Simple QM question

[Erasmus00]

Rather then hash out responses to your entire post and again restate myself I will point out: first, you can count to a hundred million. You can in fact "count" to any finite integer. You can't count to sqrt(2) but at least you can define it.

 

However, what you can't do is have a flat distribution over a transfinite set of numbers. It simply cannot be defined. This makes your solution to the "roll a 6" problem just as flawed as your assignment of 1/2 to the possbility of global skepticism. To assert any probability with literally no information on the system is impossible and a misuse of probability.

 

I will state the problems as clearly as possible:

1) There are assumptions common to Quantum Mechanics experiments and the conclusions made from them that have not even been identified yet.

2) There are assumptions that have been identified but deemed trivial or unlikely to be violated without good reason, simply because a situation where they would be violated has not been imagined yet.

 

You have not pointed out any specific assumptions related to quantum mechanics that you believe don't hold. Hence, your arguments are, at best

 

1) There MAY be assumptions common to quantum mechanics experiments and the conclusions made from them that have no been identified yet.

 

2) There MAY be assumptions that have been identified but deemed trivial...

 

Hence, you have no certain conclusion. Extracting any conclusion would be an appeal to probability (there may be P, therefore P). This is a well known fallacy.

 

Now, untill you show a specific assumption or talk about a specific flaw, your argument applies to any scientific theory and therefore is worthless. I could insert "classical mechanics" or "evolution" into your argument instead of quantum mechanics, and the argument would be the same.

 

Also the experiments validating quantum mechanics are not in the few dozen but probably in the thousands (maybe higher) by now. I also, once more, point out that your everyday experience routinely validates quantum mechanics. Atoms are stable.

-Will

[Kriminal99]

No you cannot count to any finite number - sooner or later you would die. We use them anyways because we feel like we are certain of what they are and what their properties are just based on what we know about other numbers.

 

Just as well can we know that for any possiblity with a set probability of rolling a 6, there is an opposite possibility with a probability of rolling said six that negates the first such that there is a .5 probability over all. The rate that you can create a possibility and its opposite is the same - as opposed to for instance the rate at which integers and real numbers are created...

 

The creation of each new integer also creates an infinite number of real numbers in between the new integer and the last integer. That is why real numbers and integers cannot be put into one to one correspondence. Natural numbers and integers also have the same problem although perhaps not as badly. For every counting number you create, there are two integers created so again they cannot be put into 1 to 1 correspondance. One might be confused into thinking otherwise just because the two integers created have the same number component as the natural number they are created by. But nonetheless each natural number and its negative are two different integers. So naturals and integers cannot be put into 1 to 1 correspondence.

 

The probability situation has no such problem. If you want to use a number metaphor, realize that the summation of all integers would always be 0. You don't have to actually add up the infinite number of integers to know that. It's the same with probability, just the nature of the total probability formula gives you .5 instead of 0.

 

As I have already said, these arguments do not apply to any field because in other fields our reasoning is more solid and based on much more experience with each subject. Even in the situations like E/M where common experience isn't as robust regarding the subject as kinematics, we still have a entire world constantly testing all of our beliefs regarding the subject with the use of all of our technology. This is in stark contrast to fields like Q/M where most if not all of human experience with the matter is derived from a small number of experiments.

 

The fact that atoms are stable is not common experience of quantum mechanics. Common experience of QM comparable to our common experience of classical physics mechanics would be constantly observing many different properties of small particles during the course of our everyday lives. Or at the very least observing different results of the interactions of small particles during the course of our lives. As I said an example of how this everyday experience would support an experiment in classical physics would be our well founded assumption (from every day experience) that objects do not change mass during the course of the experiment.

 

I was not using a probability fallacy. I meant that there actually are such assumptions that have not yet been identified. And that there actually is a greater chance of the known assumptions being violated than is currently realized.

[Erasmus00]

For every counting number you create, there are two integers created so again they cannot be put into 1 to 1 correspondance.

 

I sent you a private message regarding probability theory. I suggest we start a new thread on it, or discuss this in private rather then drag this thread off topic.

 

Now, while lets say (though I strongly disagree) just hypothetically, quantum mechanics is MORE LIKELY to have assumptions that are wrong, given its counter intuitive nature. (Which seems to be the main thrust of your argument)

 

This doesn't in anyway show that quantum mechanics ACTUALLY HAS flawed assumptions.

 

Hence, the whole thing falls apart. Just because quantum mechanics MIGHT have flawed assumptions does not mean it does. Again, we have an appeal to probability.

 

Lastly, in response to this:

 

Even in the situations like E/M where common experience isn't as robust regarding the subject as kinematics, we still have a entire world constantly testing all of our beliefs regarding the subject with the use of all of our technology. This is in stark contrast to fields like Q/M where most if not all of human experience with the matter is derived from a small number of experiments.

 

The transistors in your computer test Quantum mechanics everyday. Computer being everywhere nowadays, I'd suggest quantum is just as tested inside of technology as E/M.

-Will

[Kriminal99]

It has nothing to do with its counter intuitive nature. Our assumptions regarding it are more likely to be wrong because we don't know anything about the enviornment and none of our experience or intuitions apply to it. And it has nothing to do with might. Knowledge of the limitations of induction is all that is needed to start cranking out models of the situation that point out assumptions that we didn't know were being made and demonstrate the likelihood that currently recognized assumptions are being violated.

[Erasmus00]

It has nothing to do with its counter intuitive nature. Our assumptions regarding it are more likely to be wrong because we don't know anything about the enviornment and none of our experience or intuitions apply to it. And it has nothing to do with might. Knowledge of the limitations of induction is all that is needed to start cranking out models of the situation that point out assumptions that we didn't know were being made and demonstrate the likelihood that currently recognized assumptions are being violated.

 

Emphasis added by me.

 

Granted such models could be made, at best they could demonstrate a likelihood, not a certainty. This argument cannot PROVE anything in the way you would like.

 

I don't assert that quantum field theory is the final understanding of physics. However, I do assert that it very well COULD be.

 

You wish to assert that quantum mechanics IS NOT the final understanding, conceivably because you want to believe that the universe is deterministic.

 

However, you cannot prove that this is the case by arguing that assumptions MIGHT be violated. Only be pointing to a specific assumption you believe is wrong can you effectively put any doubt into quantum mechanics. Otherwise you are appealing to probability.

 

Also, general arguments based on general problems with inductive reasoning necessarily put all of inductive reasoning into question.

 

Personally, I think that you have no such specific example in mind, and are objecting to quantum mechanics because it doesn't jive with your desire to view the world in a deterministic manner.

-Will

[Kriminal99]

What you should have bolded in your quoute is the word ARE not the "more likely" part. Another words it IS more likely to occur not is more likely to be more likely

[InfiniteNow]

Everyone take a deep breath and relax. The mods really would prefer not to get involved, but if it's necessary and posters cannot censor themselves adequately, we will. Thanks. :cup: