In truth I know very little about the subject, so this is somewhat an ignorant speculation, and I invite other insight, and comments. However I have recently been doing some self motivated research. To me the hidden variables theory makes the most sense, yet it seems most people are more inclined to believe Indeterminism reigns supreme at the quantum level. It seems outlandish to me that so many would presume there is no causal factors explaining some uninterpretable phenomenon regarding quantum particles, and that they would rather explain it away by saying particles act on chance to some degree. I've done a little bit of reading on Schrödinger's cat, Bell's theorem, and the de Broglie-Bohm theory. Can anyone lead me to good evidence that quantum mechanics is, or is not, determinate?

Tags: cat, determinism, indeterminism, mechanics, quantum, schrodinger, schrodingers, theory

Views: 376

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"The deeper physics and cosmology get the more it feels mystical."
Any sufficiently advanced technology will be seen as magic! - Arthur C. Clark
I'm very thankful for everyone's participation in this forum, and for leading me to so much information. However I now feel like I'd have to take years at university before it would even make enough sense for me to ask comprehensible questions. I do have one question though, hopefully it can be answered without an overwhelming amount of technicality. I've seen several times mentioned now that QM formulas have proven to be very accurate once able to be experimented. Is then QM able to account for the aforementioned differences in the double slit experiment caused by mere observance of a particle? Does this imply that an observation translates into a physical force?

I started this forum thinking that indeterminism was hard to grasp, now I find that there are features of QM that are even more troubling.
In order to "see" the particle, you have to interfere with it in some way. That changes the outcome from when you measure it and when you don't.

Of course, we now have some real, live physics folk who could do a lot better at explaining than me.
Yes, one of the bases of QM is that observing a probability waves "collapses" it to a particle form. The problem with doing experiments in QM is the observer cannot be separated from the experiment and has to be fundamentally considered as part of the "set up" of the experiment. It's not a force as in the definition of a force (in the F=ma sort of way) but observing something is an integral part of an experiment and contributes to its outcome as much as the physical set up.

It is troubling, if you think about it too much in anything but an abstract way, and start to really think about that these things acting in this manner make up everything we see/know, it makes your brain hurt haha. At least mine.
Here is an interesting article relevant to the topic.

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-pe...
Hi there, I had a go at reading the below mentioned book, however I found the video a lot eariers to grasp than the written word.


hope this helps

http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

RSS

  

Events

Blog Posts

Labels

Posted by Quincy Maxwell on July 20, 2014 at 9:37pm 25 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service