It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by squandered
Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by squandered
Thanks. Sorry if I overdid my post.
I Fink U Freeky ;-)
"That is to say, the primary 'mistake' that can be made in this field is not the positive one of wrongly assigning what originates in thought to a reality independent of thought. Rather, it is the negative one of overlooking or failing to be aware that a certain movement originates in thought, and thus implicitly treating that movement as originating in non-thought. In this way, what is actually the one single process of thought is tacitly treated as if it were split in two parts (but of course without one being aware that this is happening). Such unconscious fragmentation of the process of thought must lead to distortion in all of perception." (Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, p. 78)
"All the elementary particles can, at sufficiently high energies, be transmuted into other particles, or they can simply be created from kinetic energy and can be annihilated into energy, for instance into radiation. Therefore, we have here actually the final proof for the unity of matter. All the elementary particles are made of the same substance, which we may call energy or universal matter; they are just different forms in which matter can appear." (Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 134)
He conveys the sense that during his fifty years of immersion in technology he has made electrons and photons his friends, and he knows they would never indulge in the outrageous, irrational behavior ascribed to them by physicists. In the process, he is also implicitly coming to the defense of reason, science, history, culture, human dignity and free will.
Originally posted by beebs
Rather than supposing that the ψ-field represents a 'probability density' of finding a 'quanta'... why can't it represent a real wave structure in space?
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by squandered
Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by squandered
Thanks. Sorry if I overdid my post.
I Fink U Freeky ;-)
...and U like me a lot?
Originally posted by beebs
Mead Interview
But whenever Schrodinger tried to talk, Bohr would raise his voice and bring up all these counter-examples. Basically he shouted him down.
What do you mean by "structure"?
Originally posted by beebs
Rather than supposing that the ψ-field represents a 'probability density' of finding a 'quanta'... why can't it represent a real wave structure in space?
The probability density plots do indeed show "something arranged in a definite pattern of organization", so it does meet that definition of a structure. The something is the individual probability points, and the shapes seen show the pattern of organization. The structure can be seen in the density plots:
b : something arranged in a definite pattern of organization
Originally posted by beebs
Mead Interview
But they’re also waves, right? Then what are they waving in?
It’s interesting, isn’t it? That has hung people up ever since the time of Clerk Maxwell, and it’s the missing piece of intuition that we need to develop in young people. The electron isn’t the disturbance of something else. It is its own thing. The electron is the thing that’s wiggling, and the wave is the electron. It is its own medium. You don’t need something for it to be in, because if you did it would be buffeted about and all messed up. So the only pure way to have a wave is for it to be its own medium. The electron isn’t something that has a fixed physical shape. Waves propagate outwards, and they can be large or small. That’s what waves do.
Originally posted by metalshredmetal
quantum physics posits that there is a "field" which is more fundamental than our physical world. it is described as the "quantum foam" out of which our physical atoms arise in the first place.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by metalshredmetal
quantum physics posits that there is a "field" which is more fundamental than our physical world. it is described as the "quantum foam" out of which our physical atoms arise in the first place.
This is (predictably) false. Quantum physics does "posit" anything like that, one can go through a perfectly useful tome of quantum mechanics and not find this term at all. The foam is a concept and a hypothesis which has not been verified, and which is extremely difficult to probe. To speak of it with certainty is plain stupid. And to make even stronger claims that you know that "physical atoms arise" from foam is even more stupid. Even if the foam does exist and there is strange curvature of spacetime at ridiculously small scale, this hardly means that "atoms", as you put it, are a direct result of these fluctuations.
strange curvature of spacetime at ridiculously small scale,
Originally posted by squandered
strange curvature of spacetime at ridiculously small scale,
Small compared to what = what you observe in your own limited function.
You only prove what you are biologically predestined / designed to observe. Add a few tools and we get libraries of facts to use, but you won't fill any gaps.
Why do you assume that we (humans) are "predestined" to observe and nothing else? We are pretty good at building theories, too. And tools. But the facts we get will ultimately tell us what theory should be considered valid and which one relegated to trash bin.
which show that there are areas of space which are more probable to generate particles than others.
The probability density plots do indeed show "something arranged in a definite pattern of organization", so it does meet that definition of a structure. The something is the individual probability points, and the shapes seen show the pattern of organization. The structure can be seen in the density plots:
That's a picture of the structure. And the shapes could be said to be wave-like. So what's the problem? Do you mean something else by structure, and if so, what?
Intuition trumps that by virtue of the fact it is unbridled, however, I'll leave you with this quote: "Facts become real because something you 'knew' was real, happened"