Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Not disputing any of that Bill but we also need to

a) Teach and make sure that students coming out of school understand that these are approximations and at there heart wrong and why they are wrong. It is important because the disconnect between science and the general public is growing over it the last 100 years has taught us that. Science is not really going to care because it isn't driven by the public it is driven by government, military and corporations and so the disconnect will get wider and wider and the loser is not science.

b) Make sure that in science that each of the fields responds to what is now a very changed landscape around energy. I can tell you I have to look and respond to questions about energy very differently in the last 10 years because it is all different to what I was taught and I probably like many are looking at other science fields with suspicion.

I am not sure what the reason for Ethan's article was but I know he got caught in a firefight where a couple of mathematicians and a couple of prominent physicists poured a bucket over some cosmology. It happens from time to time people don't keep up and try to play the I am an expert card and get there legs and necks cut off.

At the end of the day the whole arrogance of fields junk doesn't wash with me because science is about what is right nothing else, the rest is people and their emotional baggage.

Last edited by Orac; 05/19/14 03:04 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
My problem arose because of the juxtaposition of two ideas in my mind.

Originally Posted By: Bill
Observing an indeterminate state doesn't lock it in, when we look away it becomes indeterminate again.


This succinctly captures the first. The second was:

Originally Posted By: Wiki
“Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically irreversible way"


If decoherence is linked to observing an indeterminate state, and is thermodynamically irreversible, how can the state become indeterminate again when we look away?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Well done and that is a problem isn't it.

It gets worse extend that thought if you did multiple observations you would sap energy out of the object wouldn't you ... hold that thought we will come back to it.

It was at that point Serge Haroche won his 2012 Nobel prize for showing something interesting. In 1996 he entangled rubidium atoms and sent one of the entangled atoms through a microwave-filled cavity. The entangled states both cause shifts in the phase of the microwave field by fractionally different amounts, so that the field also becomes entangled. However as the cavity field exchanges energy with the solid macro parts of the cavity wall etc so it collapses to a single state and takes energy away. It is a functional equivalent of you or I observing something.

Haroche measured the resulting decoherence via correlations between the energy levels of pairs of atoms and they were different.

So there was a problem with Bill's original answer which is what concerned me as well. It definitely doesn't go back to the way it was after observation but it can take on a slightly altered new unknown state.

You are beginning to see why I have to be careful with dealing with energy these days as compared to what I was taught as information equals energy.

That leaves open an interesting thought doesn't it can you observe all the energy out of an object, what does observation actually do? Care to have a crack at this one?

I have to go but I am also going to write a response on the ugly part of this which you haven't realized the bit I actually have problems with in QM and there isn't a current answer on.

Last edited by Orac; 05/20/14 08:13 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Welcome back, Orac; I was beginning to think you had decohered. smile

Domestic duties call at the moment, but I hope to come back to this, and to compare it with some bits of information I have picked up elsewhere.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
It gets worse extend that thought if you did multiple observations you would sap energy out of the object wouldn't you ... hold that thought we will come back to it.


I can see that in the case of Haroche’s experiment, “observation” would take energy away, but does that necessarily imply that all observation extracts energy. E.g. I am looking at a computer screen, observing words on a page. If I close my eyes I stop observing. Is any less energy being remover from the screen/computer just because I close my eyes?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Yeah I feared it was going to be hard for you to make the connection most layman don't get it because here on earth it's hard to initially see whats happening because of out atmosphere and sun.

Ok so lets teleport you and you screen instantly out into deep space a point a long way from a sun. So you arrive and you start cooling rapidly to around 4 degrees above absolute zero the temperature in deep space and then when you finally get to 4 degree and then you start cooling with the universe. Think about why do you cool you aren't in contact with anything and convection doesn't work in a vacuum.

So the connection is temperature contains information and all objects radiate that information. If that wasn't true you wouldn't and couldn't cool in the situation in space because you are not in contact with anything to transfer heat with by normal convection methods.

Do you see the connection now the process is happening when you are sitting there on earth but you and your monitor are also gaining information or energy from your surroundings.

Now we still haven't got to the bottom of the real issue does measurement itself cost energy and in 1961 as we started to develop the microprocessor this became important and so it was an IBM engineer put forward an idea

Landauers principle

So now even heat is starting to look a bit different under QM than under classic physics and what we have is the energy cost of measurement is the work energy of the acquired information. So basically all observation/measurement looks exactly the same as the heat example, the one we are most familiar with and that is what Haroche’s experiment showed. It also shows you QM has to obey all the standard energy laws from classic physics even though it can break many classic physic rules.

As a sort of funny aside ending to this you may want to consider the energy information value you carry in your head and you then undertook time travel back in time smile

Last edited by Orac; 05/21/14 04:24 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
So the connection is temperature contains information and all objects radiate that information. If that wasn't true you wouldn't and couldn't cool in the situation in space because you are not in contact with anything to transfer heat with by normal convection methods.


I get that convection wouldn't work in space, but why would I not radiate heat?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I get that convection wouldn't work in space, but why would I not radiate heat?


Think you missed the connection.

Reverse the question why do you radiate heat in space and why do you lose energy doing it. I mean you know you radiate heat in space but whats the mechanism that drives it?

Under classic physics there is no mechanism you just have to accept it does it, QM is telling you why it does it think about Haroche’s experiment.

Hint (this is where we are heading):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo-Carnot_engine
The original work by Scully is here
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5608/862 (Extracting Work from a Single Heat Bath via Vanishing Quantum Coherence)

Last edited by Orac; 05/22/14 04:35 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
Reverse the question why do you radiate heat in space and why do you lose energy doing it. I mean you know you radiate heat in space but whats the mechanism that drives it?

Under classic physics there is no mechanism you just have to accept it does it, QM is telling you why it does it think about Haroche’s experiment.

As far as I know classical physics recognized the existence of radiation. They may not have understood how it worked, but they certainly knew about it. In fact the Ultraviolet Catastrophe was one of the things that led to the development of QM. They knew all about radiation, and it was pretty well understood. The fact that it was quantized was the only thing they were missing.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Absolutely spot on Bill it just exists as a declaration of something that happens like gravity and you build stuff around it.

That leaves you in the nasty situation that the thermodynamic laws have no reason to be other than they exist. So what we are what we are trying to do here is fill the WHY in.

I am not trying to attack Classic Physics here in fact I am trying to tie classic physics and QM together so we have a sort of consistency. Now it isn't actually as clean as we are making out because temperature as QM information is rather complex so I am taking some liberties.

There is a very nasty ugly side to this stuff under QM at current, and our story will end there at the BIG WHITE ELEPHANT IN THE QM ROOM we ignore but it is only fair to point it out since Bill S is actually trying to understand smile

If you want to think ahead the problem is you can resolve the energy issue, the what and why etc it's well defined today and easy to test but the problem comes in a little sentence they put in the very last sentence of quantum decoherence page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence)

You know what I am like with stuff that is not measurable smile

It is one of the nice things string theory did was round that problem up but since we have failed at making a case for string theory we have a real problem.

Last edited by Orac; 05/22/14 04:41 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
That leaves you in the nasty situation that the thermodynamic laws have no reason to be other than they exist. So what we are what we are trying to do here is fill the WHY in.

I think you are getting a bit ahead of yourself. QM doesn't tell us why any more than classical physics does. It is still just a description of what happens. It may be more detailed than classical physics, but that is just because we know more about how it works.

I started noticing right after you started posting on SAGG that you feel that QM has all the answers, and you don't think much of any other theories, such a GR. You really need to loosen up and accept that QM doesn't have all the answers.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill
I think you are getting a bit ahead of yourself. QM doesn't tell us why any more than classical physics does. It is still just a description of what happens. It may be more detailed than classical physics, but that is just because we know more about how it works.

Not true it does tell you why it doesn't give you the mechanism.

It's quite clear why temperature radiates and I will state it for you. It radiates because all quantum information will dissipate and decohere to it's surroundings if it has a chance. Temperature not being a pure quantum statistic or "spin" if you like but an mixture of statistics and can not easily be contained by a natural quantum system. We know you can contain it if you setup elaborate setup that are never going to happen naturally (google the work on heat cloaks to show that is true).

More pure quantum statistics like those in the atom etc can be contained by relatively simple quantum systems and so survive longer perhaps indefinitely. We see the same thing in radioactive atoms that if the quantum system can't be made simple and stable they decay and nobel prizes were awarded for the discovery.

Originally Posted By: Bill
I started noticing right after you started posting on SAGG that you feel that QM has all the answers, and you don't think much of any other theories, such a GR. You really need to loosen up and accept that QM doesn't have all the answers.

That is what I thought you were doing and QM does NOT have all the answers I have stated that on countless times. In fact I wouldn't even put in your box for what will be in the theory of everything.

So lets be clear and state my position, there are some things that QM does answer and the what and why of temperature is an example. There is also an ugly bit to QM and in fact in the absence of string theory it's a gaping sore, which is where the energy is escaping too.

So whilst GR and QM are useful and take us further they both have gaping wounds and neither provides anywhere near a complete answer to anything. What QM has done is answered a lot of questions around energy and there is a concerted effort to fix up old mistakes both in classic physics and old style QM because QM itself has evolved. GR is useful and takes us along a journey but without the mechanism it like QM is only useful as a stepping stone to what lies beyond, hence I would put QM and GR on equal rating.

So are we clear I don't remotely think QM has all the answers, hell I don't think it even has a large proportion of them it is a step along the way.

My view on your comment Bill is you sound like all our grandparents and the all new stuff is bad meme. You can substitute anything you like computers, mobile phones, QM we all have had discussions with old people that do it and so I think you are showing your age smile

Bill: We never had QM in my time and we were just fine sonny laugh

Last edited by Orac; 05/23/14 03:55 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
I am not trying to attack Classic Physics here in fact I am trying to tie classic physics and QM together so we have a sort of consistency.


now you want to drag classical physics down to your level.

Quote:
So are we clear I don't remotely think QM has all the answers, hell I don't think it even has a large proportion of them it is a step along the way.


I dont think QM has provided any answers.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Not sure that is actually adding anything to a science discussion has it Paul.

It is an incite AKA a flame so do you really want to go there we have already seen you are spineless and faithless. If you want to discuss something relevant to the discussion feel free to join in but you want to start a flame war just say the word.

So valid discussion would be evidence and observations and that sort of thing to counter the argument. So do you have any of those sort of details to add Paul?

Rose if you are around this is really no different to Marosz it serves no purpose other than to try an derail a thread.

Last edited by Orac; 05/23/14 06:47 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Im just trying to help you to fill in the why , orac.

you claim thermodynamics has no value other than its existence
yet every time I ask what value QM has you run off like a
scared dog with his tail between his legs.

why don't you ever stand your ground and stop it with your
trolling about religion every time you cant answer a question or you run into something you don't understand.

that may be the reason you always start the flame wars about
religion because you don't have any scientific weapons to use in a discussion so flaming religion is the only type of weapon that you have in your arsenal that you could use in a discussion or a war.

that is truly pathetic, orac.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
QM we all have had discussions with old people that do it and so I think you are showing your age smile

Bill: We never had QM in my time and we were just fine sonny laugh



look on the bright side orac , by the time you reach puberty
you may actually have gained something similar to knowledge
Im not sure if we could classify it as knowledge today but
I have confidence that todays youth being guided by the types
of teachers of today will have no problem dissociating themselves from anything that would approach a resemblance of logic or knowledge much like what is already occurring today and they will form a new word for what they will believe is knowledge.

sewage?








3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
Originally Posted By: Bill
I think you are getting a bit ahead of yourself. QM doesn't tell us why any more than classical physics does. It is still just a description of what happens. It may be more detailed than classical physics, but that is just because we know more about how it works.

Not true it does tell you why it doesn't give you the mechanism.


If QM tells us why then you can explain why:
C is the universal speed limit
Energy comes in quanta associated with Planck's Constant
The Pauli Exclusion Principle works
A lot of other basic laws of physics are the way they are

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill
If QM tells us why then you can explain why:
C is the universal speed limit
Energy comes in quanta associated with Planck's Constant
The Pauli Exclusion Principle works
A lot of other basic laws of physics are the way they are
Bill Gill


Can you answer why GR causes the double slit experiment to work the way it does. Explain how classic physics causes entanglement and why it occurs. Explain how gravity is responsible for what ends up as Quantum electrodynamics?

Those are about the same intelligence as your questions smile

There is one massive difference between classical physics and QM ... QM hasn't been falsified millions of timessmile

Last edited by Orac; 05/25/14 01:53 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul
you claim thermodynamics has no value other than its existence yet every time I ask what value QM has you run off like a scared dog with his tail between his legs.


So come on how does thermodynamics work in your gutless, spineless world Paul?

Just remember everything is testable so it probably wouldn't be smart to put your GOD on the line, best you remember how that got you into trouble last time. smile

I am more the happy to discuss it in the QM world, Bill is clearly bailing out but you take up the baton. You go son I have faith in you laugh

Last edited by Orac; 05/25/14 01:25 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
Originally Posted By: Bill
If QM tells us why then you can explain why:
C is the universal speed limit
Energy comes in quanta associated with Planck's Constant
The Pauli Exclusion Principle works
A lot of other basic laws of physics are the way they are
Bill Gill


Can you answer why GR causes the double slit experiment to work the way it does. Explain how classic physics causes entanglement and why it occurs. Explain how gravity is responsible for what ends up as Quantum electrodynamics?

Those are about the same intelligence as your questions smile

There is one massive difference between classical physics and QM ... QM hasn't been falsified millions of timessmile


But you didn't answer my questions. WHY? You say QM tells us why, but you don't answer my questions. You were saying that classical physics doesn't tell us why, but QM does. So put up or shut up. Tell us why those things are true. If you can't do that based on your claim that QM does tell us why then you are just showing off. You are making claims that you can't back up. That doesn't give me a good feel about your any of you other claims.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5