pallidin Posted April 15, 2019 #2526 Share Posted April 15, 2019 I, most certainly, do not have "all the answers", but, I do seek them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted April 15, 2019 #2527 Share Posted April 15, 2019 It's OK, Walker, I am not offended by you. These are difficult subject matters. Your input, however contentious with me on "points", are valued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted April 15, 2019 #2528 Share Posted April 15, 2019 21 minutes ago, pallidin said: You are only drinking from the cup (half empty), or filling it (half full) Is this truly hard to understand? But "you" didn't ask if the cup was being emptied or filled. "You" asked how full/empty it was If "you" asked how filled or emptied it was then they are entirely different questions, and the answers could be 50% filled or 50% emptied, depending on process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted April 15, 2019 #2529 Share Posted April 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Mr Walker said: But "you" didn't ask if the cup was being emptied or filled. "You" asked how full/empty it was If "you" asked how filled or emptied it was then they are entirely different questions, and the answers could be 50% filled or 50% emptied, depending on process. Right, it entirely depends on process, which by default is always present. Nothing is "static" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted April 15, 2019 #2530 Share Posted April 15, 2019 You know, Walker, I am not much different than you. We both seek some sort of understanding to the "Grand Mystery" Perhaps a short tune is in order... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted April 15, 2019 #2531 Share Posted April 15, 2019 Ah, another tune, enjoy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted April 15, 2019 #2532 Share Posted April 15, 2019 Is "atheism incompatible with science"? Of course it is, so too theists and agnostics. Look, we simply do not know a vast portion of "Reality" Most is currently "hidden" from our ability to detect or understand. But our efforts to understand it are remarkable. We are curious creatures, loving to "know" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted April 15, 2019 #2533 Share Posted April 15, 2019 2 hours ago, pallidin said: Walker, here are 2 direct questions... 1) If you drink half a glass of beer is it half full or half empty? 2) If the bartender refills a new glass to halfway, is it half full or half empty? Geeze, why is this so hard??????? You could say it's average Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rlyeh Posted April 15, 2019 #2534 Share Posted April 15, 2019 4 hours ago, pallidin said: I view our Reality as conforming to the "uncertainty principle" "Absolutes" are for hard-liners. Then show us the "uncertainty principle" on macroscopic objects. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habitat Posted April 15, 2019 #2535 Share Posted April 15, 2019 I am absolutely certain that this thread is going nowhere fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted April 15, 2019 #2536 Share Posted April 15, 2019 8 hours ago, Rlyeh said: Then show us the "uncertainty principle" on macroscopic objects. How can I? I am not an eminent physicist, so, you are "pushing" That the "uncertainty principle" exists in the quantum realm is very well-established, and, the quantum underlies all of the macroscopic. How it is expressed in the macro I guess you would have to ask an expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rlyeh Posted April 15, 2019 #2537 Share Posted April 15, 2019 13 minutes ago, pallidin said: How can I? I am not an eminent physicist, so, you are "pushing" That the "uncertainty principle" exists in the quantum realm is very well-established, and, the quantum underlies all of the macroscopic. How it is expressed in the macro I guess you would have to ask an expert. No, I'm asking the person who made the claim. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted April 15, 2019 #2538 Share Posted April 15, 2019 29 minutes ago, Rlyeh said: No, I'm asking the person who made the claim. The claim of what? That quantum uncertainty is present in the macro? Of course it is, and MUST be, because it underlies Reality. However, what is curious is that the quantum "bridge" from micro to macro has not yet been found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danydandan Posted April 15, 2019 #2539 Share Posted April 15, 2019 Just now, pallidin said: The claim of what? That quantum uncertainty is present in the macro? Of course it is, and MUST be, because it underlies Reality. However, what is curious is that the quantum "bridge" from micro to macro has not yet been found. Actually no it's not. Not mathematically nor in any experimental data. What do you think the uncertainty principle is? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted April 15, 2019 #2540 Share Posted April 15, 2019 No, no, no, Pallidin, are you going to bring in the observer effect? Please tell me you're not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted April 15, 2019 #2541 Share Posted April 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, danydandan said: What do you think the uncertainty principle is? Quasi-states and superposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rlyeh Posted April 15, 2019 #2542 Share Posted April 15, 2019 3 minutes ago, pallidin said: The claim of what? I view our Reality as conforming to the "uncertainty principle" "Absolutes" are for hard-liners. You're saying there are no absolutes because of the uncertainty principle. 3 minutes ago, pallidin said: That quantum uncertainty is present in the macro? Of course it is, and MUST be, because it underlies Reality. However, what is curious is that the quantum "bridge" from micro to macro has not yet been found. I thought decoherence explained why macroscopic objects don't behave as quantum particles. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted April 15, 2019 #2543 Share Posted April 15, 2019 Just now, XenoFish said: No, no, no, Pallidin, are you going to bring in the observer effect? Please tell me you're not. No, the "observer-effect"is proven false, yet apparently some still believe it. Thank you, BTW, for bringing that up. It is a serious layman misunderstanding of quantum physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted April 15, 2019 #2544 Share Posted April 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Rlyeh said: I view our Reality as conforming to the "uncertainty principle" "Absolutes" are for hard-liners. You're saying there are no absolutes because of the uncertainty principle. I thought decoherence explained why macroscopic objects don't behave as quantum particles. "Dechorence" is an extraordinary concept with considerable proof. The "bridge", however, has never been established. It remains unknown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted April 15, 2019 #2545 Share Posted April 15, 2019 Just for arguments sake Pallidin. Can you support your claims? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danydandan Posted April 15, 2019 #2546 Share Posted April 15, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, pallidin said: Quasi-states and superposition. No. They are phenomenon caused by pure states, all Uncertainty is, is a lack of information. Although it appears the timing between the counts on a geiger counter near a weak radioactive sample. Is an actual example of quantum mechanical uncertainty because nobody could reduce the uncertainty in the results with more information. So that's pretty cool. Edited April 15, 2019 by danydandan 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted April 15, 2019 #2547 Share Posted April 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, XenoFish said: Just for arguments sake Pallidin. Can you support your claims? Which claims, and I will try my best (within limits, of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted April 15, 2019 #2548 Share Posted April 15, 2019 1 minute ago, danydandan said: No. They are phenomenon caused by pure states, all Uncertainty is, is a lack of information. How do you define "information" with regards to quantum states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted April 15, 2019 #2549 Share Posted April 15, 2019 Let me assist: "Information" in quantum theory is the probability state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danydandan Posted April 15, 2019 #2550 Share Posted April 15, 2019 14 minutes ago, pallidin said: How do you define "information" with regards to quantum states? All it is, is the amount of knowledge we have of a specific system. Expressed in Qubit. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts