@EyeNStein The catThere are at least two cats. Your feeble attempt to square QM with classical physics employing a hidden English predication failed
Just another non-falsifiable speculation.You're wrong. Perhaps SOME experiments are beyond present abilities, but others are doable by brighter minds than you
two cats.The invention of a second non-verifiable cat doesn't add to our understanding of the universe it only adds confusion. If you had mentioned that micro scale vibrators can be simultaneously vibrating and not: I would have agreed. But concious cats and the cyanide release sensors constitute a measurement-improbability collapses-clasical reality appears. No second cat is required.
You can accept it and the reality of many worlds or multiple universes, or you can assume that there is something wrong or missing from the theory.
Whether or not other universes exist is a matter of philosophical OPINIONWell, not quite. For me it's mostly a question of physically and logically rigorous definition of multiverse.
Whether or not other universes exist is a matter of philosophical OPINION.So is the question of existence itself. Existence is completely dependent upon what David Bohm described as "implicit order," which is only peripherally understood
One of the consequences of quantum fluctuations is that every collapsing wave function…..
Quantum computing is neither faster, neither more secure than the classical computing . . .
The whole point of the schroedinger cat experiment is the absurdity of extrapolating from quantum to macro or even universe scales. The cat knows if its alive, even if we only know a probability figure for its demise. An autopsy would clearly show when the cat died, not when it entered some superimposed state.Cat knowing, forensics, the ASPCA, and T gondii are some of the many parameters not included in the thought experiment.
The cat knows if its alive, even if we only know a probability figure for its demise. An autopsy would clearly show when the cat died, not when it entered some superimposed state.
Copenhagen taken to its extreme form seems to be sort of creationism to me, with the implicit assumption that before humans there was some sort of 'universal observer'.
I know because you cannot show me a single event in nature that is random.
"Radioactive decay would be one (of many) examples."
I already dealth with this specific arguement in my previous post. If radioactive decay is random, then how is it the most precise event we can use to determine the passage of time with.
If we can predict exactly how long it will take to happen, than how can it possibly be a random event? There is a very specific set of rules governing radioactive decay. We simply do not understand. I tell you again. Your quantum theory is "witchcraft" and very very unscientific.
If radioactive decay is random, then how is it the most precise event we can use to determine the passage of time with.
First of all "random" does not exist. Period.I don't think so. Sometimes the information is simply lost. For example, the surface of water droplet cannot reflect the movements of all water molecules which are bouncing and colliding inside of it. Some of these movements are simply lost for the observer from outside for ever. How we can be sure, that the randomness of quantum mechanics doesn't work in the similar way?
The paper is pretty neat. An example of what is being talked about here is coin flipping. How can the probability of the outcome of a coin flip be traced back to quantum mechanical uncertainty?
As it turns out, it all starts with water and polypeptides in your nervous system. Quantum uncertainty at that level introduces enough probability in molecular transport to evoke less-than-perfect physical prowess, which ultimately leads imprecise control of the energy required to repeatedly produce a perfect flip and snatch.
Control every variable down to the quantum level and you can make the coin land the same way every time.
The problem with multiple universes, Albrecht said, is that it if there are a huge number of different pocket universesThis article got into exactly the opposite conclusion. In this article The Multiverse Created Probability To Explain The Multiverse (synopsis)
One crucial factor missed out is the human mind, not measurable and yet it could be the main factor responsible for materializing which probability or pocket of universes it desires. At one time, the earth was flat, but now the mind now "knows" that the earth is actually a ball in space.
At the quantum level values aren't discrete but a probability distribution.
IF you had the ability to measure the orbit of the electron around a the nucleus of Hydrogen atom you could apply a vector coordinate to every position it occupies. These would be discrete coordinates, not probabilistic ones.
You are confusing random with unpredictable.
A coin toss can produce completely random results, and yet the statistical character of those tosses are absolutely predictable.
Aren't statistics and probability flip sides of the same coin?
"The fact that these rates are measurable and can be generalized with a formula tells you that they are not random." - Jalmy
If Statistics wasn't predictable, then it would have no value.
Since it does, it is.
Since it is, you are wrong.
I don't think flipping a coin on macro scale has anything to do with probability or in the least so little it has no influence on the outcome.
Aren't statistics and probability flip sides of the same coin?
when talking about computers generating random numbers.
Probability comes from the language used.{/q]
SOrry, Tau. gotta disagree with ya there - probability was here first...:)Lite never comments. No probability there. lol
And I'm waiting for the day he/she/it does not 1 every comment I make. I'll have to go out and by a lottery ticket if THAT ever happens.
Probability comes from the language used. Lite never comments. No probability there. lol
Daywalk - I'll add the words "in a specific inertial reference frame" to what I said regarding the vector coodinates.
The scattering of dots on the screen is a classical probability distribution
Rather than the photons which travel through both slits and are superimposed in flight. The dots distribution follows a classical calculatable wave interference, but like decaying atoms you never know where the next one will be till it has happened.
The very reason that some phenomena is classified as paranormal is that is cannot be subjected to falsification by experimentUnfortunately in contemporary physics many phenomena are ignored if not denied just because they depend on higher number of parameters, than the contemporary physicists can recognize. Typically the cold fusion and various psychic phenomena fall into this category: despite they're manifesting with quite tangible effects often, the general lack of reproducibility refuses the physicists who are motivated with safety and reliability of research, not with desire to reveal something new. Illustratively speaking, for modern physicists even the lightning is not real, until it cannot be reliably predicted and reproduced.
EyeNStein
Feb 5, 2013