The state of quantum mechanics....

Discussion in 'Environment' started by SSDD, Jan 10, 2013.

  1. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,934
    Thanks Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,543
    There are a few on this board who will dive straight into quantum mechanics as soon as the idea of a cool object further warming a warm object is called into question.....and they speak of quantum mechanics as if it, like climate science is "settled" science.

    A recent survey was done and it seems that insofar as quantum mechanics goes, there is little that the "experts" agree on. This belief that any science is settled and not subject to question seems to be one of the more serious symptoms of postmodern science.

    This poll was given to the participants of a quantum foundations confrence. Here are some of the results...

    Randomness of quantum processes (e.g. decay of nuclei) is:

    •64%: fundamental
    •48%: irreducible
    •9%: only apparent
    •0%: masking a hidden determinism

    Do objects have well-defined properties before measurements?

    •52%: yes, in some cases
    •48%: no
    •9%: undecided
    •3%: always

    Einstein's view on quantum mechanics is:

    •64%: wrong
    •12%: will be shown wrong
    •12%: we don't know
    •6%: will be shown right
    •0%: is right

    Bohr's view on quantum mechanics is:

    •30%: we have to wait
    •27%: wrong
    •21%: correct
    •9%: will be shown right
    •3%: will be shown wrong


    A similar split appears when it comes to the measurement problem:

    •39%: solved (now or later) in a different way
    •27%: a pseudoproblem
    •27%: none of the above
    •24%: a severe difficulty threatening QM
    •15%: solved by decoherence

    What is the message of the violation of Bell's inequalities?

    •64%: local realism is untenable
    •52%: unperformed experiments have no results
    •36%: some notion of nonlocality
    •12%: action at a distance in the physical world
    •6%: let's not jump the gun, take loopholes seriously

    Quantum information is:

    •76%: fresh air in quantum foundations
    •27%: we need to wait
    •6%: useful for applications but of no relevance to foundations
    •6%: neither useful nor relevant

    When will we have a working and useful quantum computer?

    •9%: within 10 years
    •42%: 10-25 years
    •30%: 25-50 years
    •0%: 50-100 years
    •15%: never

    Right interpretation of state vectors:

    •27%: epistemic/informational
    •24%: ontic
    •33%: a mix of epistemic and ontic
    •3%: purely statistical as in ensemble interpretation
    •12%: other

    The observer is:

    •39%: a complex quantum system
    •21%: should play no fundamental role whatsoever
    •55%: plays a fundamental role in the application of the formalism but plays no distinguished physical role
    •6%: plays a distinct physical role (soul collapses wave function...)

    Reconstruction of quantum theory:

    •15%: gives useful insights and has/will supersede the interpretation program
    •45%: gives useful insights but we still need an interpretation
    •30%: cannot solve the quantum foundations
    •27%: will lead to a deeper theory than QM
    •12%: don't know

    Favorite interpretation:

    •0%: consistent histories
    •42%: Copenhagen
    •0%: de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave
    •18%: Everett many worlds/minds
    •24%: information-based
    •0%: modal
    •9%: objective collapse, GRW or Penrose
    •6%: quantum Bayesianism
    •6%: relational quantum mechanics
    •0%: ensemble interpretation
    •0%: transactional interpretation
    •12%: other
    •12%: no preferred one

    How often have you switched interpretation?

    •33%: never
    •21%: once
    •21%: several times
    •21%: no preferred interpretation

    Does the choice of interpretation depend on philosophical prejudices?

    •58%: a lot
    •27%: a little
    •15%: not at all

    Superpositions of macro- different states are:

    •67%: possible in principle
    •36%: will eventually be realized
    •12%: in principle impossible
    •6%: impossible because of collapse theory

    In 50 years, conferences on quantum foundations:

    •48%: will still be organized
    •15%: probably no
    •24%: who knows
    •12%: I organize one no matter what

    So the next time you (and you know who you are) feel like making statements regarding QM as if it were settled science, remember that even the "experts" are in disagreement on damned near everything.
     
  2. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,270
    Thanks Received:
    2,921
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,259
    Interesting.

    Im laughing..........SSDD........another guy in here now who consistently schools the warmist contingent with spectacular levels of astute.
     
  3. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,612
    Thanks Received:
    5,429
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,413
    In the contest of melting Arctic Sea Ice, melting alpine glaciers, melting ice cap in Greenland, and continued ice loss in Antarctica, that little exercise in distraction has no meaning.
     
  4. emptystep
    Offline

    emptystep VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,654
    Thanks Received:
    220
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +221
    I thought 'no' was the accepted answer. You know why some say yes?
     
  5. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    The philosophy underlying physics will never be "settled."

    The actual mathematical framework behind this (complete with unparalleled predictive power), on the other hand, is quite robust.
     
  6. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,612
    Thanks Received:
    5,429
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,413
    The absorption bands of CO2, CH4, and the other GHGs are not a matter of philosophy, they are a matter of physics. As is the results of increasing the amount of those gases in the atmosphere. A matter of history, also.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. emptystep
    Offline

    emptystep VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,654
    Thanks Received:
    220
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +221
    But the underlying physics is quantum mechanics. It is the very nature of the unpredictive properties of this layer which makes everything else suspect. Butterfly wings. :D
     
  8. emptystep
    Offline

    emptystep VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,654
    Thanks Received:
    220
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +221
    [​IMG]

    http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/Schrodingers-cat
    Here's Schrödinger's (theoretical) experiment: We place a living cat into a steel chamber, along with a device containing a vial of hydrocyanic acid. There is, in the chamber, a very small amount of hydrocyanic acid, a radioactive substance. If even a single atom of the substance decays during the test period, a relay mechanism will trip a hammer, which will, in turn, break the vial and kill the cat.

    The observer cannot know whether or not an atom of the substance has decayed, and consequently, cannot know whether the vial has been broken, the hydrocyanic acid released, and the cat killed. Since we cannot know, according to quantum law, the cat is both dead and alive, in what is called a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and learn the condition of the cat that the superposition is lost, and the cat becomes one or the other (dead or alive). This situation is sometimes called quantum indeterminacy or the observer's paradox: the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that the outcome as such does not exist unless the measurement is made. (That is, there is no single outcome unless it is observed.)
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2013
  9. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,804
    Thanks Received:
    4,250
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,183
    And yet pseudo experts claim everyday on this message board that they and only they know truth and that science itself is less a reliable source of knowledge than intuition, faith or the proof provided by charlatans who profess to be all knowing. Let's take climate change for an example:

    Self proclaimed conservatives claim, either:

    1. There is no climate change, only anomalies, or
    2. Climate change is episodic, has nothing to do with human activity, or
    3. It snowed, proving there is no global warming.

    And all parrot some arcane statistic as proof of some absolute truth; the non parrots make no such absolute claim. For the most part the non parrots recognize that SMOG and ACID Rain were a product of human activity and that each was mitigated by the application of scientific inquiry and government action; understand that something is happening but as of yet cannot pinpoint the causes but believe there may be many reasons for the effects (climate extremes).

    It is not the non parrots who hold as absolute that human activity has no major, world-wide impact on our environment; it is the deniers who do, and in that I'm 99.9% sure.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,934
    Thanks Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,543
    The fact that the absorption bands are accompanied by emission bands is also well known as well as the fact that a cool object (the atmosphere) can not further warm a warmer object (the surface of the earth) and yet, your priests continue to preach that the impossible is happening every day.

    There have been a series of repeatable experiments going on since the year 2000 that have shown quite convincingly that an atmosphere with so called greenhouse gasses is cooler than one that has none as radiative gasses provide a faster means of the transport of heat into space than non radiative gasses could as an atmosphere of non radiative gasses would depend entirely on convection and conduction to transport heat to the upper atmosphere while the radiative window markedly speeds up the process.
     

Share This Page