Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Science: hijacked by pseudo

It is obvious, that science has been perverted and hijacked. It is nothing but pseudoscience now.

Look at NASA. It is pretending to do scientific research.
How many people understand nowadays, that famous "rocket science" is nothing but engineering?

Look at social sciences. They teach Marxism as science.
How many people understand nowadays, that it is nothing but pile of hackery and nonsence?

The "science" can not be trusted anymore.

ES

I don't agree that social science is a science because there is never a corelation or a prevision-working-as-expected between what you have and what you should have after the experimentation. It's not because there is the word "science" in a stuff making it be a real science. Look at religious sciences, politic sciences, sociobiology... ect
This is an attempt to give some credibility to that stuff.

Is this pervertion or hijaking ? Just a question of name/terminology. IMHO, this bunch of disciplines are plain robbery and have nothing to do with science.

Science is a mathematical model of reality constrained by empirical observation.

NASA is political not scientific. The soft sciences are no more sciences than Christian Science or Scientology are sciences. They make noises then crap their pants.

You are incompetent.

sci?ence n.

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

It is difficult to hold science as an absolute truth when even the definition allows for the perversion of interpretation. It is the human behind the process that drives it amuck. Face it kids, the same creative energies, pride, and personal motivations that drive individuals forward can also serve as a roadblock to advancement.

"They make noises then crap their pants."
"You are incompetent"

Stand on your pride. When has anyone ever failed for the excess of it?

So Hubble is not science?
So Spitzer is not science?
So the rovers on Mars are not science?
So the exploration of Saturn and Titan are not scien ce?

I will agree that psychology, sociology, economics, etc. are hardly sciences. But your continuing attacks on NASA seem to weigh heavily toward the thought that you have personal problem with them. What did they do ... refuse to take one of your ideas and use it?

A good thought, about "attempt to give some credibility".
But the result is that notion of "science" itself is being polluted.

ES

Polluted?

As in the term "creation science" that some people want to sneak in the high school text books while discrediting evil-lution.

"Science" is being confused in the minds of people barely capable of keeping their reality separate from the "reality" shows they waste their lives voyeuring. They have no concept of what science is and as long as someone they like (or is like them in their minds) says "rubbish" to issues like global warming and environmental degradation, then they can sleep blissful in that ignorance.

It goes to the head in this crazy partisan world, where the President stacks science committees with "right thinking individuals" and any organization that releases information that is counter to their pre-determined polices are putting out "bad science".

The interp I get is that "bad science" is anything that prevents higher profits. How the two got connected in the first place show how poor critical thinking has become in this country.

Speaking of that, the recent election goes to show just how many misguided people there are in this country. When phalanxes of Nobel Prize winning scientist, many claiming never to take a political stance before, came out in public papers condemned the politicization of science, when members of his own party came out and used words like "incompetent" to describe his handling of foreign affairs and THEN to find this ineffective bumbler elected by a groundswell of zealots and single issue short sighted selfish individuals...... (sigh)

Science will continue to advance outside of US borders as a reverse brain drain begins to kick in. Can NATO stand another 4 years of Bush and Condi's arrogance? What a great choice for Sec of State THAT was, the very person who held the file "Bin Laden Plans to Attack the US" a month before the attack and did not ask questions or raise alarms.

Grief is what we will inherit.

America gets the leadership it deserves.

It is all cyclic, the top dog will eventually be run to ground. We have already passed our zenith. One can see that reflection in the greater discussion of "returning to values" and lamentations about the "founding fathers". America is looking backwards, not forward. We confuse science with propaganda and legal maneuvering. Just a glance over the history of the tobacco industry shows how "science" has become a political toy to play legal semantics with. America is having her day and what a sad chapter we are adding now.

(sorry for the rant)

Well, I think you are the one who was too much influenced TV political spin. But you are a good example that people are misinformed

ES

Here is a good example of pseudoscience running mighty mad. Nature and NewScientist report about quantum computing and quantum teleportation. They think it is legit!

And they do not want to publish my discoveries of Martian life and civilization

Inmates are running asylum!

ES, So that's why you are so sad. Because you can't find any journal to publish your paper.
It's not a reason to get on your nerves like that. The whole creationist bunch of fake-scientists are in the same situation actually and all their revelation-papers are systematically rejected before reaching the review center. Why are they rejected ? Because they don't follow the author guidelines and nothing more.

The thread says "Science:hijacked by pseudo", and this decribes what you are doing,to the letter.

Which means that you are part of the Quack Gallery of this forum: Paul (he invented a perpetuum mobile, and complained about being shummed by the scientific community), Orion (he wants to use nuclear blasts - a more powerful offspring of the Orion proposal - to jumpstart massive space exploration, and complained about being shummed by the scientific community), Thorlord (which has just recently discovered the known fact that there is indeed something called a mathematical syllogysm), Cathy (she was just against logic of any sort as long as it did not fit her views), and finally you, Extrasense (you still don't know what a mathematical syllogysm is but you claim to have mathematical proof of the existence of life on Mars from what you euphemistically call image analysis, and of course, you also claim that you are being shunned by the scientific community)

Do you see a pattern?[Hint: Paul, Orion, you]

What you are doing is in principle commendable, but it is the "how you are doing it" that is flawed. Let's then review the how.Who knows, maybe it ill serve a good purpose though I doubt it.

a)First of all, you lack perspective on the entire issue, in the sense that the ideea of proving based on mathematical theorems that life exists in any context is ridiculous in itself, for the obvious reason. If memory serves me well, Fermat also claimed that he mathematically proved the existence of God, but unfortunately, he never wrote the proof...Hope you see my point.

b)You have negligible mathematical knowledge, and even more negligible prctice. You have become encroached in a mathematical syllogysm with the ardor of someone who thinks that mathematical arguments are supreme, because he lacks practice in applying them, and furthermore you are incapable of admitting or seeing the flaws of your logic (we discussed in quite detail these issues, so please refere to the now archived thread). Moreover, no one with an ounce of practice lists in the refs theorems on the Wolfram Res. website, for the simple reasons that there are much better refs than that (and don't tell me you did that because you wanted to make the theory available to the public, because my next question is what book did you use to study them, with a 6 hours time for the answer - just so that you don't have the time to find people kid enough to tell you).

c)You have negligible knowledge or practice in image analysis of any kind.Otherwise you would have realized that even if your math was OK, the best algorithms existing do not offer but roughly a 60% or so reliability in recognizing patterns (known patterns, that is, which is much simpler than what you are attempting to do). You don't need to be a genius to look up the internet for general pattern recognition, face pattern recognition, palm recognition to at least research the issue. But I guess you have seen much too much Star Trek.

d)You lack the scientific methodology in approaching the issue you claim to be investigating(please do your homework and research what the scientific method means and why is it so important)

d) You have absolutely no knowledge in writing up an article, or report. This relating to your publishing issue.I suggest you go on arxiv.org, get a paper from there, and try to follow its plan.That could be the least you could do. Furthermore, you must also specify for example what image processing software you used, describe in detail the technique for analyzing the surface pattern, down to the filtration algorithms and pixel interpolation algorithms, including errors and so on and so forth.

So what are we left with from your arguments? Precisely nothing, except your entusiasm. And because of the lack of other attributes (see above), you polute the internet and whine continuously of being rejected by the scientific community.

Well, of course you are rejected, since there is no science in what you claim.Enthusiasm does not count, and knowledge is lacking excessively. So what do you do? Instead of trying to revise and improve your knowledge and arguments, you start preaching to whoever listens to you (or doesn't), wherever you can. You call this scientific method? It is not. There is no such thing as preaching science, and if you actually practiced it even a little bit, you would know.

In fact, returning to the title of the thread, you are exacly the pseudo that tries to hijack science, but I doubt you will ever admit it.

It just happens, that issue is much bigger than my problem with publishing of Martian discoveries.

While trying it, I have discovered that the whole science has been hijacked by the pseudoscience - like quantum entanglement, Marxism, creationism, NASA science, and such.

Those get money and are being reported upon, thus enriching the pseudoscience parasites.

ES

Oh, stop finding excuses for your own lack of knowledge. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Let's take them one by one:
1.Quantum entanglement: there is experimental evidence of it, and I would suggest you look up the papers of R. Laflamme and the refs therein(www.arxiv.org). For some more popular accounts of what quantum entamnglement means, see the PI website at www.perimeterinstitute.ca. Unless canadians also conspire against you in one way or another.
2.Marxism: don't publish in Pravda and related "journals"
3.Creationism: don't publish in creationist "journals".
4.NASA science: develop strong arguments of your own that invalidate NASA claims (although both you and NASA make similar claims - they claim the existence of water on Mars, but in a lower voice than you claim the existence of life on Mars).
5"...and such":please bring them on,I can' wait to see more of your excuses.

The truth is that you are only facing the scientific community with claims backed by "bad science", so whining that you would like to "do science" but "they won't let you". First do it, do it properly, and then see if "they" let you do it or not.

You make this claims from the position of someone "doing" science from popular magazines and internet. Sure you are confused about the different "currents".The difference between you and true scientists is that "they" can sort out quite easily the science from quackery, while you cannot.

I AM the true scientist. And I spot the pseudo science faster than the crooks who do it recognize they are that - like quantum computer BS.

The main "difference between" me and crooked "true" scientists is that they are organized and entrenched to make money of the crap they produce.

ES

No, you are as far from being a scientist as I am from being Peter Pan. And you are promoting the very same BS you claim others are are promoting. In other words you are a hack, and as a matter of fact, the worst kind of hack.

As I said, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about when it comes to quantum computing, and you know even less about what you claim you are researching. You are right in one aspect though. There are others, calling themselves reporters,who understand such topics as much as you do (that means nothing else except the fact that certain subjects are "cool")and who promote them blindly exactly because of the "coolness". Which is what happens with quantum computing and teleportation. They write only about what is primarily accessible to their narrow minds (like you do) and capacity of understanding like teleportation (without actually understanding the meaning of it), but I have seldom seen so much nonsense published about say, the Higgs particle, or the neutrino mass. And you know why?Because similar to your case, they simply cannot understand the issue, nor do they see why it would be important.

As I said before, get your finds published in a scientific journal, I gave you plenty of titles of journals where you could actually post your "findings". It is not difficult to meet their standards for publishing, so get your paper going. Or alternatively, if you already tried that and failed, please post for everyone to see the rejection letters from such journals (not from popular science magazines, from scientific journals, although not even popular science magazines take you seriously).

I doubt however that such rejection letters from scientific journals actually exist in your case, since in fact you prefer whining and complaining than actually doing something to prove yout theories (except preaching of course). Science is not done by popular demand (or by popular support for that matter) as all the 2-penny shows you watch on TV. But then you wouldn't actually understand that, as the "true scientist" that you are.

It is funny that you would say that. A MS in theoretical physics with minor in computer science, years of work as a physicist and as a sofware developer, two years in PhD program in physics - are under my belt.

And if I tell you that quantum computing is a hoax, you can take it straight to the bank.

As to what the reviewers are writing about my Mars images research - they are saying that there is no "scientific" content in the Martian statues or flowers. I suggest to you that parasites are simply protecting their turf.

ES

Aha, so you claim you are a physicist, or more precisely, a physicist in rising. Then let's clear some of the issues in what you are saying.

MS in theoretical physics with a minor in physics?And you want me to believe you? Since when have grad degrees minors? But I will do you a favor and I will take you up on your claim that you have a major in something and a minor in CS, an MS in physics, experience as a physicist and experience in some sort of programming and 2 years as a PH.D student in Physics.

I belive that you do realize that you listing some degrees still does not give you the expertise you need for your research, and furthermore does not explain your lack of method in your research (which bewilders me, if your claims are real). Major in something with a minor in CS means almost nothing. As does your software development experience. Building software for soem internet application for example does not give you any insight in building software for patern recognition or image analysis.
Therefore, let me ask you this.What was the subject of your MS research? What type of software development did you do? What is the field of your PH.D research? So that we are clear about your "official" expertise at least, though as a physicist, I would expect your true expertise to be much more extensive than the "official" one.

Once we have cleared these issues, and since you made the claim you are a physicist, let's turn the discussion up a few notches. Although it is absolutely unbelievable that with 2 years of PH.D you could make such a gross error in logic as the one you did in your math background for your image analysis. It's simply unbelievable. Not to mention your obvious lack in knowledge as much as the rest of your research on Martian life is concerned. But then, Dyson & Co. also came with a stupid ideea when they started the Orion Project.

Let's talk about QC. I will grant you that the media has gone rather crazy on the topic, but then it has also done so with string theory, black-holes, DNA, superluminal velocities, and a plethora of other glitzy topics. You being a physicist, should make this media aspect irrelevant to our discussion.So, let's get back to QC, entanglement, teleportation and so on and so forth. Why is it a hoax? And come up with refs please,so that they can be discussed, not with rantings.

As for your research on Mars photos,let's nt talk about parasites, since your comment applies to you equally well. You are protecting your turf without even willing to admit that you actually made an error. What happened with the open-mindedness you desire from the others, when it refers explicitly to you?
Up to this moment I do agree with the reviewers, as I told you before. And this based only on your website. But I would be happy to read the drafts you sent for reviewing. You can upload them on your website, in any format including LaTex.

And you know, your claim of being associated to a university simplifies things, actually. You can take your mathematical proof, put it in a different and more appropriate setting, and go talk to someone from your math department about it. I am pretty surethat if you insist, someone wil be willing to discuss yout math proof with you. Maybe in this way you will actually understand where your reasoning is flawed.

I do not claim any such thing, read and understand what I am saying precisely as I am saying it.
As to my mistakes, everyone makes mistakes.
I know how to correct them, but what is the point throwing more pearls in front of pigs? I have number of even more of astonishing things discovered on Mars, than I display on my site.

This work is not accepted, not because of mistakes or bad style, it can be corrected, but because nitwits can not stand someone showing them how small minded they are.


Now, if someone cares about understanding why quantum computing is a hoax, read this thread by me:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=650&st=0

ES

"As to my mistakes, everyone makes mistakes."

This is most likely true. Some of us even learn from them. That's called "experiential redirection".

"I know how to correct them, but what is the point throwing more pearls in front of pigs? I have number of even more of astonishing things discovered on Mars, than I display on my site."

Knowing how to correct mistakes is called potential. Many people with high IQ's have a great deal of potential. A rock high on a mountainside has lots of potential too. Neither the rock nor the genius develops any of their potential until and unless they come down from their lofty heights and interact with the valleys, whether geological or human.

AS for casting pearls before swine, from what I have seen you present here, your "pearls" appear to have about the substance and consistency of tapioca, and I can buy that at the supermarket for $1.29.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever suffered a hard blow to your skull, or an extraordinary electrical voltage contact? Have you ever engaged in recreational pharmacology, legal or illegal? I can't help but feel there is some reason you act as you do.

>>I do not claim any such thing, read and >>understand what I am saying precisely as I am >>saying it.

You are not a very bright one, are you? I was doing you a favor in assuming that since you mentioned 2 PH.D years "under your belt" to quote you (BTW, physics and science in general begins from shoulders up not from belt down), you are still enrolled in the program. Which automatically means that you were associated with a university.
You've made it clear now that you are a dropout, so I apologize for my mistake.

>>As to my mistakes, everyone makes mistakes.

True, but those like you making only mistakes are usually called stupid.

>>I know how to correct them, but what is the >>point throwing more pearls in front of pigs? I >>have number of even more of astonishing things >>discovered on Mars, than I display on my site.

What a bunch of baloney.Not only are you stupid, you are also very infatuated with yourself (it's called nymphomania, an I think it might be treatable).

>>This work is not accepted, not because of >>mistakes or bad style, it can be corrected, but >>because nitwits can not stand someone showing >>them how small minded they are.

Ah, whinig again. Serves you well, in your state of intelectual stupor.


>>Now, if someone cares about understanding why >>quantum computing is a hoax, read this thread >>by me:http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?>>showtopic=650&st=0

You moron, I asked you for refs not quotes of more of your ramblings. But its good to see that you make a fool of yourself on other forums too. At leat in this sense you are consistent in your nymphomania. You claim you have invested years in understanding quantum theory, and yet you have no clue of it. What a waste of time and money for your M.S. I can only hope your supervisor did not pay for it.

But let's get back to business.Clue me in again, why is quantum computing impossible? How is thermodynamics violated? How do Hesienberg's inequalities prevent that? Come on, let's get down to the hardcore science, don't be shy. I can't wait to understand in more detail the extent to which someone wasted mones on your (claimed) degrees.

I guess you deserve all invectives you throw at me. The thing is that you have proven uncapable of intelligent discussion. On the other hand, as it was ones said about a dreadful flute player, at least he is not into the hw robberies.

e s

You are out of your league: probably, have not seen a differential equation in your life.
The way to ask, for you, is to stand on your knees first, get it?

ES

>>I guess you deserve all invectives you throw at >>me. The thing is that you have proven uncapable >>of intelligent discussion. On the other hand, >>as it was ones said about a dreadful flute >>player, at least he is not into the hw >>robberies.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, cut the baloney and let's get down to quantum mechanics, entanglement, quantum gravity, quantum field theory or whatever else quantum that pleases you.

>>You are out of your league: probably, have not >>seen a differential equation in your life.

You mean I am out of your league, right? Boy, you really are thick. When it comes to quantum theory, I prefer them as eigenvalue problems, you know. Gives you a better understanding of the issue than in a a particular representation as diff equation. You should know that already.

>>The way to ask, for you, is to stand on your >>knees first, get it?

As I said before, you are not a very bright fella. I'll have to get used to it. So if your testosterone levels have dropped back to nominal levels, stop squirming and let's get back to real science.

So once again, what are your arguments based on the principles of thermodynamics and Heisenberg's inequalities that prevent the existence of a quantum computer? And I am especially interested in your oppinion how nonlinearities come into play, since you don't seem to be aware of the fact that for example the p-n juncion is also globally non-linear, and yet computers exist. Have you ever heard of the acronym LCAO? Go look it up.

Pasti, perhaps the word you are looking for is "narcissism", from the legend of Narcissus, who starved to death from staring at his own reflection in the water. "Nymphomania" refers to "excessive sexual desire in and behavior by a female." Which, given who we're dealing with, might not be too inaccurate, either.

Hi Amaranth,

First of all Happy Thanksgiving, and second of all, sorry for the long silence.

You are right, I used "nymphomaniac" in a "slightly" enlarged context, but he did not actually get it. As I said, he's not a very bright one, just a bit above Paul's IQ, but not much.

[Censored: incendiary and off-topic]

If you continue to make comments of this nature there will be consequences.

ES, as I said before, stop squirming and let's talk about quanum theory. I am still waiting for your arguments regarding the impossibility of QC.

How very intersting. When it comes to the "real thing", suddenly your interminable posts have reduced to only a line. What seems to be the problem? Have you suddenly become "shy" when challenged by someone more knowledgeable than you in the field? How very unscientific of you.


Was your boasting about the time you spent understanding quantum theory just to impress the less knowledgeablew in the matter? There is no reason for that, I have worked in QM, QED, QFT, QG, QC more than you will ever work in physics, so I certainly can understand your arguments.

First af all, the correct term is QUAC - QUANTUM COMPUTER.

The QUAC is impossible, because none of the offered descriptions of any of its properties and/or operations passes laugh test.

All of it is just bambling of complete ignoramuses in the quantum theory.

You or anybody else will be unable to come up with a quote about QUAC, that makes sense from the quantum physics and computing point of view,

Try it

ES

First af all, the correct term is QUAC - QUANTUM COMPUTER.

The QUAC is impossible, because none of the offered descriptions of any of its properties and/or operations passes laugh test.

All of it is just bambling of complete ignoramuses in the quantum theory.

You or anybody else will be unable to come up with a quote about QUAC, that makes sense from the quantum physics and computing point of view,

Try it

ES

There you go, Schroeinger's cat didn't get your tongue after all. But you recently seem to have developed a comprehension problem. I said ARGUMENTS, by which I mean scientific arguments. You should at least know the meanong of the concept, even if practice in applying it lacks.

Once again, what are your ARGUMENTS regarding the impossibility of QC? Preferential acronymisation does not count as an ARGUMENT, and I already know your oppinions. So go ahead with the arguments now, stop chasing your tail.

Funny that you say that
I offered YOU, or anybody else who cares, a challenge.

I claim, that you can not come up with an actual quotation from QUAC proponents, that is not a plagiarism, and that is not patently incorrect from physical and/or computational point of view.

You have to accept challenge and offer a quotation, or you must admit that I am right and that all QUAC is a bunch of crap.

e s

"I offered YOU, or anybody else who cares, a challenge."

Aha!The good old trick of shifting the burden of proof onto those who don't share your views.I was wondering when you would say that. As I said ES, you are not a very bright fella. The answer to your cheap trick is trivial. I stand behind the entire experimental and theoretical work that has been done in the field. At MIT, LANL, Caltech ICQ, and wherever else you like. You want refs? Well, let's see, you can use arxiv, Spires, and search for authors like Deutsch, Laflamme, Lloyd, Kimble, Preskill, or for keywords like decoherence, quantum gates. If you feel you are not capable to do the search by yourself, let me know and I will come up with more concrete refs.

"I claim, that you can not come up with an actual quotation from QUAC proponents, that is not a plagiarism, and that is not patently incorrect from physical and/or computational point of view."

You can claim whatever you whish, but without concrete arguments/proofs your claims are worth nothing. I will make it really easy for you, so that you don't overeload your brain (too much). Take one issuein QC, the issue you are most comfortable with, which you understand the best etc, and put up for discussion your argument about why this particular issue is incorrect, or plagiarism, or whatever you think it is wrong with it.


"You have to accept challenge and offer a quotation, or you must admit that I am right and that all QUAC is a bunch of crap."

My dog laughed when he read what you wrote above. You don't seem to realize the enormity of your statements. All the arguments in favor of QC are public, are posted on public archives (see above) for everyone to read and comment. You claim they are wrong, and I still have to see a concrete argument from you to that effect. So what don't you do the same thing, on this forum at least: pick up an issue at your convenience, and post your arguments detailing why that particular issue is fale, untrue, incorrect, plagiarism or whatever eles.

As for the challenge you mention, I accepted your challenges long ago but as usual, you don't seem to understand this. And I have offered you refs (in physics we call them references, if you might recall), but once again, this seems to have eluded you. Nevermind, I offered you more refs above, should you want to actually pursue them.

So, let' get down to business. I am waiting for your CONCRETE ARGUMENTS regarding the incorrectness of the issue of your choice in QC.

Take the "quantum entanglement". It is regergitation of the discussion about 60 years ago.
The story goes that two coherent particles are being created.
They do not physically interact after being created.

One of them is being observed/measured first What can be said about the state of the second particle, and after the measurement of the first one, that could not be said before the measurement ?

1. Before the measurement, we have total state as production of the states of those particles

|1,2> = |1>|2>, <1|1>=<2|2>=1

Let say M1 and M2 are propeties of the first and the second particle. Their operators will commute:
[M1,M2]=0

Measurement of amplitude of property M1 of first particle, gives
<1,2|M1|1,2> = <1|M1|1>
The mesurement changes the state of the first particle to |1m>

subsequent easurement of amplitude of property M2 of second particle, gives
<1m,2|M2|1m,2>/<1m,2|1m,2> = <2|M2|2>

No matter what order you make the measurements,
those results will be the same.

This is a simple model. You can complicate it as much as you want, the result will be the same.

This simply a restatement of the fact that those particles are independent during the time, whereat we analyze their behavior.

Clearly, no specific entanglement effects are observed.

You might say, that we could have some prior knowlege about the system, like total energy.
The quantum mechanics do not consider such knowlege and do not evaluate changes of such knowlege due to experiment.
It starts and ends with system, defined to the extent that its Psy function defined.
Those who make conclusions beyond that, are on their own, they can not claim that it is what quantum mechanics say.


Thus, the claim about "quantum entanglement" has no quantum mechanical justification. It is a hoax to say it does.

ES

OK, so you posted your argument. Let's talk shop now.

Let's indeed assume that you have the two non-interacting particles, initially in state |1 > and state |2>. However, you somehow seem to neglect the fact that since you are dealing with quantum systems, the states |1> and |2> are elements of a continous and/or discrete complete set of such states, assuming that you have actually solved the 1-particle problem(s).
Let's now further assume that indeed the total Hilbert space of the system is the direct product of the 1-particle Hilbert spaces, since the two particles do not interact, so that in the end you can say that your initial state is |1,2>=|1>|2>.
And that is about where we stop agreeing.

First of all, you are talking about average values of observables, while quantum entanglement deals not with with the average values of the quantum observables, but with the measurement of such observables, with individual measurements. Which changes completely your story.

Now, if you actually want to describe measurements, you need to include also the wavefunction of the measurement apparatus. Roughly speaking, if you consider a 2 step von Neumann type of measurement, combined with the fact that you have a complete set of 1-particle eigenfunctions means that after you have measured (first stage of the measurement) the observable M1 your two particles are in a state that can roughly be described as:

|1,2/new>= {Sum/n}|1n>|2n>

where n is some sumation index and your initial state |1,2> is one of the states in the sum, for a particular value of n. This is where the entanglement of the states of the 2 particles occurs. There are some nice refs on this issue that I can give you if you want.

In the second stage of the measurement (observation), your wavefunctions collapses, such that the observed state will be say |1r>|2r>, which gives you the eigenvalue m1r for the observable M1. Furthermore, this (the outcome of the measurement on M1) uniquely determines your outcome of any future observation on M2 as m2r, before any such observation has actually been performed.

Of course, if you change the measuring process and you measure M2 first, the situation changes in the sense that the outcome of any further observation on M1 is uniquely determined by the observation on M2.

So, in the end it matters which measurement is made first. In your case, since you used averages and did not use the entire set of 1-particle states, the above distinction dissapears,and so does any consideration regarding entanglement.

Do not try it at home. Ask somebody, who actually knows anything about quantum theory.

Let me put it for dummies:
"entanglement" violates the principle of casuality, which is the paramount for any physical theory including quantum theory.

That's all you actually need to know.
And with "entanglement", goes down the "quantum teleportation" and the whole "quantum computing" pile of crap.

e s

......................... Scientists implemented a seven qubit computing device that ran Shor's factorization algorithm at Almaden Research Center.

... o_o PSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSST~! *whisper* Go here. http://www.almaden.ibm.com/

shhhh...

Andy,

Shor's "algorithm" is absolute undiluted crap.
Its speed is 2**N * O(N**3), the slowest ever anywhere :rolleyes:


The nitwit does not get that his "quantum function" f(n) will take O(2**N) to evaluate.

You can implement and model that crap for small N like seven, but it is the slowest and most degenerate way to factor numbers.

ES

ES:"Do not try it at home. Ask somebody, who actually knows anything about quantum theory."

There you go again. I thought we were past this baloney. But you seem to get back to it every time you get cornered.


ES:"Let me put it for dummies:"entanglement" violates the principle of casuality, which is the paramount for any physical theory including quantum theory."

Aha, so now entanglement exists, but it violates causality at quantum level. Humor me, how does it violate causality? Once again, arguments not psycho-babble. And don't give me the faster than light bull.

ES:"And with "entanglement", goes down the "quantum teleportation" and the whole "quantum computing" pile of crap."

Aside from the fact that I agree with you that the term "teleportation" has been a very unfortunate choice, and the media has cashed extensively on it, you are once again indulging yourself in mystico-apocalyptic self babble, without any support for your claims. The argument you offered previously for the inexistence of entanglement is incorrect, and even worse, your claims are also contrary to observational data, and you know that.

As for Schor's algorithm, it may be slow, but then so was the DFT algorithm before Lanczos. But Schor made a correct point, and it was proven to work. So your point is?

(1) - shows that you have a problem with English and logic. The "entanglement" is impossible and it does not exist, since its existence would violate the laws of Nature.

(2) The whole Shor's algorithm claim to the fame is, that a device with QUAC properties would require O(N**p) operation time for factoring of a large integer. It is a crap, since it would require at least 2**N times more time.

(3) There is no correct point made by Shor or any other of QUAC kooks

ES

ES:"(1) - shows that you have a problem with English and logic. The "entanglement" is impossible and it does not exist, since its existence would violate the laws of Nature.

Let me quote you:"..."entanglement" violates the principle of casuality, which is the paramount for any physical theory including quantum theory."

Now, let me spell it for you dummy: in order for causality to be violated, something called entanglement (we can drop the quotes since they are pretty much irrelevant in this context) must exist, either as a concept only, or as both concept and observational evidence. You know, to put it in laymen terms, you have to apply at least the concept in order to prove that causality is violated.

So implicitly you have admitted that entanglement exists at least as a concept, although previously you have "proved" that it doesn't exist as a concept.

If this argument does not satisfy you, let me know and I will provide you with a amthematical logic argument.

ES:"(2) The whole Shor's algorithm claim to the fame is, that a device with QUAC properties would require O(N**p) operation time for factoring of a large integer. It is a crap, since it would require at least 2**N times more time."

Ah, whining again. You simply cannot get it out of your system, can you?
Well, then instead of foaming inthe shadows, why don't you actually write a paper to this effect, exposing the flaws in Shor's calculations for the computatuion time? As the "true" scientist that you blaim to be, I am certain that at some point in your past you might have heard of this ancient method of publishing a paper in response to someone else' published claims. you might want to try this sometime.

"3) There is no correct point made by Shor or any other of QUAC kooks"

Do I detect a slight trace of racism in your statement? I can only hope that you haven't sunk so low.

Returning to your statement, I am sure that in your feverish imagination there is no such a point. But in reality there is, and he was not afraid to make his point and his arguments public. In flagrant contrast to you, who for the time being make claims based more on some sort of cayceian revelations than on solid arguments(the arguments you came with previously have, in the form you presented them, no merit whatsoever).

This is the only thing that makes sense, in all your writing. I will do that

Thanks for your contribution,

ES

Extrasense ... you don't make any.

Please provide a single reference from a peer reviewed journal or college level textbook where statements are made that support what you wrote:

""entanglement" violates the principle of casuality, which is the paramount for any physical theory including quantum theory."

Because from where I sit your statement is complete nonsense.

ES:"This is the only thing that makes sense, in all your writing. I will do that."

Don't flatter yourself. You might sprain some cerebral muscle...Where are the arguuments supporting your statement? You know what they used to say, verba volant, scripta manent.

"Thanks for your contribution."

Yeak, yeah, yeah, you're welcome.

Now, since you have decided to actually publish something, you need to be potty-trained to this effect. So cut your usual mumbo-jumbo and humor me once again with your ARGUMENTS showing that entanglement violates causality. I wouldn't mind refs either(but do not use self-citations, i.e. don't ref a link to more of your usual ramblings). And maybe who knows, you will be able to sustain a serious discussion on the topic for more than one post. Wouldn't that be somethin'?

I'm touched by your expression of concern for extrasense, but I somehow think that it is slightly misplaced. You and I both know what it is to do research and write papers for technical publication. It's a ruddy pain, and it takes enormous amounts of persistence and concentration.

Let's face it, you cannot sprain what you do not possess.

A.R.:"I'm touched by your expression of concern for extrasense, but I somehow think that it is slightly misplaced."

You might be right, but I think it is better if he channels all his energy in something more useful than ranting and whining. On the other hand, I have seen the same change in Uncle Al, and it was for the best.

A.R.:"You and I both know what it is to do research and write papers for technical publication. It's a ruddy pain, and it takes enormous amounts of persistence and concentration."

You are right, but I think once again that the effort is worth the pain and ruddiness. What surprises me though is the fact that he should have been aware of many "publishing" details, since he claims to have a master. And he is not.

Well, we shall see. However, up to this moment, you seem to have been entirely right.


Let's face it, you cannot sprain what you do not possess.

Well, I have even better proof: that there is no entanglement at all.

I have already submitted a paper to that effect, along with dislodging Shor's algorithm.

Lets see now, how the pseudoids will squirm

ES

ES:"Well, I have even better proof: that there is no entanglement at all."

You really have a comprehension problem. Let me spell if for you again: if entanglement does not exist, how can it violate causality?But then it was also you who stated that entanglement violates causality. Arguments my dear Watson, arguments and proofs, not words.

ES:"I have already submitted a paper to that effect, along with dislodging Shor's algorithm."

Both in one paper? So soon? Boy, you are a fast writer. Where can I download the draft(s) from? Or better, so that we don't have a problem with your identity, upload your drafts on your martian life website, remove any information pertinent to your identity, and let me know so that I can download them and read them.

ES:"Lets see now, how the pseudoids will squirm"

I can't wait to see the tabloids...

QC could still fail if 't Hooft is right See here.

I take it back, you won

If measurements are Unitary, and their operators commute, their results are independent.

ES

And if entanglement exists then the properties of the entagled entity are explicitly caused by measuring its entangled partner.

That you don't understand how this happens does not violate cause and effect.

It does not exist. forget about it. there is no such thing. it is a hoax.

ES

Do you guys mind if I interrupt this beatdown a moment?

I have tried to keep up with the general release info on quantum theory and entanglements. I find it facinating and exciting in its possibilities - I see things as a Sci-Fi writer/futurist.

When I find the more technical information, I will admit the formulae doesn't mean much to this liberal arts major/science fan and I would like to get a couple of opinions from folks more "in the trenches" with what is being discovered.

Entanglement - to me that opens up the possibility of developing what the genre literature calls "sub space communicators". Practical example - to give on earth scientists and technicians real time control and data from a probe intercepting Pluto/Charon - elimiates the speed of light delay in information transfer.

Is this a wacky concept - not that it has to be substanciated at this time, we are just testing the idea/concept/hypothesis, but is there anything currently summized that would outlaw such a future application of this phenomenon, or any that might add support to such a development?

Are there any research papers or sites that a relative layman such as myself should bookmark for further information?

Thanks in advance - let the beatdown continue. I am not impressed by Socratic arguements.
(That is one of the tactics of switching the burden of proof as noted above)

With respect to publications written for the laypublic I would seriously suggest a trip to your local library and pick up copies of Scientific American: December issue. If I recall correctly the December issue, perhaps it is January, contains an index to articles for the previous year. There you will find good, understandable, discussions of these subjects.

With respects to ES's claim that entanglement doesn't exist ... no doubt he can offer some "proof" such as paper's written in peer reviewed journals that provide an alternative explanation. Perhaps he can explain why it is that so many lab experiment has demonstrated it. Perhaps he has an alternative explanation, based on theory not fantasy, as to how IBM and others have successfully teleported the properties of particles instantaneously. Perhaps but I doubt it.

I think ES is standing in the darkness proclaiming that reality isn't what it is because he doesn't like it and understand it.

Well many of us don't understand it: Actually all of us. But we aren't afraid of it either.

Hooray!
This is where the whole thing belongs.
Why would you care is it correct or not, as a Sci-Fi writer/futurist? Go ahead, and explore the human consequences of what is being floated as a science

ES

Tell us, what is your level in quantum theory.
How many courses have you taken?

You need to understand books like Dirac's "Principles of Quantum Mechanics", to understand the proof "that entanglement doesn't exist."

ES

Here is a great Sci-Fi idea: a book about a society, where science was hijacked by the pseudoscience


es

Just keep the heat down on the beatdown or I'll have to wave my magic toothpick...

As a Science and Science Fiction Writer, one of the innumerable vast army of folks who look at things that are not and say "Why not?", I have to say that for the most part the writer's goal is to get the reader to read what he/she writes. If too many things conflict with the reader's point of view on reality, it generates bucketfulls and bucketfulls of "Cognitive Dissonance" which eventually annoys the reader to the point that he/she cannot wrap their imagination around the inconsistencies, and you lose them and the copyright royalties you might have gotten from the four to ten other people he/she would have talked into buying it. A certain amount of Plausibility, not necessarily absolute reality, must exist to hold the work together. Writers need to be consistent, and Sci Fi writers neew to at least seem plausible.

There's an excellent book out by Charles Sheffield called "Borderlands of Science" (2000:Baen Publishing Enterprises:Riverdale, NY) $6.29 from Amazon.com) Caution: There are several books out by this title; check author's name carefully.

Sheffield gives an overview, suitable for the non-calculus mathematical set, i.e. lay persons who are interested in Science, of modern technology and a state-of-the-science review in a number of technical fields. I have his 1999 edition in paperback, and it is a nice reference for my Sci-Fi writing.

Amazon has several thorough reviews of the book, so I won't bore you with mine.

thanks,

I should subscribe to Scientific American, a great publication, but I do purchase 5 or 6 issues a year thru bookstores.

I found a great book, written by Ben Bova and others that included a lot of good info on orbital mechanics, rate of spin for artifical grav, general concepts for future space engine designs and speculations on alien lifeforms.

I will hunt down the "Borderlands" book as well.

ES -

There are many humorous and horrendous examples of pseudoscience being used to dictate everything from personal preferences to national policies. Lots of stories left to be told.

The phenomenon labeled "Quantum Entanglement" is poorly understood at this point. That only speaks to our inability to test and interpret data, not that it does not exist.

My label of pseudoscience would be like Astrology or Phrenology or Eugenics or Creation Science - stuff like that. Efforts to probe and understand the underlying foundation of matter will be fraught with false starts and dead ends, but aside from the occasional egotistical researcher defending his/her special insight, the scientific process eventually will find a common understanding.

ES:"...I take it back, you won.
If measurements are Unitary, and their operators commute, their results are independent...
...[Entanglement]It does not exist. forget about it. there is no such thing. it is a hoax."

Oh, there you go again. I was off a few days and you are back to your old cheap tricks.

So, picking up the tread where we left it, WHAT ARE YOUR ARGUMENTS supporting this claim(etntanglement vs causality).
BTW, where are the drafts of the papers you allegedly submitted? By now you could have prepared several times for downloading from your martian site. Or is this once again just gurgling from your part?
If you don't like the scheme I proposed for dowloading the drafts, I can offer you several other ways in which we can annonimously exchange info. Downloading from your site is just easier.

Here is the proof I suggested:

Lets consider a more general case, with arbitrary state | S >, and unitary M1, M2, so
MT = (Mtransposed)*
that M1T * M1 =1, M2T * M2 =1,
and [ M1 , M2 ] = 0;
It holds, that
< S | M2T * M1 * M2 | S > = < S | M2T * M2 * M1 | S > = < S | M1 | S >
This shows that result of a measurement M1 does not change, whether or not the measurement M2 had preceded it.

es

OK, ES, you are giving me the same argument you gave me about 10 posts back or so but in an allegedly different context, so we don't seem to get anywhere.

So let me start by making some comments.
1. If you consider just one state |S> you are circumventing the quantum nature of the system. You need a complete set of eigenvectors. A system with only one state is a gross classical system. By gross I mean that you are not even in the statistical regime where to a (classical) macrostate you have an infinye number of (still classical) microstates. Or do you claim that the state |S> is in fact a superposition of elementary states? If yes, mixed or pure?

2. Second of all, you seem to ignore totally the measuring system, or the measurement process. Having observables is not the same thing as measuring them. Having observables only means that you have something that can be consitently measured by different observers in different conditions (i.e. covariance or invariance, as the case may be). And you cannot include the measurement into the observables, because if you incorporate them into the observables, the new self-measuring observables are not abelian anymore, even if unitarity may be preserved. the question is why do you ignore the measurement process?

3. Third of all, averaging on states is not a measurement, according to the postulates of QM. Why did you decide to use the averaging procedure?

Sure, if you have one system with one state (!) and commuting observables, of course the order of the measurements is irrelevant, since you have in fact nothing else than a classical system for any practical purpose. And this is also true if you consider a system of uncorrelated particles where the wavefunction is the tensor product of two pure states.

But then, I fail to see the connection between your argument in the form you presented it now and previously and the issue of entanglement (and its relation to causality). So enlighten me further. And when developing your arguments, try to remember what Murphy said about someone who does twice the same thing and expects different outcomes.

--- 1. do you claim that the state |S> is in fact a superposition of elementary states? ---
ES: Sure, but we do not care what the "elementary" states are. One can use any of the infinite possible "representations", if you know what it means.

--- 2. why do you ignore the measurement process? ----
ES: I do no such thing.
Measured value in a state | S > is given
by < S | M | S >,
where M is a Unitary operator describing the particular measurement.
The state after measurement is: M | S >

--- 3. Averaging on states is not a measurement, according to the postulates of QM. ----

What you are talking about? There is no such thing as "averaging" in quantum mechanics.

Any physical observable m as represented by operator M, if measured in physical state | S >,
gives < S | M | S > as a result.

Ask your mama :p

ES

Well, only the eigenvalues of M can be found in experiments. The expectation value is < S | M | S> .

I would keep this difference aside, for now.

You should agree nevertheless that we have a proof, that "expectation value" of a measurement would not change, regardless whether some other commutting measurement was performed before it or not performed.


es

That's pretty trivial, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. If it is about deterministic theories underlying QM, then you may be interested in doing research on this stuff. Prof 't Hooft is looking for a Ph.D. students and postdocs to work on deterministic theories, see here for a lecture.

It is trivial.
But, people are claiming existence of "quantum entanglement", meaning that a measurent on one "entangled" particle, changes the state of other entangled particle.
It is a patently false claim, do you agree?

ES

Pasti: ?1. do you claim that the state |S> is in fact a superposition of elementary states??

ES: ?Sure, but we do not care what the "elementary" states are. One can use any of the infinite possible "representations", if you know what it means.?

I am not talking about reps per se, I am just talking about the fact that the Hilbert space of states has a basis, and you can expand any state in such a basis. And since you already claim to have an algebra of observables, you could as well take the basis to be the complete set of the eigenstates of the abelian obsaervables. You want to call this ?representations?, be my guest. But it would be really interesting to see how you associate observables with unitary operators (as you claim you do) without such ?reps?.

So you say that your state |S> is in fact the superposition of eigenstates, so |S>= {Sum} c(n) |S(n)>, with complex coeffs c(n), and with the normalization <S|S>=1

Pasti: ?2. Why do you ignore the measurement process??

ES: ?I do no such thing. Measured value in a state | S > is given
by < S | M | S >, where M is a Unitary operator describing the particular measurement.
The state after measurement is: M | S >?

Sure you do. You are basically ignoring the measurement process even in its most elementary form. From the Postulate #? (I can look up the number if you so desire) of quantum mechanics you know that if you have a state |S> as you say, which is a superpostion of eigenstates, the results of the measurement of say observable M is

M|S>= m(i)c(i)|S(i)> (no summation)

i.e. you leave the system in the state |S(i)> after the measurement, and the state |S(i)> occurs with the probability c(i)c(i)*.So in your argument, M|S> is an eigenstate of M, which you have omitted to mention. So let's now elaborate along the lines of your reasoning.

A.If you measure first M1, you have

M1|S>= m1(n)c(n)|S(n)> (no sum)

and if you now measure M2 after the measurement on M1 has been performed, you have

M2M1|S>= M2(M1|S>)= m1(n)c(n)M2|S(n)>= m1(n)m2(n)c(n)|S(n)> (no sum)

which gives you the average value (not that it makes sense in this context)

<S|M2M1|S>= m1(n)m2(n)c(n)c(n)* (no sum)

B. If you measure now M2 first, you have

M2|S>= m1(p)c(p)|S(p)> (no sum)

where in general p is different from n. Along the same lines you have

M1M2|S>= M1(M2|S>)= m2(p)c(p)M1|S(p)>= m1(p)m2(p)c(p)|S(p)> (no sum)

And once again, the ?average?
<S|M1M2|S>= m1(p)m2(p)c(p)c(p)* (no sum)

I believe that it is clear now that the order of measurements for individual measurements matters in terms of the final result unless the very special case where n=p. This case can of course occur, but only as a concidence, if you know what I mean.

Your argument holds true only if you have ?prepared? your system before measurement, so to speak, in the state |S> which is an eigenstate of both operators M1 and M2. But then, the averaging (expectation value) makes no sense anymore since you are doing deterministic measurements, and there is no entanglement involved by construction (since you have already projected your state onto some convenient eigenstate).


Pasti: ?3. Averaging on states is not a measurement, according to the postulates of QM.?

ES: ?What you are talking about? There is no such thing as "averaging" in quantum mechanics. Any physical observable m as represented by operator M, if measured in physical state | S >, gives < S | M | S > as a result.?

You have no clue what you are talking about. A measurement of an observable implies collapse of a wavefunction into an eigenstate, hence

M|S>= m(i)c(i)|S(i) (no summation)

while calculation of the expectation value, or of the average value of the observable involves no such collapse, i.e.

M|S>={Sum} m(i)c(i)|S(i)>

such that in the end you get:

<S|M|S>={Sum} m(i)c(i)c(i)*

The latter expression can be interpreted in two different ways (and once again, I am not using any fancy concepts, just elementary quantum mechanics), and usually is considered to be the link between quantum mechanics and the classical theory:
(i) for a very large number of individual measurements of the observable M, <S|M|S> is nothing else than the average of the quantity m(I) that occurs with probability c(i)c(i)*, showing the statistical nature of quantum mechanics (here I have considered a discrete spectrum, but the same conclusion holds if the spectrum of the operators is continuous or mixed).
(ii) For any individual measurement process, the probability to obtain the value m(i) is of course c(i)c(i)*.

I think that it has also become clear why applying the average/calculating the expectation value of an observable on an eigenstate does not make too much sense.

So, going back to your model and your reasoning, your argument is nothing else than a particular case of more general argument. Furthermore, the conclusions of your argument do not hold for the general case, as you can see from the above, but you seem to have incorrectly generalized them.

Even worse, I still don?t see the relation of your argument to entanglement and to subsequent violations of causality.

Read Dirac's "Principles of Quantum Mechanics".

States are not needed to describe anything of substance.
If you need a notion of state to describe your concept or theory, they are wrong.

ES

From Pasti's reply I see that you either don't fully understand QM or that you have some deterministic agenda. I can understand why people don't agree with the projection postulate, because that seems to imply that if one particle of a two particle entangled state is measured, the other particle instantaneously collapses.

However, you can't just get rid of the projection postulate in the way you suggest, because that would lead to a theory that doesn't agree with experiment (it is an experimental fact that only eigenvalues of operators can be the result of experiments).

You can get rid of the projection postulate by including the observer in the QM description, which will lead to a many worlds theory, or by trying to explain QM as some effective statistical theory, like e.g. 't Hooft has suggested.

The measurement operators normally have continuous specter. In fact, I do not know of any example that it is not the case.
Therefore, it can not be "experimental fact" that "only eigenvalues of operators can be the result of experiments".

es

ES: "Read Dirac's "Principles of Quantum Mechanics"."

How about you read von Neumann's book, the "Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics"?

"States are not needed to describe anything of substance.If you need a notion of state to describe your concept or theory, they are wrong."

Huh? You sure you read Dirac's book? You cannot have quantum mechanics without a Hilbertian space of states.

But let's assume for a moment that indeed you don't need states, as you claim. Then please be so kind and describe the quantization procedure for a Hamiltonian system, and to make it simpler, a Hamitonian system without any type of constraints.

As for your answer to Iblis' comment: ES:"The measurement operators normally have continuous specter. In fact, I do not know of any example that it is not the case."

Let me see, angular momentum and spin have a discrete spectrum (not spectres), particle in a box has a discretre spectrum of states, energy in the H atom has a discrete spectrum of states, a lattice has a discrete spectrum of states (although they appear as quasicontinuous in the bands, unless hopping and percolation phenomena are taken nto account), the harmonic oscillator has a discrete spectrum of states, and I can give you plenty more examples.

You seem to once again confuse continuity of the state function in the configuration variables with the discreteness of the spectrum for an operator.
Let me spell it for you: say in the position representation for the H atom the wavefunction is roughly a function F(n,x), where n is the discrete principal quantum numbr and x is the configuration variable. F is discrete in n, but continuous in x. Which has nothing to do whatsoever with the fact that the spectrum of the postion operator is continuous. You should have known that.

ES: "Therefore, it can not be "experimental fact" that "only eigenvalues of operators can be the result of experiments"."

Hm,really? Then exactly how do you explain say, atomic spectra? You will agree with me that the spectra of atoms, molecules, etc. is discrete, and measurement of the energy of an atom involves discrete values of energy. Not to mention photon counting techniques.

And don't even dare to go into the issue of "measurement is not instantaneous, but an integral process" because if you do, your argument is not worth a dime.

So, cut the baloney and let's get back to the arguments above. Within the conceptual bounds that you yourself have imposed.

Read this, it is all you need to know about "projection postulate":

Von Neumann's projection postulate:
Sometimes also von Neumann's projection (or reduction) postulate,
stating that during a measurement of standard observable A the state vector |y>
undergoes a discontinuous transition |y> ---> |am>
if the measurement result is am,
is taken as part of the formalism of quantum mechanics.
I do not consider von Neumann's projection (or reduction) postulate
to be either a necessary or a useful property of a quantum mechanical measurement.
It is not necessary, because it is a consequence of a certain interpretation
of the quantum mechanical state vector
(viz. a realist version of the individual-particle interpretation)
that is dispensable.
It is not useful because it is not satisfied by many practical experimental measurement procedures.
For instance, an ideal photon counter detects photons by absorbing them.
Hence, ideally the final state of the electromagnetic field is the vacuum state
rather than the eigenvector of the photon number observable corresponding
to the detected number of photons.
Since photons that have survived the detection process are not registered at all,
it follows that the functioning of the photon counter even depends crucially
on not satisfying von Neumann's projection postulate:
it is operating better to the extent it violates the projection rule.
Consistency problems of quantum mechanical measurement, arising because of von Neumann projection,
could better be dealt with by abandoning the postulate as a measurement principle,
rather than by ignoring the existence of such well-tried measuring instruments like photon counters.


Dr Willem M. de Muynck

Department of Applied Physics
Eindhoven University of Technology
P.O.B. 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven
the Netherlands
Phone: +31 40 2474351
Fax: +31 40 2445253
E-mail: W.M.d.Muynck@tue.nl


Well said, doctor Muynck!

e s

ES: ''Therefore, it can not be "experimental fact" that "only eigenvalues of operators can be the result of experiments".''

You seem to have forgotten that the set of eigenvalues can be a continuum. Also, you must remember that the projection postulate assumes an ''ideal measurement''. The fact that the real world is more complicated cannot be used to argue that the basics of QM are wrong.

In the real world (assuming that QM remains valid), there is no collapse, but rather an interaction with the measurement apparatus. This causes the apparatus plus observer and rest of the universe to go into some entangled state with the measured system. The final state consists of a superposition of different states in which the observer has observed something different.

For each observer only the projection of the full state onto his subspace is relevant. So, ultimately the projection postulate is valid.

Dr Willem M. de Muynck is of course right, but that doesn't mean that you were too!


Similarly, in equilibrium statistical physics you implicitely assume properties like ergodicity. But I wouldn't mark a student who fails to calculate the partition function of a simple system because he says it's not valid because in real systems the assumptions are not 100% realistic.

Thank you.
He is right, that projection postulate must be dropped, as unnecessary and misleading.
This is all I am claiming.
In the quantum theory there are two sorts of rules.
1. The actual quantum rules, that are an essense of the theory and are absolute in it.
2. The euristics rules, that are used to come up with quantum solutions, starting from classic systems and concepts.

The euristics rules are helpful,but are not absolute and serve just as hints.
The result of their use has to be checked against experiment, and has to be accepted or rejected depending on outcome of said check.

e s

OK, so let's review. ES, you do not approve of the projection postulate, since it contradicts experimental evidence (maybe I should remind you that there is also experimental evidence to support it, but you seem to ignore these facts), and in support of your claim, instead of presenting your argument, you provide something that might resemble a reference.

First of all, let?s clear a few things, to avoid any further confusion.
a)The projection postulate as I presented and used it
M|S>= m(n)|S(n)> (no sum)
is the simplest(idealized) version of the measuring process, involves the loathed collapse concept, does not consider the measuring system as an integral part of the experiment, and IS NOT a von Newmann process.
b) The von Newmann process considers the measurement system as a quantum system and as a part of the measurement process, involves entanglement, and involves (once again) collapse on a final state of the entangled system but IT IS NOT the projection postulate as presented in traditional quantum mechanics.

Both of them are nothing else than more or less idealized models describing the reality of measurement, and as such of course they have limited applicability. And I urge you to read Iblis' comments regarding the conceptual use of such models.

So, now let?s review van Muynck?s argument. While the projection postulate does not apply indeed to his photon counter example, the von Neumann measurement process does, and from the bit you posted from his argument, I have to conclude that somehow he either does not distinguish between the ?Projection postulate? and the von Neumann measurement process, or he is simply wrong.
If he confuses the postulate with the von Neumann process, he is right, but this is of little comfort since he treats the measuring system pretty much classically, so the overall resulting picture is confusing at best. von Neumann himself pointed out this aspect somewhere in the late forties.
If he does not confuse the two processes, then he is simply wrong, since a von Newmann measurement process includes the measuring system as a quantum system, and as such will measure the final state of the total system as the state in which you have an extra M electrons present in the measurement system according to the quantum absorption process, the remaining non-absorbed photons (in accord to the statistical character/ behaviour of the total system). Of course, this is the correct outcome of the experiment since by knowing this state one ?observes? that there is a correlation between the number of photons in the system and the number of electrons that are measured. So the von Neumann measuring process indeed describes correctly the photon counter example. Don?t bother to tell me that that the argument is wrong, just go and read some elementary quantum mechanics, say Liboff?s book. You have in there all the details you need. And as I said before, it would not hurt you to read the papers by Adami.

Now, if you agree with Muynck and his argument (i.e. you advocate the elimination of the projection postulate) you have to deal with the much more complicated problem that while you can drop the postulate, you have to replace it at least with the von Newmann measurment procedure or with something better. And I am pretty sure that you don?t want to replace the postulate the postulate with von Neumann?s procedure, since in an earlier post I also tried to use the latter and you were displeased, to put it very mildly.That's the reason why I swithched back to the postulate.

If you disapprove of both these concepts/postulates/procedures, which is fine with me, what do you replace them with? Since you do consider these models unrealistic, and want to drop them, then you must replace them with a more realistic, in your opinion, model of measurement in order to carry out your argument(s). So, cutting down to the chase, how do you define the measurement of an observable of a system in a certain state? And be specific, since the goal is ultimately to return to your argument regarding the inexistence of entanglement, and how (the inexisting) entanglement violates causality.

Furthermore, you still need to explain the quantization procedure for a classical system that does not involve states (!), as you claimed earlier.

Sure,
You take classical Hamiltonian, which is the energy expressed as function of coordinates Xi, and momentums Pi.
You substitute Pi ==> i*h*d/dXi.
i*i=-1; h is Plank constant
This gives you quantum Hamiltonian in the coordinate representation. It acts on the Psy function of coordinates.

This is an example of euristic rules of quantum mechanics.
They only can be used as a hint, and are not a part of the quantum theory/normal quantum theory./
The "projection postulate" is an another example of euristic rules of quantum mechanics.
It can be used or dropped, and the quantum mechanics itself is not affected by that.

The problem arises,
when people are trying to use euristic rules of quantum mechanics,
as components of proofs or theories.
This has happen to the "quantum computing" apologists. Their "proofs" are a bunch of crap, since they do not understand the difference between euristic and actual rules of quantum mechanics.

ES

OK, so from your statements above I will take it that we agree with Dirac's canonical quantization program. But in this case, you still need to explain the statement you made earlier that in a quantum theory you don't need a state(!). From your description above, you seem to include all the necessay ingredients, Hilbert space and so on and so forth, including the states of a quantum system.

And it sems you have missed entirely the other question I was asking you. If you drop the prjection postulate and the von Newmann process, what do you replace them with?You need to replace them with something, so please specify in as much detail what is the concept that you introduce in their place, so that we can continue the discussion about quantum entanglement.

ES:"This is an example of euristic rules of quantum mechanics.They only can be used as a hint, and are not a part of the quantum theory/normal quantum theory. The "projection postulate" is an another example of euristic rules of quantum mechanics.It can be used or dropped, and the quantum mechanics itself is not affected by that."

We seem to have a syntax problem now, but its fine, we can overcome this too.
I agree with you that we are dealing on a daily bases with more or less idealized models, which can never describe nature in totality. At least up to this moment, this seems to be the situation, and it is mostly a matter of philosophy if we will ever have a model describing totally and accurately nature. As such, this could be the subject of another thread, I would be very happy to discuss it, time permitting.

But I was under the impression that it was self-evident that we confine ourselves to those models describing the best the phenomena under consideration, and that are also in reasonable agreement with the "previous" physics (by this I agreement with concepts and agreement with observational evidence). So as Ibliss said, you cannot just use the blindly the difference between "real" reality and "model" reality to totally disregard/invalidate all conceptual models. I mean, of ceourse, you could, but then you are only left with a form of religion instead of science, with what mysticism calls the "awe", which does not explain anything per se.

As for the projection postulate, yes, I agree with you that in can be dropped, but as I said previously, you cannot just simply drop it and say that quantum mechanics can survive without it.It cannot, because the postulate, or von Neumann's measuring process introduce/describe the concept of measurement in the theory, and by simply dropping this concept off, without replacing it you end up with a "PRINCIPIALLY UNTESTABLE" theory, which is useless. You must replace the old measurement concepts with new ones.SO ONCE AGAIN, WHAT IS THE NEW CONCEPT OF MEASUREMENT THAT YOU INTRODUCE IF YOU DROP THE PROJECTION POSTULATE?

ES: "The problem arises, when people are trying to use euristic rules of quantum mechanics, as components of proofs or theories. This has happen to the "quantum computing" apologists. Their "proofs" are a bunch of crap, since they do not understand the difference between euristic and actual rules of quantum mechanics."

I agree that one can use stupidly a model out of its context, and get "odd" results. But I hope that by the argument you present above, your argument regarding entanglement is also a bunch of crap, so is mine, so is Iblis's, so is Bohr's, Einstein's, and so on and so forth. Furthermore, since we cannot actually know in detail the reality, this entire discussion about entanglement, is a bunch of crap. And incidentally (and believe me that I am not saying this because I want to be nasty or similar, it is just a direct extension of your arguments), so are your other arguments regarding the existence of life on Mars, for the same reasons.

Once again, let's cut down to the chase, and return to the argument regarding entanglement. You don't like the projection postulate. Fine. What do you replace it with?

If you follow my line of thinking, the "projection postulate" can not be a part of the quantum mechanics itself. So it must be dropped from the pure quantum side.
But, it still can be renamed as a "projection euristic rule", and remain as such in the quantum realm. Until something better invented :p .
The only change will happen to the validity of any proof that relies on the projection rule being be a "postulate". Such a proof is invalid.

ES

Damn, I lost all I wrote. I don't have time anymore to rewrite everything so I will be rather brief.

No, you cannot apriorically discard heuristic proofs, because of something called "the predictive power" of a theory. When a theory is "designed" it is designed such that heuristic proofs agree with known observational data, and that by the means of these heuristic proofs you can make predictions. You or I or anyone else cannot just discard such proofs just because they are based on more or less idealized heuristic arguments. It is only observation that can decide whether a prediction is true or not. Remember the laws of planetary motion, the discovery of Pluto the precession of Mercury perihelion? They were all (at the time) predictions of certain theories.

But let's try now your argument without any heuristic rules. You have a system in a state |0> which we consider to be reproducibe, i.e. we can somehow prepare the system to be in such a state whenever we need it (it might take some trials to do that, but in the end we can find this state).
And we measure two quantities, M1,M2 which are just QUANTITIES, not operators, and I don't care if they commute or not since I don't measure them simultaneously anyway.
a) I measure first M1, and by measuring M1, the system is left in a state |0,1>. All this ket notation is absolutely meaningless,no eigenstates, no left and right products, nothing of the sort. I just use it as a convenient notation for the states. Now I measure M2, and after the measurement, the system is left in the state |0,1,2>
b) I measure first M2, which brings my sysytem into the state |0,2'>, and if afterwards I measure M1, the sytem will get ino the state |0,2',1'>

Now, the states |0,1>,|0,1,2>, |0,2'> |0,2',1'> are in the general case not the same by themselves or combinations, except for the particular case of a coincidence. And if you associate in an univalued manner states with the values of the observations/measurement, the result of the two measurements will be different.

Sure, if you make statistical measurements (i.e. if you measure both M1M2 and M2M1 a large number of times), you will obtain the same distribution of the values m1m2 and m2m1, but then, what does this tell you? Absolutely nothing because you are ignoring the "correlations" between the individual measurements, you understand what I mean. You are now making correlations on the entire enasmbles, which erases basically the individual measurement "correlations".

This is childish
The quantum theory represents ALL measureable characteristics as operators.

Relax,

es

Of course it is childish, but not incorrect. And furthermore, it made ou turn the right way. I have given up any representation of quantum mechanics, I am only handling the real quantum mechanical quantities. But you don't seem to like that either.
And for this purpose, you don't need the comutator rules for observables, for two main reasons:
a)First of all,the moment you say "order of measurments"(and you can find your own quote on this one some 30 messages ago) the commutation of the observables M1 and M2 go out the window, because you are dealing with operators at different instants in time, and wavefunctions, etc, while the commutation of operators are equal time commutation rules. You should already know this from QFT and Feynmann graphs.
b)Second of all, the practice of measurement, no one in QM "measures" simultaneously anything, unless some experiment is specifically designed that way. So from the praxis point of viev, the commutation of observable is irrelevant.

But then let's return to your argument, once again. You keep the observables as operators, they commute, but you don't want any projection postulate involeved.Your proof can be summarized as follows: <S|M1M2|S>=<S|M2M1|S> which principially can tell you nothing about entanglement, even in this context, since you are measuring simultaneously the two quantieties/observables, so no ordering comes into play. At best it becomes an argument against non-locality, but not against entanglement.Once you take ordering into consideration, commutation fails (you have observables at different moment in time, so you cannot say anything about their commutation), and your argument becomes invalid, once again.

Your message IS incorrect.
What is Feinman about?
If you want to go to the level of quantum field theory, you are on your own.

The QUAC is incorrect on the level of quantum mechanics.

I am sure although, that you as incompetent in the quantum field theory, as you are incompetent in the quantum mechanics

es

ES:"Your message IS incorrect."

And your argument supporting the above statement IS?

ES:"What is Feinman about?If you want to go to the level of quantum field theory, you are on your own."

I was just exemplifying something, but you missed it. But I wouldn't mind going to QFT either. I would really like to see your argument for a graded algebra of observables, for example.

"The QUAC is incorrect on the level of quantum mechanics."

That might be, but not according to your statements, and not according to your previous arguments. So once again, where is your proof (if any) that entanglement does not exist, and that as such it violates causality?

ES:"I am sure although, that you as incompetent in the quantum field theory, as you are incompetent in the quantum mechanics."

There you go again. I thought we were past this crap. So cut the ranting, even if it makes you feel good in some twisted way, and channel your efforts into something more constructive, like, say, developing an argument in support of your statements, and presenting it appropriately.

ES is just having fun with QM. The thing that interest me is whether or not a multiverse exists in which all the possibilities you can find after a measurement are realized. Even if the many worlds interpretation is false and QM refers to a single universe, you can still have a many worlds like scenario in an infinite universe where an infinite number of copies of observer exist (e.g. in eternal inflation models).

Also, one can imagine an infinite ensemble of universes. It could be that there is no distinction between physical and mathematical existence. We could be purely mathematical entities living in an abstract mathematical world, experiencing our own world subjectively as something real. All possible mathematical models would then define their own universe (such a model has been proposed by Tegmark).

The "idea" of multiple universes came up, since parallel nonlinear processing seems to be not an option.

Those who talk about "full set of the states of computer", do not realize that for physical computer this would include the states when it is melted or even evaporated

ES

Not sure what you mean. The multiverse idea was invented before the concept of quantum computers.

It did not fly then, it does not make sense of the QUAC either

es

Ibliss, if you want to discuss the multiverse relation to QM, I am afraid that you should provide a more detailed description of the issue, maybe start a different thread. You know my oppinion about the multiverse ideea, I am more of a GR-LQG person, but nevertheless, I would be very interested to discuss it.

That's a good idea. I mentioned it here because of the projecton postulate that ES wants to get rid of.