I have that right?

No, you haven't got it quite right. The work leading up to the current yet incompatible theories of gravity and quantum mechanics is invaluable, not rubbish. It's just that the mathematics involved even in Newtonian gravity has been treated as 'god-given', yet is only a simplistic guess at how planets move around the Sun. There's a distinct possibility that 'exotic matter' exists at the center of celestial bodies for example. No-one in Newton's time would have even considered such a concept.

I can even show how the 100,000yr ice-age cycle can be attributed to the inclination cycle of how the Earth orbits the Sun. I propose that it's an additional gravitational pull from exotic matter cores which creates oceanic plankton plumes which is the real cause of the global overall temperature drops. Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is extracted from the Earth's atmosphere which therefore gives the opposite effect of global warming i,e. global cooling. I suspect that the overall insolation increases and despite the drop in temperature, plant life in general blooms which gives rise to the multitude of Pleistocene megabeasts found by fossil evidence.


.............

Last edited by Alan Lowey; 5th December 2015 at 11:24 AM.
Alan Lowey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 11:34 AM   #5
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,439
The quote in the OP shows a serious lack of understanding of quantum theory and what it does and does not claim. The quote appears to be based on reading about quantum theory exclusively in Newsweek or Time magazine. Does the actual citation show any real comprehension of what it criticizes?

I would also note that even the aspects of quantum theory that are counter-intuitive compared to how we perceive the macroscopic world are not therefore in any way "silly" or "must be wrong." Quantum theory essentially states that we should see things as we do, but that at the extremely small there are additional effects that differ from our expectations. It is no different than the well accepted concept that physical objects are made of atoms: at a macroscopic level they appear solid (enough to kill you if they are a bullet launched at your head) but at a sub-microscopic level atoms are mostly empty space.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 11:39 AM   #6
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,439
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
No, you haven't got it quite right. The work leading up to the current yet incompatible theories of gravity and quantum mechanics is invaluable, not rubbish. It's just that the mathematics involved even in Newtonian gravity has been treated as 'god-given', yet is only a simplistic guess at how planets move around the Sun. There's a distinct possibility that 'exotic matter' exists at the center of celestial bodies for example. No-one in Newton's time would have even considered such a concept.

I can even show how the 100,000yr ice-age cycle can be attributed to the inclination cycle of how the Earth orbits the Sun. I propose that it's an additional gravitational pull from exotic matter cores which creates oceanic plankton plumes which is the real cause of the global overall temperature drops. Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is extracted from the Earth's atmosphere which therefore gives the opposite effect of global warming i,e. global cooling. I suspect that the overall insolation increases and despite the drop in temperature, plant life in general blooms which gives rise to the multitude of Pleistocene megabeasts found by fossil evidence.


.............
One can explain anything if one postulates non-existent effects. In math there is a concept of a power series in which one can duplicate the shape of almost any curve by using enough terms and exponents, but power series are not based on nor help one understand the basis of, a given physical reality. So the ability to duplicate an event by implicating effects and entities that do not exist or are insufficient to account for the event does not provide a viable explanation for it.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 11:44 AM   #7
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,647
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
No, you haven't got it quite right. The work leading up to the current yet incompatible theories of gravity and quantum mechanics is invaluable, not rubbish. It's just that the mathematics involved even in Newtonian gravity has been treated as 'god-given', yet is only a simplistic guess at how planets move around the Sun. There's a distinct possibility that 'exotic matter' exists at the center of celestial bodies for example. No-one in Newton's time would have even considered such a concept.

I can even show how the 100,000yr ice-age cycle can be attributed to the inclination cycle of how the Earth orbits the Sun. I propose that it's an additional gravitational pull from exotic matter cores which creates oceanic plankton plumes which is the real cause of the global overall temperature drops. Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is extracted from the Earth's atmosphere which therefore gives the opposite effect of global warming i,e. global cooling. I suspect that the overall insolation increases and despite the drop in temperature, plant life in general blooms which gives rise to the multitude of Pleistocene megabeasts found by fossil evidence.


.............
Please do. Show all your calculations.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 11:58 AM   #8
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,439
I was intrigued by the "Nature" aspect of the citation within the citation, because Nature, although periodically publishing crap (e.g. stress induction of somatic stem cells, since retracted in a big scandal), usually publishes real science papers. In following it up, no scientific analysis in presented in the Nature citation as suggested, but only a News and Comment article which, as part of a much longer text, cites Fuchs as one of many people attempting to modify quantum theory. In fact, the News and Comment cites a prior News and Comment. which does much the same sort of thing, creating an strange-type of non-quantum entanglement I guess.

This was a brief reference by a journalist, not a scientist, probably just to generate a chatty type of column. But this just illustrates the danger of even this- it will be used to validate theories in the absence of any data just due to a citation of the existence of the theory in a "real" scientific journal.

By the way- even the Nature news article is from 2013, hardly "new." And much of it refers to papers in 2001.

Last edited by Giordano; 5th December 2015 at 12:01 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 12:03 PM   #9
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
One can explain anything if one postulates non-existent effects. In math there is a concept of a power series in which one can duplicate the shape of almost any curve by using enough terms and exponents, but power series are not based on nor help one understand the basis of, a given physical reality. So the ability to duplicate an event by implicating effects and entities that do not exist or are insufficient to account for the event does not provide a viable explanation for it.
Epicycles, again?
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 12:14 PM   #10
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,003
Generally, this is not a place to put out non-research based articles from a column that is not peer evaluated. That kind of source tends to get squashed - real peer researched and well established sources tend to dominate. Not sure why (joke)but actual hard core, well researched and experimented/mathmaticed tends to do much better here...........
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 05:27 PM   #11
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,319
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
As explained in a new paper in Nature, this theory contends that the wave function is sort of a subjective filter, a paradigm through which an observer sees a quantum system.
They are right. Your problem is that you don't understand what they are saying (and very similar to why your theory of gravity has a fundamental flaw).
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 05:40 PM   #12
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,373
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
New Theory Claims Quantum Weirdness Only Exists in Our Imaginations

http://www.outerplaces.com/science/i...r-imaginations


I totally agree (and very similar to how the theory of gravity must have a fundamental flaw)

.......................
That's a freaking relief to know.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 02:05 AM   #13
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,781
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
That's a freaking relief to know.
Quite. Deepak Chopra's going to have to find a new job.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 10:05 AM   #14
Hercules Rockefeller
Woof!
 
Hercules Rockefeller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,912
Quote:
New Theory Claims Quantum Weirdness Only Exists in Our Imaginations

http://www.outerplaces.com/science/i...r-imaginations

Quote:
Scientists just came up with the quantum version of the Matrix argument. According to a new theory in theoretical physics, quantum information doesn't have any objective existence, but rather is purely a function of our own minds.

Quantum mechanics satisfactorily explains many of the mysteries of our universe, but also yields many paradoxes. When the wave function, which is key to quantum theory, is treated as real, particles can be in two places at once, information can travel faster than the speed of light (which is impossible according to general relativity), and Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive. But according to Quantum Bayesianism ("QBism" for short), which was first theorized in 2001 but has gained prominence only in the last few years, the wave function is not real, but a state of mind that determines how we interpret quantum systems.

As explained in a new paper in Nature, this theory contends that the wave function is sort of a subjective filter, a paradigm through which an observer sees a quantum system.


I totally agree (and very similar to how the theory of gravity must have a fundamental flaw)

.......................
Nonsense.
__________________
Quantum physics means that anything can happen at anytime and for no reason. Also, eat plenty of oatmeal, and animals never had a war! - Deepak Chopra
Hercules Rockefeller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 10:17 AM   #15
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,863
I suspect that to get an accurate description of this new theory, we would have to read the actual article from Nature, instead of a description found on outerplaces.com.

The only problem is that articles in Nature are usually very hard to read.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 10:44 AM   #16
The_Animus
Master Poster
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,578
Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller View Post
Nonsense.
I thought this was true in a sense via quantum entanglement.
__________________
Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Moving the Goalposts, and a massive post count are all good indicators that a poster is intellectually dishonest and not interested in real discussion.

Feeding trolls only makes them stronger, yet it is so hard to refrain.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 10:47 AM   #17
Lukraak_Sisser
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,963
They do have some point.
It's only in our imagination that quantum effects are weird because it runs counter to what we can observe with out own senses.

Of course, just because we find it weird does not make it any less real.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 11:00 AM   #18
Hercules Rockefeller
Woof!
 
Hercules Rockefeller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,912
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
I thought this was true in a sense via quantum entanglement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

Quote:
In physics, the no-communication theorem is a no-go theorem from quantum information theory which states that, during measurement of an entangled quantum state, it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer. The theorem is important because, in quantum mechanics, quantum entanglement is an effect by which certain widely separated events can be correlated in ways that suggest the possibility of instantaneous communication. The no-communication theorem gives conditions under which such transfer of information between two observers is impossible. These results can be applied to understand the so-called paradoxes in quantum mechanics, such as the EPR paradox, or violations of local realism obtained in tests of Bell's theorem. In these experiments, the no-communication theorem shows that failure of local realism does not lead to what could be referred to as "spooky communication at a distance" (in analogy with Einstein's labeling of quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance").
__________________
Quantum physics means that anything can happen at anytime and for no reason. Also, eat plenty of oatmeal, and animals never had a war! - Deepak Chopra
Hercules Rockefeller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 01:20 PM   #19
TheAdversary
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,548
'Although this may sound completely out-there, it's no more bizarre than quantum theory itself, and it resolves
many of the paradoxes associated with quantum mechanics very neatly. When the wave function is treated as
imaginary, the new equations for calculating probability within quantum systems are much simpler, and are actually
nearly the same as classical probability. As a result, the wave function "may well be the most powerful
abstraction we have ever found," said N. David Mermin, a theoretical physicist at Cornell University and a recent
convert to QBism.'

Although my theory of 'giant multi-trachea'd, jet-powered tail-hopping dragonflies' may sound completely out there
so does QM, so ...
And are they then saying that if you treat waves using complex numbers your equations simplify? And they think
that's something new due to the 'imaginary' name given to the unit that squares to -1? And with 'nearly the same
as classical probability' they mean that it becomes a PDF? I wonder what non-classical probability looks like.
"may well be the most powerful abstraction we have ever found" It is well-known that standard PDFs and measurements
QM is one of the most, if not the most, successful scientific theories ever. How's this related to QBism?
All are generally true statements on standard QM, thoroughly confused.

PDFs and measurements, man. I've been saying this all along.

I haven't even looked at what 'Quantum Bayesianism' means in a broader context than this tabloid, but it sure
sounds evil already
TheAdversary is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 01:54 PM   #20
TheAdversary
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,548
'information can travel faster than the speed of light'

Nonsense, indeed. The keyword is 'information'. All the outcomes are random; You have no control over them.
You can compare them later on, and they'll turn out to be the same but that doesn't qualify of course.
In order to send information across, the outcomes of the measurements must be somehow not-random.
Eve online has interesting theories on this ...
TheAdversary is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 02:12 PM   #21
Lennart Hyland
Muse
 
Lennart Hyland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 548
About "information", how is that quantified?
__________________
L.H 1919 - 1993 R.I.P

Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views. David Scott - CTBUH Chairman
Lennart Hyland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 02:27 PM   #22
TheAdversary
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,548
Good question. I thought Shannon Information Theory was used for this. Its formulation of Entropy is very
similar to physics'.
TheAdversary is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 03:04 PM   #23
TheAdversary
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,548
I've looked into this Quantum Bayesianism on Wikipedia. Subjectivity implies that the measurement determined by
probability in the theory could be different for different observers. The problem is that in even asking this
question you're implying the need for a more detailed mechanism for where the measurement actually comes from.
The math just says : After that, randomness. Whatever that means. Otherwise you would not even need PDFs in the
first place. So you're always stuck trying to define pure chance beyond the treatment provided by the mathematical
formalisms. This cannot but be invalid.
Many people don't agree with me on this, though ...
TheAdversary is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 03:52 PM   #24
TheAdversary
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,548
They try to out find whether or not Born's rule can be derived from more generalized treatments of probability,
which is fine. But it's still probability. Where the decision is made by pure chance, that's where the new
'collapse' must occur. It just regresses. They must hope therefore that the observer problem, maybe even the
conscious Observer, can be explained by this. Maybe they even hope for the tiniest shred of evidence for a
'mystical' interpretation of QM. They have to, because the observer or measurement problem just regresses along!
To put in another way, if the measurement problem in QM disappears, probability must have disappeared.
I think that if you require a mystical interpretation of the conscious Observer, QM is a dead end. The math already
tells you this. Quantum consciousness is bunk! But many disagree ...
TheAdversary is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 04:52 PM   #25
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,487
The weirdness exists in our conceptions, not our imaginations. In our imaginations QM isn't weird at all - it's the universe we perceive which needs explanation, given what it derives from. What we perceive as normality is actually a set of emergent phaenoemena.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 04:55 PM   #26
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,487
Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland View Post
About "information", how is that quantified?
Wouldn't you like to know.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 04:56 PM   #27
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,487
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
They do have some point.
It's only in our imagination that quantum effects are weird because it runs counter to what we can observe with out own senses.

Of course, just because we find it weird does not make it any less real.
Ah, you got there before me.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 05:10 PM   #28
The Nimble Pianist
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco, California Republic
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I suspect that to get an accurate description of this new theory, we would have to read the actual article from Nature, instead of a description found on outerplaces.com.

The only problem is that articles in Nature are usually very hard to read.
I clicked the link to the "paper" provided in the article by the site "Outer Places" in the OP and it's actually a Scientific American article. It's pop-sci. The original author Hans Christian von Baeyer actually uses the overly simplified and incoherent verbiage provided in the OP, such as "QBism maintains that the wave function is solely a mathematical tool that an observer uses to assign his or her personal belief that a quantum system will have a specific property". I can't seem to make any sense of this at all. Maybe I'm just dense. Does anyone know of any literature about QBism that is more helpful?
The Nimble Pianist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 05:53 PM   #29
DevilsAdvocate
Illuminator
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,678
I think I get it. This seems much more like philosophy than physics.

We put a fair coin in a box and shake it up. This is saying under the Copenhagen interpretation, the coin is both heads and tails—it is in a state of a wave function/probability. When we open the box and see the result, the wave function collapse and the coin becomes either heads or tails.

Under QBism, the coin in the box is actually in a state of either heads or tails. Because we can’t see the coin we have limited information. So we create for ourselves an informational wave function/probability. When we open the box and see the state of the coin, we gain information, which collapses our informational wave function/probability to a single point of information.

So, QBism says QM is not about a certain nature of reality but rather all about this non-real, subjective information that we construct.

OK. But where does that get us?

1. A commenter on an article about Fuchs made this comment: If a tree falls in the forest, it makes the air vibrate, but “sound” requires an observer. Is QBism anything more than a Wittgensteinian re-description of QM? Does it matter if we say the wave function is the “state” of the coin or “information” about the state of the coin?

2. Is this anything more than navel gazing about the philosophical nature of probability? Isn’t this just a fundamental question of whether a probability is something that is “real” or just “information”? Does the answer to the question matter?

3. Feynman said could not explain how quantum particles work, but he could describe how they work. Is QBism giving in and saying we will only work with the descriptions and forget about looking for the explanations?

4. Can QBism provide us with a useful interpretation that doesn’t conflict with Relativity and Bell’s Theorems?

5. Is this dualism? Instead of a brain and mind, we get a quantum state and information. Does QBism define the relationship between information and…um…reality? Or does QBism claim there is no reality and only information? If so, how does QBism explain the generation of information? The wave functions and probabilities used by QM aren’t just fanciful constructions. Human consciousness or awareness or observation or information does not affect quantum particles. But quantum particles direct human information. So it seems there must be “something” other than pure information that…um….informs(?) that information.
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 06:16 PM   #30
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Quite. Deepak Chopra's going to have to find a new job.
Does Depak Chopra currently have a job
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2015, 06:33 PM   #31
DevilsAdvocate
Illuminator
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,678
Originally Posted by The Nimble Pianist View Post
I clicked the link to the "paper" provided in the article by the site "Outer Places" in the OP and it's actually a Scientific American article. It's pop-sci. The original author Hans Christian von Baeyer actually uses the overly simplified and incoherent verbiage provided in the OP, such as "QBism maintains that the wave function is solely a mathematical tool that an observer uses to assign his or her personal belief that a quantum system will have a specific property". I can't seem to make any sense of this at all. Maybe I'm just dense. Does anyone know of any literature about QBism that is more helpful?
As I understand it:

Let’s say we shoot a photon out here and put a photon detector over there. QM dictates there is some probability that the photon will hit the detector. QBism says we should not interpret this as the photon possessing some magical substance or frequency or whatever that gives it this probability. The photon does not “have” a probability. The probability is not “in” the photon. The probability is our personal belief that the photon will hit the detector—that the photon/detector system will have a specific property. QM is a mathematical tool that is used to assign this probability.

I found this article helpful:

“A Private View of Quantum Reality”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150...sianism-qbism/
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 03:31 AM   #32
TheAdversary
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,548
'Does Deepak Chopra currently have a job?'

Deepak Chopra has an estimated net worth of $80 million.
TheAdversary is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 03:37 AM   #33
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,685
I suppose con artist could technically be considered a job.

On Planet X.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 06:24 AM   #34
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,108
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
As I understand it:

Let’s say we shoot a photon out here and put a photon detector over there. QM dictates there is some probability that the photon will hit the detector. QBism says we should not interpret this as the photon possessing some magical substance or frequency or whatever that gives it this probability. The photon does not “have” a probability. The probability is not “in” the photon. The probability is our personal belief that the photon will hit the detector—that the photon/detector system will have a specific property. QM is a mathematical tool that is used to assign this probability.

I found this article helpful:

“A Private View of Quantum Reality”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150...sianism-qbism/
1 What is the source of our belief that the photon detector has certain particular properties, and not others?
2 If our beliefs changed, would the probability of the photon being observed at the detector also change?

2 above must be so, if you are right in stating that the probability is our belief. Does that apply to dice? If the probability of the outcome of a throw is my belief, then I stand to win heap wampum in the nearest casino, unless the other players' beliefs are also a factor.

What if two observers have different beliefs? To which of them does the detector, or die, pay attention?

Last edited by Craig B; 7th December 2015 at 06:26 AM.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 07:16 AM   #35
TheAdversary
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,548
'On Planet X.'

Why Planet X? Here on Earth, due to our market and consumerism driven society, a large part of the population earns their money selling nonsense.
They're just not as successful as Chopra. He's a con artist who laughs all the way to the bank
Sure, Chopra's deceptive, but so is most advertising, marketing etc. All trying to convince you to buy s*** you don't actually need.
When you laugh at him for not having a job, and that his philosophy is bonkers, I'm sure he just takes of his glasses and starts counting
the (real) diamonds set in there. And afterwards, he calls Oprah Winfrey for their next soul cleansing swim-in-money session
TheAdversary is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:18 AM   #36
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,573
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
New Theory Claims Quantum Weirdness Only Exists in Our Imaginations

http://www.outerplaces.com/science/i...r-imaginations





I totally agree (and very similar to how the theory of gravity must have a fundamental flaw)

.......................
yeah too bad that all the predictions and explanations provided by QM and it's attendant theories are so amazing accurate

__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 01:40 PM   #37
TheAdversary
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,548
'yeah too bad that all the predictions and explanations provided by QM and it's attendant theories are so amazing
accurate'

It's a denial of objective reality in disguise. Quantum Weirdness doesn't mean that reality is subjective, all of a
sudden. It's a limit on our ability to predict reality, not to deny its objectivity.
A very real experiment always lies at the end of the argument.
They should be able to show an observer dependent measurement outcome. Can they show this in a lab?
TheAdversary is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 06:05 PM   #38
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,762
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
I think I get it. This seems much more like philosophy than physics.

We put a fair coin in a box and shake it up. This is saying under the Copenhagen interpretation, the coin is both heads and tails—it is in a state of a wave function/probability. When we open the box and see the result, the wave function collapse and the coin becomes either heads or tails.

Under QBism, the coin in the box is actually in a state of either heads or tails. Because we can’t see the coin we have limited information. So we create for ourselves an informational wave function/probability. When we open the box and see the state of the coin, we gain information, which collapses our informational wave function/probability to a single point of information.
That sounds very much like a hidden variables approach, which as I understand it, has been ruled out.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2015, 09:16 AM   #39
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,573
Originally Posted by TheAdversary View Post
'yeah too bad that all the predictions and explanations provided by QM and it's attendant theories are so amazing
accurate'

It's a denial of objective reality in disguise. Quantum Weirdness doesn't mean that reality is subjective, all of a
sudden. It's a limit on our ability to predict reality, not to deny its objectivity.
A very real experiment always lies at the end of the argument.
They should be able to show an observer dependent measurement outcome. Can they show this in a lab?
Observation in QM does not involve a subject/object, it involves an interaction/detection.

Such as the double slit experiment, it is not an 'observation' that causes the electron to 'go through' only one slit. It is placing a detector at one of the slits that does so.

There is 'observation' of the arrival destination of the electron at the final detector the whole time. In the case of no detector at the slit the progression of electrons shows an 'interference' patterns over time, in their distribution at the final detector.

But when you place a detector at one slit, the progressive patterns shows two arrival lines at the detection sheet.

So in all cases there is the 'observation' of the location of the interaction between the progression of electrons and the final detector, it is only the interaction of the detector at the slit which causes the loss of 'interference'.

But they are both 'observations', one is detection of the location of the electrons as they arrive at the final detector. The other is the 'observation' of which slit the electron passes, through detection.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2015, 09:21 AM   #40
Modified
Philosopher
 
Modified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,401
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Observation in QM does not involve a subject/object, it involves an interaction/detection.

Such as the double slit experiment, it is not an 'observation' that causes the electron to 'go through' only one slit. It is placing a detector at one of the slits that does so.

There is 'observation' of the arrival destination of the electron at the final detector the whole time. In the case of no detector at the slit the progression of electrons shows an 'interference' patterns over time, in their distribution at the final detector.

But when you place a detector at one slit, the progressive patterns shows two arrival lines at the detection sheet.

So in all cases there is the 'observation' of the location of the interaction between the progression of electrons and the final detector, it is only the interaction of the detector at the slit which causes the loss of 'interference'.

But they are both 'observations', one is detection of the location of the electrons as they arrive at the final detector. The other is the 'observation' of which slit the electron passes, through detection.
It appears TheAdversary meant to say "conscious-observer-dependent".
Modified is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:30 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.