The state of quantum mechanics....

[SSDD]

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.

 

[skookerasbil]

Interesting.

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

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[emptystep]

Do objects have well-defined properties before measurements?

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

I thought 'no' was the accepted answer. You know why some say yes?

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[emptystep]

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.

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.

 

[emptystep]

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.)

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

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.

 

[SSDD]

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.

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.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Considering the fact that neither you, nor any other warmist, including all climate scientist can present a single bit of hard evidence proving that mankind is altering the global climate, it is you and yours who profess to be all knowing in spite of evidence to the contrary. I can be convinced, but it will require proof. I don't base such things as positions on scientific issues on my political leanings. Show me some hard proof that we are causing the global climate to change, or show me some hard proof that the climate today is unprecedented in the history of the earth and then you have an argument. Till you can do that, all you have is an untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis.

 

[Greenbeard]

It is the very nature of the unpredictive properties of this layer which makes everything else suspect.

I don't know what you're saying here.

 

[Dubya]

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.

The poll sucks when you get results above 100%,

 

[emptystep]

It is the very nature of the unpredictive properties of this layer which makes everything else suspect.

I don't know what you're saying here.

I was just playing with words. You said that the underlying philosophy would never be settled but the ability to predict effects is unparalleled, I am paraphrasing terribly here. I took that to mean that while the quantum level is unpredictable the larger sizes are very concrete. Such at the flap of the butterfly wings has unforeseeable consequences but a hurricane is definitely in the here and now. I was simply playing with words and meant to say that even the large is unknowable in some instances, hence the live/dead cat post which followed.

Between assumptions and abstractions I can be a little hard to follow. In other words, it's me.

 

[Dubya]

It is the very nature of the unpredictive properties of this layer which makes everything else suspect.

I don't know what you're saying here.

I was just playing with words. You said that the underlying philosophy would never be settled but the ability to predict effects is unparalleled, I am paraphrasing terribly here. I took that to mean that while the quantum level is unpredictable the larger sizes are very concrete. Such at the flap of the butterfly wings has unforeseeable consequences but a hurricane is definitely in the here and now. I was simply playing with words and meant to say that even the large is unknowable in some instances, hence the live/dead cat post which followed.

Between assumptions and abstractions I can be a little hard to follow. In other words, it's me.

I have no philosophy, unless you consider religion a philosophy. Way back in college when I studied it, I'd say I agreed with utilitarianism more than anything else. I never could find a philosophy I agreed with, until Christianity.

Your signature speaks. The only thing we ever did was screw up around that area of the world. I guess the idea of never getting involved in a land battle in Asia was just too complicated to understand, but there is hope that even a powerful nation can learn from it's mistakes.

 

[emptystep]

I don't know what you're saying here.

I was just playing with words. You said that the underlying philosophy would never be settled but the ability to predict effects is unparalleled, I am paraphrasing terribly here. I took that to mean that while the quantum level is unpredictable the larger sizes are very concrete. Such at the flap of the butterfly wings has unforeseeable consequences but a hurricane is definitely in the here and now. I was simply playing with words and meant to say that even the large is unknowable in some instances, hence the live/dead cat post which followed.

Between assumptions and abstractions I can be a little hard to follow. In other words, it's me.

I have no philosophy, unless you consider religion a philosophy. Way back in college when I studied it, I'd say I agreed with utilitarianism more than anything else. I never could find a philosophy I agreed with, until Christianity.

Your signature speaks. The only thing we ever did was screw up around that area of the world. I guess the idea of never getting involved in a land battle in Asia was just too complicated to understand, but there is hope that even a powerful nation can learn from it's mistakes.

I think religion and philosophy are two different things. You can be philosophical about your religion. Can you be religious about your philosophy?

 

[Dubya]

I was just playing with words. You said that the underlying philosophy would never be settled but the ability to predict effects is unparalleled, I am paraphrasing terribly here. I took that to mean that while the quantum level is unpredictable the larger sizes are very concrete. Such at the flap of the butterfly wings has unforeseeable consequences but a hurricane is definitely in the here and now. I was simply playing with words and meant to say that even the large is unknowable in some instances, hence the live/dead cat post which followed.

Between assumptions and abstractions I can be a little hard to follow. In other words, it's me.

I have no philosophy, unless you consider religion a philosophy. Way back in college when I studied it, I'd say I agreed with utilitarianism more than anything else. I never could find a philosophy I agreed with, until Christianity.

Your signature speaks. The only thing we ever did was screw up around that area of the world. I guess the idea of never getting involved in a land battle in Asia was just too complicated to understand, but there is hope that even a powerful nation can learn from it's mistakes.

I think religion and philosophy are two different things. You can be philosophical about your religion. Can you be religious about your philosophy?

Not me! I'm one of the few people who knows God exists and don't get me wrong about how I value myself.

 

[emptystep]

I have no philosophy, unless you consider religion a philosophy. Way back in college when I studied it, I'd say I agreed with utilitarianism more than anything else. I never could find a philosophy I agreed with, until Christianity.

Your signature speaks. The only thing we ever did was screw up around that area of the world. I guess the idea of never getting involved in a land battle in Asia was just too complicated to understand, but there is hope that even a powerful nation can learn from it's mistakes.

I think religion and philosophy are two different things. You can be philosophical about your religion. Can you be religious about your philosophy?

Not me! I'm one of the few people who knows God exists and don't get me wrong about how I value myself.

What do you mean about how you value yourself?

 

[Dubya]

I think religion and philosophy are two different things. You can be philosophical about your religion. Can you be religious about your philosophy?

Not me! I'm one of the few people who knows God exists and don't get me wrong about how I value myself.

What do you mean about how you value yourself?

I don't care how smart you are in this world, we are all the same worth.

 

[emptystep]

Not me! I'm one of the few people who knows God exists and don't get me wrong about how I value myself.

What do you mean about how you value yourself?

I don't care how smart you are in this world, we are all the same worth.

I like your religion.