Posted: Aug 04, 2010 4:32 pm
AMR wrote:
hackenslash: This was what I objected to in the first place. This is, in effect, saying that the collapse of the wavefunction is the uncertainty principle, because the collapse of the wavefunction is the only aspect of the uncertainty principle that the observer can effect.

Any observation or disturbance of particles involves an observer effect related to the uncertainty principle. The interaction of the observer with the particle in question changes it, the observer becomes part of the observed system. Observations require measurements hence this statement below that you were so critical of is not contradicting the "observer as part of system" concept:

I never had any objection to 'observer as part of the system'. My objection was to your assertion that the uncertainty principle requires an observer. It doesn't. That's the beginning and the end of the subject. Nothing you have presented suggests that the uncertainty principle requires an observer, and nor does anything in the literature.

The act of measuring one magnitude of a particle, be it its mass, its velocity, or its position, causes the other magnitudes to blur. This is not due to imprecise measurements. Technology is advanced enough to hypothetically yield correct measurements. The blurring of these magnitudes is a fundamental property of nature.

And note in this context "fundamental property of nature" means any act of SIMULTANEOUS determination of e.g. position and momentum of a particle, individually these magnitudes could be observed to a higher degree of resolution. It is the fundamental physical interaction of the process of observation which inversely alters the other magnitude.

Irrelevant. You're still talking about the collapse of the wavefunction, which is not the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle does not require an observer.

1.The collapse of the wavefunction is NOT the uncertainty principle.
2. The collapse of the wavefunction is NOT the uncertainty principle, but a feature of it.
3. Collapse of the wavefunction requires observation, but the uncertainty principle does not.
4. And you still haven't explained how the observer being part of a system being observed conflates to the uncertainty principle requiring an observer.

Please point out the contradictory statements in that list (not actually sure why you repeated yourself. The first two statements in that list are the same, the second containing further calrification). There are none. The only reason you think there are contradictions there is that you still have no fucking idea of what you're talking about, and you still think that the collapse of the wavefunction is what the uncertainty principle is all about. You're wrong.

You do not deny then that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can be understood in terms of measurement processes involving the collapse of the wavefunction, correct? So when you make statements like the "collapse of the wavefunction requires observation, but the uncertainty principle does not" you realize you are talking about two interrelated concepts, correct? And the uncertainty principle, so far as it involves measurements, is all about an observer.

And here is the ultimate source of your cretinous understanding. The uncertainty principle has fuck all to do with measurement, which is what is meant in the statement from your own source about the uncertainty principle being a fundamental feature of the universe. Quantum uncertainty exists whether it is being measured or not. In other words, a particle doesn't actually possess either a position or a velocity. It is only when you measure it that you 'create' that feature of the particle, thus collapsing the wavefunction. In other words, the collapse of the wavefunction requires observation, but the uncertainty principle does not.

So tell me how photons, or other kinds of particles were "observing" events BEFORE the universe came into being?

What the holy fuck are you going on about? WHere did I suggest that anything was 'observing' before the universe came into being? Where the fuck did I suggest that the universe ever 'came into being' (big clue: any of the members here will tell you that I would never say such a thing. oh, and we're still waiting for your definition of 'universe')?

Recall this was the whole point of your argument concerning QM observer effects, the uncertainty principle, and the instability (or impossibility) of nothingness:
Hackenslash wrote:
Errr, no. That nothing is unstable (actually, it's worse than that, it's impossible) is a proven fact, and stems from one of our most successful and accurate scientific principles. The uncertainty principle isnt a though [sic] experiment, it's a categorical feature of the universe, and beyond any serious questioning.

I assume you are here referring to quantum fluctuations, virtual particles arising from the uncertainty principle. Again this assumes the QM pre-existing the universe (being the cause of the universe) adn the universe being akin to a really big batch of virtual particles that for some reason last a really long, long time.

Wrong again. Seriously, dude. I can arrange some remedial English classes for you, if you like, because you have utterly failed to understand a single word anybody's said to you. Firstly, the entire point of my argument concerning observer effects is that they are not required by the uncertainty principle, which is a fundamental property of the universe. Only one small feature of the uncertainty principle, which is only in operation when being measured or observed in some manner, has the feature you describe, namely the collapse of the wavefunction, but the uncertainty principle itself does not. Secondly, I have never in my life implied, stated or suggested in any way, shape or form that the universe ever had a beginning, or that the concept of 'before', or 'pre-existing' having any validity, because they fucking don't, and I challenge you to find a single instance of my doing so.