So...

Evolving wrote:Pedantic introductory point: the wave function is a mathematical description, not the object itself (I know you know that).

Yes, I'm aware of that mantra. But if I ask you to tell me what it's a mathematical description OF, what can you possibly say? Let's explore the rest of your post to get some context...

We don't know what the object itself is "like": all we can say is that at times it exhibits characteristics that remind us of a wave, at other times characteristics that remind us of a particle.

But this is a major problem, because in either case you have here referred to BOTH the particle and wave to be observational references. That is, we have previously been brainwashed into thinking that 'the particle' [alone] is an observational phenomenon, yet you here explicitly imply that our understanding of both notions is derived from observation. Though I didn't need YOU to tell me this as I already knew that. I just wanted to make sure that you and the readers would be aware of this. The obvious fact is that our concept of 'the wave' is also an observational fact and has NO correspondence whatsoever with any 'fact' gleaned from any reality beyond said realm.

It's always the same object, in all circumstances; what varies is its wave function.

Ontologically, I agree. What I doubt is that either you or some of the readers here understand that the TOTALITY of the wave/particle interpretation is wholly derivative of observation and has ZERO reference to anything beyond this, even [really] imagined.

I cannot emphasise this enough: the wave nature of matter/energy is NOT a reflection of our [new knowledge] of matter itself, but ENTIRELY reflects a new interpretation of observational phenomena. Hence, the issue between reality and observation does not hinge upon the dilemma of wave and/or particle. Understood?

As long as it is undisturbed, the wave function continues to evolve according to its first derivative with respect to time: the wave function contains all necessary information to predict its shape at any future time.

The maths are [also] ENTIRELY derived/formulated from observation. That is, we have maths related to direct observation and maths related to the potential for direct observation. What we don't have is maths related to direct observation and maths related to the reality of the 'thing' itself. Am I making myself clear? I sincerely hope so. Regardless, the bottom-line is that the maths are ALL grounded within the observational realm.

If, therefore, we elevate "having a definite value" to our criterion of "reality", we must conclude that particles never become real. Which is not very helpful, because they clearly are, they clearly do exist: an electron always has a charge and a mass, for instance, whatever its state with respect to other observables, because these things don't change.

There's nothing which "clearly exists" when ALL relevant data [of it] is a reference to either that which is or may be observed, which is entirely the case here, since none of our mathematical data CAN be a reference to anything OUTSIDE of the observational domain. The observational domain is all we have, and ALL maths thereof are a reference TO IT.

Measurement (or particle-nature) is not the issue here. The wave-particle nature of 'matter' is not a reference to the real AND the observed. It's ALL a reference to the observed. That is, there's not a single aspect of QM [and the maths thereof] which have any reference to 'that' beyond the observational domain.

I cannot be wrong, because we are not privy to any event beyond the observational realm. Further, you yourself [and others] decline from talking about 'reality' in scientific threads like these ("Do the maths and shut up"), yet are quick to denounce others who might [with good basis].

The bottom-line, as always, is that physicists will never hold the lead torch in our pursuit of 'real' truth. And threads like these should always be redirected to the philosophy forum, where such bright torches can only be found.

You can't have your cake and eat it. Don't tell guys like me to "shut up and calculate" whilst also pretending that your calculations are significant enough to mock people like those responsible for the OP, not least myself.

You have again said nothing at great length.

logical bob wrote:You have again said nothing at great length.

On the contrary, I've said plenty which you yourself have valued as nothing at no length.

Actually I spent several minutes trying to glean some meaning from it, but alas no beans. Perhaps I don't possess a sufficiently bright torch.

It struck me that the great benefit of a mathematical treatment of the subject is that it allows one to say precisely what one means.

logical bob wrote:Actually I spent several minutes trying to glean some meaning from it, but alas no beans. Perhaps I don't possess a sufficiently bright torch.

It struck me that the great benefit of a mathematical treatment of the subject is that it allows one to say precisely what one means.

On the contrary, again, if mathematics is devoid of ontological meaning, then I would suggest that it is utterly devoid of any meaning.

...he says, repeating his reliance on the mantra of ontology

logical bob wrote:Actually I spent several minutes trying to glean some meaning from it, but alas no beans

It's an ad for robes and sandals, and nothing more. But it's a heartfelt ad for robes and sandals, which apparently means it's worthy of someone's attention.

SafeAsMilk wrote:...he says, repeating his reliance on the mantra of ontology

logical bob wrote:Actually I spent several minutes trying to glean some meaning from it, but alas no beans

It's an ad for robes and sandals, and nothing more. But it's a heartfelt ad for robes and sandals, which apparently means it's worthy of someone's attention.

You're not worthy, so this month's discounts don't apply to you.

There's only one way to be heartfelt, apparently. I'll survive somehow!

jamest wrote:

logical bob wrote:Actually I spent several minutes trying to glean some meaning from it, but alas no beans. Perhaps I don't possess a sufficiently bright torch.

It struck me that the great benefit of a mathematical treatment of the subject is that it allows one to say precisely what one means.

On the contrary, again, if mathematics is devoid of ontological meaning, then I would suggest that it is utterly devoid of any meaning.

I disagree. Or, its ontological meaning is highly instrumental at any rate. Maybe you mean logic rather than mathematics, but even the ontological status of logic is bounded by its role in producing models of experience.

jamest wrote:So...


in either case you have here referred to BOTH the particle and wave to be observational references. That is, we have previously been brainwashed into thinking that 'the particle' [alone] is an observational phenomenon, yet you here explicitly imply that our understanding of both notions is derived from observation.

Apart from you, does anyone here claim that notions are not derived from observations?

jamest wrote: Though I didn't need YOU to tell me this as I already knew that. I just wanted to make sure that you and the readers would be aware of this. The obvious fact is that our concept of 'the wave' is also an observational fact and has NO correspondence whatsoever with any 'fact' gleaned from any reality beyond said realm.

What is this gleaning from beyond the realm? Does it involve tealeaves or sensory deprivation?

jamest wrote:

It's always the same object, in all circumstances; what varies is its wave function.

Ontologically, I agree. What I doubt is that either you or some of the readers here understand that the TOTALITY of the wave/particle interpretation is wholly derivative of observation and has ZERO reference to anything beyond this, even [really] imagined.

What role does conscious observation play in the equations of QM? Are there 'looking at' terms? Perhaps you have been misled by Schrodinger's cat.

[quote="jamest";p="2420459"]The maths are [also] ENTIRELY derived/formulated from observation. That is, we have maths related to direct observation and maths related to the potential for direct observation. What we don't have is maths related to direct observation and maths related to the reality of the 'thing' itself. Am I making myself clear? I sincerely hope so. Regardless, the bottom-line is that the maths are ALL grounded within the observational realm.
[quote]

Where else would the maths be grounded, in thinking very hard about what you want to be true? If the model fits the observations it's a good model.

As much as the word 'gleaned' makes me angry and as much as I cannot really parse Jamest's post with anything approaching confidence, I don't think you are exactly responding to his point. Or, you are making a different point and I'm not sure they are really all that much at odds.

He might be saying that we use the words particle and wave to describe the behavior rather than the thing which is nominally an interesting point. We see an exposed point on a photosensitive surface or we see an exposed interference pattern. Hence, we use the words particle and wave.

I would add that Maxwell's equations are still weird as fuck even if we can translate them into common metaphors. Magnets. How the fuck do they work?

I haven't read the rules here. Is it ok to say fuck?

BWE wrote:As much as the word 'gleaned' makes me angry and as much as I cannot really parse Jamest's post with anything approaching confidence, I don't think you are exactly responding to his point. Or, you are making a different point and I'm not sure they are really all that much at odds.

He might be saying that we use the words particle and wave to describe the behavior rather than the thing which is nominally an interesting point. We see an exposed point on a photosensitive surface or we see an exposed interference pattern. Hence, we use the words particle and wave.

I would add that Maxwell's equations are still weird as fuck even if we can translate them into common metaphors. Magnets. How the fuck do they work?

But that's how science works, by building models to fit observations and testing them with more observations. There is no gleaning of reality itself, so jamest's criticism seems hollow. QM is weird in that what observation is made depends on what apparatus / interaction is used to make it, and those different observations seem contradictory to our mid-scale classical world intuitions. So what? Does jamest have a point? If so what do you think it is?

BWE wrote:I haven't read the rules here. Is it ok to say fuck?

Yes you can say FCUK

I'm not sure if there's a point that particularly relates to the OP, but I think he has an idea that came out through a garbler.

Let's see if I can translate:

There's nothing which "clearly exists" when ALL relevant data [of it] is a reference to either that which is or may be observed, which is entirely the case here, since none of our mathematical data CAN be a reference to anything OUTSIDE of the observational domain. The observational domain is all we have, and ALL maths thereof are a reference TO IT.

I think he's saying that we are fitting models to measurements rather than pointing at things and yet we use words which suggest we are pointing at things. That in itself is potentially interesting to varying degree in that one of the things which must happen as science progresses is that apt metaphors must be found or constructed in order that the science itself can both be disseminated and made useful. We use photons as particles when we want to initiate the photoelectric effect and waves when we want to polarize light or whatever examples you like. Using those metaphors suggests what is possible and that is a big deal to some people. I am mildly sympathetic to that perspective because words are weird weird things. Weirder than QM even if far more familiar.

Measurement (or particle-nature) is not the issue here. The wave-particle nature of 'matter' is not a reference to the real AND the observed. It's ALL a reference to the observed. That is, there's not a single aspect of QM [and the maths thereof] which have any reference to 'that' beyond the observational domain.

The word 'real' here is throwing everyone I think because the whole idea of 'what is real?' is sort of unanswerable. Or, everyone has an answer and assumes it's the right answer but most of those answers are dissimilar. But I'm going to go with this being further qualifier on the previous point and call his meaning of 'real' here a derivative of the earlier distinction that we cannot point to either the particle or the wave. Assuming that, then he's taking issue with the OP even using the word 'reality' because all we have in either case is measurement. That's a fair point. We can change the results of observations by the way we choose to observe is not the same as we can change reality based on how we observe it.

I confess I am hesitant to grant status to a phenomenon for which our metaphors are weak and which by its nature cannot be observed in the normal sense. However, to the practical issues with the science this is irrelevant. It works and I get to make my cat crazy with a laser pointer as a wonderful wonderful result.

I cannot be wrong, because we are not privy to any event beyond the observational realm. Further, you yourself [and others] decline from talking about 'reality' in scientific threads like these ("Do the maths and shut up"), yet are quick to denounce others who might [with good basis].

I cannot be wrong... seems a reference to a hostile or argumentative discussion where this would be relevant. The point being that we might be throwing the word reality around in sloppy ways and maybe he's been accused of doing that in other places.

The bottom-line, as always, is that physicists will never hold the lead torch in our pursuit of 'real' truth. And threads like these should always be redirected to the philosophy forum, where such bright torches can only be found.

This is probably acknowledgement of a prior argument which might have followed this script: whereby a particular type of science-inclined individual doesn't understand the role of philosophy and so makes an ignorant or flip remark that it has no use in science. A particular type of philosophy-inclined individual takes the bait and declares philosophy superior to science because science follows from philosophy. They shout at each other and feelings become tender. For the rest of the relationship, comments like these pop up over dinner and on holidays.

You can't have your cake and eat it. Don't tell guys like me to "shut up and calculate" whilst also pretending that your calculations are significant enough to mock people like those responsible for the OP, not least myself.

This is a reasonable criticism assuming anyone mocked 'people like those responsible for the OP, not least' himself for balking at the use of the term reality and turning around and saying something which could be interpreted as 'shut up and calculate' in the context Feynman first used it because that was an explicit request to stop trying to make it make sense in such a way as could be described using our currently available metaphors and to simply see what the equations predicted in terms of observed results, ((and saliently, not observed events themselves, rather the results of tests designed to produce measurements of events for which those metaphors did not (and still don't I suppose) exist)).

How'd I do?

BWE wrote:I'm not sure if there's a point that particularly relates to the OP, but I think he has an idea that came out through a garbler.

Let's see if I can translate:

There's nothing which "clearly exists" when ALL relevant data [of it] is a reference to either that which is or may be observed, which is entirely the case here, since none of our mathematical data CAN be a reference to anything OUTSIDE of the observational domain. The observational domain is all we have, and ALL maths thereof are a reference TO IT.

I think he's saying that we are fitting models to measurements rather than pointing at things and yet we use words which suggest we are pointing at things. That in itself is potentially interesting to varying degree in that one of the things which must happen as science progresses is that apt metaphors must be found or constructed in order that the science itself can both be disseminated and made useful. We use photons as particles when we want to initiate the photoelectric effect and waves when we want to polarize light or whatever examples you like. Using those metaphors suggests what is possible and that is a big deal to some people. I am mildly sympathetic to that perspective because words are weird weird things. Weirder than QM even if far more familiar.

This is his "observed A in not A itself" mantra.
Jamest discounts anything that can be observed as unreal and associates reality with unobservable abstracts.

GrahamH wrote:

BWE wrote:I'm not sure if there's a point that particularly relates to the OP, but I think he has an idea that came out through a garbler.

Let's see if I can translate:

There's nothing which "clearly exists" when ALL relevant data [of it] is a reference to either that which is or may be observed, which is entirely the case here, since none of our mathematical data CAN be a reference to anything OUTSIDE of the observational domain. The observational domain is all we have, and ALL maths thereof are a reference TO IT.

I think he's saying that we are fitting models to measurements rather than pointing at things and yet we use words which suggest we are pointing at things. That in itself is potentially interesting to varying degree in that one of the things which must happen as science progresses is that apt metaphors must be found or constructed in order that the science itself can both be disseminated and made useful. We use photons as particles when we want to initiate the photoelectric effect and waves when we want to polarize light or whatever examples you like. Using those metaphors suggests what is possible and that is a big deal to some people. I am mildly sympathetic to that perspective because words are weird weird things. Weirder than QM even if far more familiar.

This is his "observed A in not A itself" mantra.
Jamest discounts anything that can be observed as unreal and associates reality with unobservable abstracts.

Oh. Haven't encountered that yet. Well, I did say that defining what is real is problematic not least because everyone thinks it isn't.

GrahamH wrote:

BWE wrote:I'm not sure if there's a point that particularly relates to the OP, but I think he has an idea that came out through a garbler.

Let's see if I can translate:

There's nothing which "clearly exists" when ALL relevant data [of it] is a reference to either that which is or may be observed, which is entirely the case here, since none of our mathematical data CAN be a reference to anything OUTSIDE of the observational domain. The observational domain is all we have, and ALL maths thereof are a reference TO IT.

I think he's saying that we are fitting models to measurements rather than pointing at things and yet we use words which suggest we are pointing at things. That in itself is potentially interesting to varying degree in that one of the things which must happen as science progresses is that apt metaphors must be found or constructed in order that the science itself can both be disseminated and made useful. We use photons as particles when we want to initiate the photoelectric effect and waves when we want to polarize light or whatever examples you like. Using those metaphors suggests what is possible and that is a big deal to some people. I am mildly sympathetic to that perspective because words are weird weird things. Weirder than QM even if far more familiar.

This is his "observed A in not A itself" mantra.
Jamest discounts anything that can be observed as unreal and associates reality with unobservable abstracts.

Ok. I definitely didn't get it then. Still, before enlightenment: chop wood carry water. After enlightenment: chop wood carry water. I conider me penis real in any number of physical and metaphysical dimensions so I suppose I have no business complaining about what other people want to consider real.

On second thought, I am pretty sure I got it basically right:

It's always the same object, in all circumstances; what varies is its wave function.

Ontologically, I agree. What I doubt is that either you or some of the readers here understand that the TOTALITY of the wave/particle interpretation is wholly derivative of observation and has ZERO reference to anything beyond this, even [really] imagined.

He is pretty clearly stating that calling the model real is the antithesis of shut up and calculate.

Jamest, am I close?

Who is "calling the model real"?