Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

  1.  
    Who said I was surprised?
  2.  
    I'm not sure.
    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013 edited
     
    Just can't get away from it... there's that damn thing in two places at once again.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpQABLRCU_0
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    Posted By: Andrew Palfreyman
    Posted By: AngusPlancherel
    I've not heard of Plancherel. Can you give a bone-simple example?


    It's a simpler version of Parseval's theorem. The integral of a function's squared modulus is equal to the integral of the squared modulus of its frequency spectrum.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013 edited
     
    @sonoboy:

    No, no nonono NO.

    Didn't you read Collandar? The problem is not with reality, it is with your perception of it. Your perceptions are aliased, Moire patterns, caused by your massive undersampling. You think that some "thing" can be in two places at the same time... but what you don't realize is that there is actually only ONE thing, ONE place, and ONE time.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanSo here's one for you

    What is the underlying reason that the same pairs of conjugate variables (e.g. energy & time, momentum & position) are related in Noether's theorem (e.g. time symmetry implies energy conservation) and likewise in QM (e.g. ΔEΔt≥ℏ)?


    No idea. You?

    Hmm. Thinking about it, Plancherel's theorem says that the energy in a function's spectrum equals the energy in the function over all time. Sounds fairly closely related to the issues involved in Nöther's theorem.
  3.  
    Oh, I get it. It's another string puzzle, isn't it.

    I'll take Slits Two and Three, raise them up a furlong and multiply by the probability of finding a raspberry pi in Schrodinger's refrigerator.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    I really can't force myself to watch a bunch of kids drawing pictures of an interferometer on a slate for seven minutes. Anybody care to summarise what sonoboy is on about?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    Posted By: alsetalokin@sonoboy:

    No, no nonono NO.

    Didn't you read Collandar? The problem is not with reality, it is with your perception of it. Your perceptions are aliased, Moire patterns, caused by your massive undersampling. You think that some "thing" can be in two places at the same time... but what you don't realize is that there is actually only ONE thing, ONE place, and ONE time.


    Sounds like you're being seduced by the (incorrect) idea of hidden variables.
  4.  
    No, that's the category error raising its purty lil ol haid agin. Determinism and uncertainty are features of the mind, they are "things" that have reality only because we give it to them. The world simply is, it is now, and it is here, and it is one. All one. The mind has to segment, to separate and isolate concepts, to particularize and compartmentalize, but the clues to the unity are there in the relationships we suss out, like the Uncertainty Relation.
  5.  
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanSo here's one for you

    What is the underlying reason that the same pairs of conjugate variables (e.g. energy & time, momentum & position) are related in Noether's theorem (e.g. time symmetry implies energy conservation) and likewise in QM (e.g. ΔEΔt≥ℏ)?


    No idea. You?

    Hmm. Thinking about it, Plancherel's theorem says that the energy in a function's spectrum equals the energy in the function over all time. Sounds fairly closely related to the issues involved in Nöther's theorem.


    I asked the question in all good faith here
    http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45884/conjugate-variables-noethers-theorem-and-qm
    and got some good answers. There's some high power dudes on this channel, and I have never seen them stumped.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013 edited
     
    Hmmm...the world indeed simply "is". If that is as much as you will allow anybody to say, then we'd better pack up physics and go back to chanting at idols.

    If you assume simply for the amusement of it that it is possible to work out patterns in that isness that predict how it behaves, then you have to follow where that leads. And it leads to the situation where our best understanding of things predicts that certain kinds of knowledge cannot be had. There is no basis for saying that this is merely a conclusion of the mind and not one of external reality. Experiment and theory say the opposite.

    Which gives me the opportunity to add that, since I believe mathematics to be discovered as a part of the universe, rather than invented by the mind, both theory and experiment are telling us something about what is external to us.
  6.  
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: alsetalokin@sonoboy:

    No, no nonono NO.

    Didn't you read Collandar? The problem is not with reality, it is with your perception of it. Your perceptions are aliased, Moire patterns, caused by your massive undersampling. You think that some "thing" can be in two places at the same time... but what you don't realize is that there is actually only ONE thing, ONE place, and ONE time.


    Sounds like you're being seduced by the (incorrect) idea ofhidden variables.
    I always wanted to "contrafactual definiteness" in public, but the one time I got the chance, I was contradicted that I should have said "counterfactual definiteness"
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    Works both ways as far as I can see.
  7.  
    Posted By: AngusHmmm...the world indeed simply "is". If that is as much as you will allow anybody to say, then we'd better pack up physics and go back to chanting at idols.

    If you assume simply for the amusement of it that it is possible to work out patterns in that isness that predict how it behaves, then you have to follow where that leads. And it leads to the situation where our best understanding of things predicts that certain kinds of knowledge cannot be had. There is no basis for saying that this is merely a conclusion of the mind and not one of external reality. Experiment and theory say the opposite.

    Which gives me the opportunity to add that, since I believe mathematics to be discovered as a part of the universe, rather than invented by the mind, both theory and experiment are telling us something about what is external to us.
    I have no dispute with any of this. The OT religious view tells us that the Tree of Knowledge yields forbidden fruit. The Eastern view comes to a similar conclusion by enjoining us not to ask.
  8.  
    Posted By: oakToday there are several interpretations of quantum mechanics ...
    That's heavy duty stuff oak - thanks. When and if I find the energy, maybe I'll try and weigh in.
  9.  
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanIf you assume simply for the amusement of it that it is possible to work out patterns in that isness that predict how it behaves, then you have to follow where that leads. And it leads to the situation where our best understanding of things predicts that certain kinds of knowledge cannot be had. There is no basis for saying that this is merely a conclusion of the mind and not one of external reality. Experiment and theory say the opposite.


    We seem to be having another violent agreement. I must not be being clear.... so I'm one step further on the path to enlightenment. Or further back, perhaps. The faster I go the less I know about where I am.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3hO7B80dWQ
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    I think I was the one who said that so you must be having a violent agreement with me. I'm not sure how Andrew feels about it.
  10.  
    Posted By: AngusI think I was the one who said that so you must be having a violent agreement with me. I'm not sure how Andrew feels about it.
    Sort of agree. I mean the unknowable set of things is Goedel, sure. I did say something above about the passivity of the "it just is" approach.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    Posted By: Andrew Palfreyman
    Posted By: AngusI think I was the one who said that so you must be having a violent agreement with me. I'm not sure how Andrew feels about it.
    Sort of agree. I mean the unknowable set of things is Goedel, sure. I did say something above about the passivity of the "it just is" approach.


    Why Goedel? As I understand that theorem it says that in any formal system there are true statements that cannot be proven true within the system. It doesn't sound to me like any kind of unknowability unless you run out of systems. The uncertainty principle on the other hand seems to say that you can never know certain sets of things together. I thought al was saying that although you can't know the details the details are there. I believe that is either false or meaningless, and as I understand it, it looks right now as if the evidence supports "false".