Does quantum physics work on the principle that the quantum level

Part of it does ( Heisenberg uncertainty)
Other parts are the idea that energy and angular momentum is discrete and has to be unique

>>7671556
>Heisenberg uncertainty
no. youre confusing the uncertainty principle with the observer effect

>>7671550
Not necessarily. The uncertainty principal says that our inability to know precisely both a particles momentum and its position has nothing to do with the type of measurement. Even a theoretical perfect measuring system that did not alter the particle at all would fail to gain the precise momentum and position.

>>7671562
>>7671561
These are correct. It's easier to think uncertainty as a property of particles, not something that we cause. It isn't that I cant measure an electron's position and momentum to arbitrary precision, it's that an electron doesn't have both an arbitrarily precise momentum AND an arbitrarily precise position.

>>7671562
No, it wouldn't fail doing that. You assumed exactly that, when you said "perfect measuring system". The HUP dictates the existence of anything like that is impossible. What you spent precious calories typing out boils down to: HUP applies, and even if it didn't, it would apply.
>???

>>7671580
Nope see >>7671576

The uncertainty principal does not say the uncertainty is caused by our measurements, it says its a fundamental part of nature.

Yes that's very weird and there are other interpretations of QM but that's what it says.

>>7671599
>interpretations of QM
this meme needs to die

>>7671600
There are still arguments for hidden variables and shit like that even if you agree with them you can't pretend they don't exist.

Basically some say the randomness we see in the sub atomic world is just the way things really are and classical mechanics are just the result of statistical effects, others say we're something and the sub atomic world is really deterministic.

>>7671599
>it says its a fundamental part of nature.

No, its a fundamental part of mathematics::Fourier analysis

A curve with perfect wave number is a sine that extends to infinite in position
A curve with perfect localization is a delta "function" who's frequency spectrum is a sine curve

Momentum is coupled with frequency/wave number the moment you defined it as a derivative of the position as the eigenvalues of the derivative operator are in the frequency space M{d/dxf(x)}(s)=s*M{f(x)}(s)

>>7671607
Even if events appear probabilistic, something has to afford that behavior to what you're observing. It's unlike that it can just be that way on its own "just because".

Any real physicist should be bothered and utterly annoyed by the base levels of their field being reduced to mere probability and a random numbers game. It's neat, it's curious, but it isn't beautiful. It's something to tear apart until you understand it well enough to scrub it out and get rid of it, or at least explain why it can be.

>>7671614
>M

fucking moot filtering out all the good Unicode character

[math] \mathscr{F} \{ \frac { d } { dx } \psi \} = i \omega \mathscr{F} \{ \psi \} [/math]

>>7671600
See >>7671616

Some people
>We observe it to be random, its random

Other people
>It can't be

There you go different interpretations.

>>7671621
>moot
Who?

>>7671624

The gal that runs this place with snacks

>>7671622
>different interpretations.
which mean nothing, because we can only properly describe such processes stochastically
there arent really interpretations of QM, only different people
one that says this is science and how you use it, and other that say i fucking love "science"

>>7671631
>and other that say i fucking love "science"
While I agree with you about armchair physicists "discussing" QM interpretations and their implications on reality, I still think you're wrong in just completely dismissing them. For all we know, our model is incomplete. yeah it works real fucking well, but so did classical mechanics.

There should still be a debate on whether what we know is "real" or not because we could absolutely be missing something, and different theories on what we could be missing should always be welcomed.

>>7671599
>The uncertainty principal does not say the uncertainty is caused by our measurements, it says its a fundamental part of nature.
EXACTLY
It's like George Washington's middle name.
You don't know George Washington's middle name, and you never will.
Not because it's magically un-knowable, or Googling it will somehow change it.
You don't know George Washington's middle name BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE ONE.

>>7671634
...except that on one side you have QM based on actual scientific observations and rigorous, repeatable experiments, while on the other side you have people who refuse to believe that "God plays dice with the universe".
You might as well invite voodoo practitioners into the AMA.

>>7671646
>...except that on one side you have thermodynamics based on actual scientific observations and rigorous, repeatable experiments, while on the other side you have people who believe that there are "discrete particles that govern macroscopic quantities".
>You might as well invite voodoo practitioners into the AMA.
This is why Boltzmann killed himself.

>>7671646
>Calling Einstein a voodoo practitioner

There's nothing wrong with debating the significance of what we observe. IMO only people who try to dismiss the the observations themselves should be kept out of the discussion.

>>7671550
>Does quantum physics work
no its a trick

>>7671654
>IMO only people who try to dismiss the the observations themselves should be kept out of the discussion.
In that case you'd exclude Einstein from the discussion of QM.
My point isn't to exclude specific people, but rather that there's no place for denying observations because they upset your emotional need to believe the universe works a particular way.

>>7671662
Einstein did not deny the observations he denied the theory, and even then he acknowledged its usefulness he just felt it wasn't the full picture.

Another thing to note is that theory itself stems from his work. Everyone knows him for relativity but he published other papers as well and he was the first to suggest light is a particle and a wave. Kinda what got the ball rolling on QM in the first place. Also his resistance to the theory helped develop it. Entanglement was first described in a thought experiment he proposed in an effort to discredit the theory, Schrödinger's cat also comes from a thought experiment first proposed by Einstein again in an effort to discredit it.

There is literally no reason to want to keep different theories out of the discussion. If your theory is right you should have no problems.

>>7671550
>the quantum level is so small that you can't observe it

there's the answer

thus the fuzzy modeling doesn't fit

hence unimaginable explanations arise

Einstein was entirely right to not jump on the "it appears to be this way, therefore, it is this way" train of thought. I find it doubtful we live in a universe where "God plays dice".

So for people who are into the idea of outcomes that are probabilistic by nature, what makes you think this is the case? What draws you to the idea?

>>7671614
This is the problem with fucking mathematicians. It is not a property of mathematics, it's a property of nature. Mathematics is derived from nature, therefore a property of nature can also be a property of mathematics (if the math is applied correctly).

To highlight: neutron stars spin rapidly because the matter that makes them up (mostly neutrons, funnily enough) has an incredibly restricted (defined) position, due to the immense gravitational field present. This highly defined position creates a highly undefined momentum, allowing some of the neutrons to have massive momenta, hence the rapid spinning we observe.
inb4 hurr durr it's moment of inertia and angular momentum conservation.
No, the magnitude of the spinning is too large to be put down to these phenomena.

>>7672077
No. You have it completely backwards. Our understanding of nature, in the quantitative sense, is derived from mathematics. If mathematics was derived from nature then there would be no mathematics which has no application in describing nature, but there is. We take our physical models from the well of mathematics, not the other way around.

>>7672055
Don't confuse "probabilistic" with "uncertain". It's got a lot to do with the fact that, even in cosmic laboritories such as stars and black holes, particles behave in ways that agree with the HUP and PEP and other quantum predictions.
Things we don't even measure on a subatomic scale manifest quantum behaviour.
The "probabilistic" properties you speak of are actually a result of things called conjugate variables (sorry if you actually have a knowledge of physics, I'm not trying to patronise you), which sort of counteract each others' precision. e.g. if the particle has it's position restricted (or bound, or defined), then it will unavoidably display a largely undefined momentum. Likewise with the lifetime and energy of a particle.

>>7672083
That's like saying we only having language because air molecules can move a certain way and physics allows for the existence of machinery to both create and interpret these signals.

It's meaningless. No amount of arguing will ever be able to make mathematics transcend nature itself.

>>7671562

This isn't exactly right. Most quantum physicists believe that the uncertainty in position and momentum of a particle an inherent property, but it is certainly not a shut and closed case.

The main problem with your statement is about "a theoretical perfect measuring system that did not alter the particle at all". The fact is, every theoretical measuring system affects the particle in some way. Any proposed measuring system that does not affect the particle wouldn't actually work as a measuring system at all.

If you get into the nitty gritty of it, the BEST theoretical measuring systems affect a particle with EXACTLY the amount that is proscribed my Schrodinger's uncertainty principle. The fact is that we don't KNOW if the uncertainty is inherent or is a consequence of measurement, and unfortunately we can never find out because, BINGO, there is no possible experiment which could verify this.

>>7671638
Washington
George washington carter

>>7672083
Let's do it the way we all like: take it down to the simplest case.
If there was only one thing in the universe, we would have no need to define the concept of "two".
If the universe was not the way it is, we would not have to develop mathematics the way we have.
Mathematics comes from our experience of the universe.
Mathematics then extends the concepts we already have into extreme and abstract cases, that remain logically consistent.
Physics then takes these theories and tries to apply them to the universe we observe around us.
So saying the HUP is a property of mathematics is incorrect. The mathematics (Fourier analysis) was developed as an extension of already known concepts, which was then applied to the phenomena we observed the universe displaying.
It's really no wonder mathematical models agree so well with natural observations; they ultimately were derived from observations themselves. They were just extended in abstract ways, them anchored again in reality when they fit an observed phenomenon.
Hope that helps.

>>7672096

I disagree. Mathematics is only very tenuously grounded in the natural world. In mathematics, we can do things that are impossible in the real world. The fact is, in nature there is no such thing as an axiomatic system with logical rules used to derive theorems from them. These constructs have no meaning in nature, even despite the fact that they were created by the human mind, which was in fact created from nature.

The fact that mathematics works so well in describing nature is, in fact, a mystery. Read this if you want to learn more:

http://math.northwestern.edu/~theojf/FreshmanSeminar2014/Wigner1960.pdf

>>7671669
I'll bite.

>Einstein did not deny the observations he denied the theory
No, he did not. He was a proponent of hidden variables.

>Schrödinger's cat also comes from a thought experiment first proposed by Einstein again in an effort to discredit it.
Are you fucking kidding me?

>>7672103
I agree it is tenuously grounded in nature. But as I said, it then is extended into abstract concepts. These can be so abstract that they are not related to reality at all, but they are condoned in mathematics because they are logically consistent.
Math is a result of human brains being able to think abstractly, and entertain notions that are not necessarily possible or even plausible. But it does not escape the fact that these concepts are ultimately derived from our notions of the universe.

>>7672103
>In mathematics, we can do things that are impossible in the real world.
No, you can't. And you don't.

Everything you experience is nothing more than a particle state in your brain, and on any external medium you might be using to represent the idea. Physics is allow you to represent something that doesn't exist, but it's no more meaningful than language allowing you to talk about unicorns. Or squiggly lines that break intuitive spatial understanding.

You have no free will. All of existence is varying degrees of affordance built on top of an immutable foundation of slavery. This universe allows what it allows, and that's it. You're going to have to get used to it.

>>7672116
I really want to agree with you, but I'm not sure you are entertaining the notion that there actually are quantum effects of uncertainty on the neural pathways of a brain.
Whilst this does remove the idea of a deterministic universe, it does not imply the existence of free will.
If these neural pathways were somehow able to influence the outcome of other pathways, then that could be like a self-determining feedback system.

I think I'm talking shit now, time to go to bed.

>>7672129
>I think I'm talking shit now
No, I wouldn't say you are. I've thought a bit about an evolutionary bias towards systems that advantageously exploit the less "classical" aspects of physics more effectively.

I'm tired as well and don't have too much I feel like saying. Beyond ranting about mathematics relative to foundations of immutable slavery.

>>7672113
Yes he believed in hidden variables, he denied the theory; or the explanation of the observations, not the observations themselves.

And before shit gets too out of hand let me just tell you that I don't believe in hidden variables I think shit is probabilistic like we observe but I'm not gonna act like there's no room for the other argument or like anyone who believes it is dumb. The truth is we don't know.

>Are you fucking kidding me?

Nope

>Schrödinger and Einstein exchanged letters about Einstein's EPR article, in the course of which Einstein pointed out that the state of an unstable keg of gunpowder will, after a while, contain a superposition of both exploded and unexploded states.

That was the basis of the idea.

File: images (13).jpg (19KB, 443x332px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 443x332px

>>7671628

>moot and snacks

Welcome Mr. Caveman from 2007.

File: physics and math.png (8KB, 415x157px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 415x157px

>>7672077
>Mathematics is derived from nature

No it isn't. Mathematics is independent of the universe.

File: 1404957337870.png (460KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 960x720px

>>7672088

2+2=4 regardless of whether there are 2 pairs of apples to make 4 or not

>>7672190
Upvote. This is an often-misunderstood concept.

>>7672193
That's right. That's because you derived the axioms of the logical framework you're using from how the human faculties perceive the world around them.

If the universe did not afford a perceived oneness, twoness, n-ness, you likely never would have created nor thought of this. Without something to spur a thought, a mind will not think it. It cannot. The best you could hope for is some feature causing something comparable to be arrived at indirectly.

>>7672096
>If there was only one thing in the universe, we would have no need to define the concept of "two".

Yes, Z/2Z. There is that thing or there isn't, therefore there are 2 states.

>>7672193

Only if that's all you can perceive.

>>7672207

For you to observe there to be only one thing in the universe, that one thing would have to be your perception. If your perception was all that existed, how could you perceive it NOT existing?

File: nihilism.jpg (5KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 225x225px

>>7672211
>how could you perceive it NOT existing

Deniers will find a way. They've already convinced themselves their consciousness doesn't exist

>>7672095
*Carver
Damn racists

>>7671624
Git >>>/out/ of here newfig. We don't respect your kind here /b/lack.

>>7672211
You don't have to perceive it, you merely have to imagine it. I can think of all kinds of crazy impossibilities, as I'd imagine most people can.

>>7672303
Show me a human creation that contains no previously observed elements.

>>7672321
infinitesimals
infinite hierarchies
6D space
E8

>>7672325
These are all just logical extrapolations, each containing elements from previous observations. We wouldn't have conceived of the infinitesimal without the observation of lesser and greater quantities, or 6D space without the observation of multidimensional spaces.

>>7672336
>logical extrapolations
>infinitesimals

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>7672341
They are. You never learned Cauchy completeness?

>>7672343

Not sure if trolling or really stupid

>>7671652

He killed himself after seeing the way you greentext