Stopping time

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Stopping time

Post by Greta » Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:51 am

Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:52 am
QM has pretty much shown that things can't be divided into noumena and phenomena.
Meanwhile relativity makes clear that there are noumena and phenomena. The rules of the quantum domain only apply at very small scales.

I always thought that the way to (almost) stop time was to enter the inner horizon of a black hole or to be at a temperature as close as possible to absolute zero.

uwot
Posts: 4884
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Stopping time

Post by uwot » Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:04 pm

Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:52 am
I can't make sense of any of this, sounds like thinking from 1900. QM has pretty much shown that things can't be divided into noumena and phenomena.
On the contrary; it's the premise underpinning the various quantum field theories, QED, QCD and Higgs all of which are essential elements of the Standard Model. In essence the common idea is that there is some underlying 'noumenal' quantum field, which is only directly detectable if we hit it hard enough to create a 'phenomenal' particle.
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:52 am
I don't really know what mind or interpretation of phenomena or independent is supposed to mean here.
They have reasonably well agreed definitions amongst philosophers and as you say:
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:52 am
...we are on a philosophy site. And btw there were many great scientists since Newton who would have been insulted if you told them that science shouldn't also at least try to make sense of the world, just because Newton said so.
There are plenty of scientists who would be insulted just by having a philosopher in the same room. As it happens Einstein took that approach for Special Relativity, and then completely ignored it for General Relativity. Here's something Einstein said shortly after GM was 'confirmed' by Arthur Eddington et al in 1919:
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable..." http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk ... ether.html
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:52 am
Not everyone wants to just shut up and calculate, for example to quote a Nobel laureate, "Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of theorists into thinking that the job of interpreting quantum theory was done 50 years ago".
For the benefit of anyone reading, that was Murray Gell-Mann whose work was pivotal in the development of QCD, and who labelled the constituents of Hadrons 'quarks'.
Indeed Atla, physicists are a very diverse bunch.
Robert Laughlin, another Nobel Prize winner had this to say:
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

Atla
Posts: 2813
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Stopping time

Post by Atla » Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:29 pm

Greta wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:51 am
Meanwhile relativity makes clear that there are noumena and phenomena.
Why? It never did.
The rules of the quantum domain only apply at very small scales.
Nonsense, as I said before, you have misunderstood the world in a major way. There is no known upper limit of quantum behaviour, as someone so eloquently put it, demonstrating it on bigger and bigger scales is a "matter of budget". And when you apply QM to all scales, you get the MWI. Some might even argue that something like the MWI is even necessary for decoherence theory.
I always thought that the way to (almost) stop time was to enter the inner horizon of a black hole or to be at a temperature as close as possible to absolute zero.
The way I understand it, time is relative, so I don't think you will notice it slowing down, nor will you really notice that you entered the event horizon. However to the GR observer outside the black hole, you will appear to be slowing down and fade away. And to you, the outside world will appear to speed up and fade away.

Atla
Posts: 2813
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Stopping time

Post by Atla » Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:48 pm

uwot wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:04 pm
On the contrary; it's the premise underpinning the various quantum field theories, QED, QCD and Higgs all of which are essential elements of the Standard Model. In essence the common idea is that there is some underlying 'noumenal' quantum field, which is only directly detectable if we hit it hard enough to create a 'phenomenal' particle.
This is just one interpretation where some parts of the world are "real" and other parts "not real". But the laws of QM don't make such a distinction.

On second thought, it's not even that, it's just an underlying field. Doesn't have to do anything with real/unreal. Nor does underlying have to translate to noumenal/phenomenal.
There are plenty of scientists who would be insulted just by having a philosopher in the same room. As it happens Einstein took that approach for Special Relativity, and then completely ignored it for General Relativity. Here's something Einstein said shortly after GM was 'confirmed' by Arthur Eddington et al in 1919:
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable..." http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk ... ether.html
For the benefit of anyone reading, that was Murray Gell-Mann whose work was pivotal in the development of QCD, and who labelled the constituents of Hadrons 'quarks'.
Indeed Atla, physicists are a very diverse bunch.
Robert Laughlin, another Nobel Prize winner had this to say:
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
I don't really care about aether theories, in a way all fields can be seen as aethers, to some degree it's just semantics.

But it's strange to me that you argue for seperateness and for aether at the same time?

Atla
Posts: 2813
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Stopping time

Post by Atla » Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:57 pm

Greta wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:51 am
Meanwhile relativity makes clear that there are noumena and phenomena.
Relativity is a general principle, it doesn't apply to an entire human. For example it can apply particle by particle, for example your head is aging slightly faster than your feet, because it's farther from the center of the Earth.

uwot
Posts: 4884
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Stopping time

Post by uwot » Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:25 pm

Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:48 pm
I don't really care about aether theories, in a way all fields can be seen as aethers, to some degree it's just semantics.
Fair enough, so call them quantum field theories and don't really care about them either. 'Field', in instrumentalist terms simply refers to any location that a suitably charged or massive object will demonstrably behave in a certain way; somewhere a particular phenomenon will be observed in other words. Whether there is any ontological quantum field that causes that phenomenon makes no difference to the measurements nor mathematics, which any competent physicist knows.
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:48 pm
But it's strange to me that you argue for seperateness and for aether at the same time?
You obviously are not paying attention. I have made it clear that I am not arguing for any ontological position. Here for instance:
uwot wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:30 pm
...any interpretation of the phenomena that isn't explicitly ruled out by the phenomena, could be true.
What I am challenging is your conviction that the ontology that pleases you, so much so that you will plead ignorance to defend it, is intrinsically better than any other .

Atla
Posts: 2813
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Stopping time

Post by Atla » Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:39 pm

uwot wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:25 pm
You obviously are not paying attention. I have made it clear that I am not arguing for any ontological position. Here for instance:
uwot wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:30 pm
...any interpretation of the phenomena that isn't explicitly ruled out by the phenomena, could be true.
What I am challenging is your conviction that the ontology that pleases you, so much so that you will plead ignorance to defend it, is intrinsically better than any other .
In about every comment you write, you throw at me like 2-3 interpretations of your own, without realizing it, and call it instrumentalism. I had such debates a dozen times.

And you are avoiding the one ontology that can't be explained away using interpretations, because it is inherent to QM. No you aren't avoiding it, you are unaware of it.

uwot
Posts: 4884
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Stopping time

Post by uwot » Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:17 pm

Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:39 pm
In about every comment you write, you throw at me like 2-3 interpretations of your own, without realizing it...
Really? Can you give an example?
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:39 pm
...and call it instrumentalism. I had such debates a dozen times.
So presumably you have learnt how to resolve them.
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:39 pm
And you are avoiding the one ontology that can't be explained away using interpretations, because it is inherent to QM. No you aren't avoiding it, you are unaware of it.
Then make me aware of it.

Atla
Posts: 2813
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Stopping time

Post by Atla » Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:33 pm

uwot wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:17 pm
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:39 pm
In about every comment you write, you throw at me like 2-3 interpretations of your own, without realizing it...
Really? Can you give an example?
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:39 pm
...and call it instrumentalism. I had such debates a dozen times.
So presumably you have learnt how to resolve them.
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:39 pm
And you are avoiding the one ontology that can't be explained away using interpretations, because it is inherent to QM. No you aren't avoiding it, you are unaware of it.
Then make me aware of it.
Never mind, from now on I'll just answer your posts like another instrumentalist. So there is nothing more to be aware of. The maths work, and that's all there is to it.

uwot
Posts: 4884
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Stopping time

Post by uwot » Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:07 pm

Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:33 pm
Never mind, from now on I'll just answer your posts like another instrumentalist.
I'm not an instrumentalist. I have made my case all over this forum, as well as here: https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk Pages 13 to 19 to be specific. The difference is I don't make extravagant claims, such as there is "one ontology that can't be explained away using interpretations, because it is inherent to QM".
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:33 pm
So there is nothing more to be aware of. The maths work, and that's all there is to it.
And I certainly don't makes claims I then, in a hissy fit, refuse to substantiate.

Atla
Posts: 2813
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Stopping time

Post by Atla » Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:14 pm

uwot wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:07 pm
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:33 pm
Never mind, from now on I'll just answer your posts like another instrumentalist.
I'm not an instrumentalist. I have made my case all over this forum, as well as here: https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk Pages 13 to 19 to be specific. The difference is I don't make extravagant claims, such as there is "one ontology that can't be explained away using interpretations, because it is inherent to QM".
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:33 pm
So there is nothing more to be aware of. The maths work, and that's all there is to it.
And I certainly don't makes claims I then, in a hissy fit, refuse to substantiate.
So are you saying that those who claim that no one has figured out QM are wrong?

uwot
Posts: 4884
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Stopping time

Post by uwot » Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:25 pm

Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:14 pm
uwot wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:07 pm
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:33 pm
Never mind, from now on I'll just answer your posts like another instrumentalist.
I'm not an instrumentalist. I have made my case all over this forum, as well as here: https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk Pages 13 to 19 to be specific. The difference is I don't make extravagant claims, such as there is "one ontology that can't be explained away using interpretations, because it is inherent to QM".
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:33 pm
So there is nothing more to be aware of. The maths work, and that's all there is to it.
And I certainly don't makes claims I then, in a hissy fit, refuse to substantiate.
So are you saying that those who claim that no one has figured out QM are wrong?
I think if you bother to read what I have written above, you will discover exactly what I am saying and that the question you pose has nothing to do with it. But since you ask, I think you are confusing QM with its interpretations. The fact that there are so many is one of the main reasons why, when they are concentrating on the business of making things work, physicists don't much bother with whether any interpretation they favour is actually true, they just stick to the maths which fundamentally is QM and is very efficacious.

Atla
Posts: 2813
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Stopping time

Post by Atla » Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:34 pm

uwot wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:25 pm
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:14 pm
uwot wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:07 pm

I'm not an instrumentalist. I have made my case all over this forum, as well as here: https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk Pages 13 to 19 to be specific. The difference is I don't make extravagant claims, such as there is "one ontology that can't be explained away using interpretations, because it is inherent to QM".
And I certainly don't makes claims I then, in a hissy fit, refuse to substantiate.
So are you saying that those who claim that no one has figured out QM are wrong?
I think if you bother to read what I have written above, you will discover exactly what I am saying and that the question you pose has nothing to do with it. But since you ask, I think you are confusing QM with its interpretations. The fact that there are so many is one of the main reasons why, when they are concentrating on the business of making things work, physicists don't much bother with whether any interpretation they favour is actually true, they just stick to the maths which fundamentally is QM and is very efficacious.
But what ARE you saying?

We had two longer "debates" now but you never said anything that looked remotely like an actual philosophical argument to me.

Of course I'm not confusing QM with its interpretations. Of course that's why most physicists don't bother or care, they are there to get results. Of course the maths fundamentally is QM and is very efficacious. That's obvious to anyone with half a brain so what is your point?

Atla
Posts: 2813
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Stopping time

Post by Atla » Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:49 pm

uwot wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:07 pm
I'm not an instrumentalist. I have made my case all over this forum, as well as here: https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk Pages 13 to 19 to be specific. The difference is I don't make extravagant claims, such as there is "one ontology that can't be explained away using interpretations, because it is inherent to QM".
I looked at pages 13-19 of your work and it said nothing on the subject.

uwot
Posts: 4884
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Stopping time

Post by uwot » Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:51 pm

Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:34 pm
But what ARE you saying?
Generally:
uwot wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:25 pm
...any interpretation of the phenomena that isn't explicitly ruled out by the phenomena, could be true.
But on that particular occasion; what is:
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:39 pm
...the one ontology that can't be explained away using interpretations, because it is inherent to QM. No you aren't avoiding it, you are unaware of it.
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:34 pm
We had two longer "debates" now but you never said anything that looked remotely like an actual philosophical argument to me.
Well, if you are leading by example then I take it that petulantly refusing to answer questions is what looks like a philosophical argument to you.
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:34 pm
Of course I'm not confusing QM with its interpretations.
If you can ask:
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:14 pm
So are you saying that those who claim that no one has figured out QM are wrong?
then yes you are.
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:34 pm
Of course that's why most physicists don't bother or care, they are there to get results. Of course the maths fundamentally is QM and is very efficacious. That's obvious to anyone with half a brain so what is your point?
Ah good, at least that has sunk in, because only a couple of hours ago, you said this:
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:52 am
And btw there were many great scientists since Newton who would have been insulted if you told them that science shouldn't also at least try to make sense of the world, just because Newton said so.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest