Heya Michael,
There are some valid points being discussed here but I am not at this point
> going to comment on their relative merits. I need more time to acquire an
> appreciation of how you are going about accomplishing your aim(s) here at
> ASA. But while this thread of QM is still open I would like to ask your help
> in developing an ongoing project of my own. I would also like to ask your
> patience because how this project might tie in with the larger goals of ASA
> will only become apparent toward its completion.
>
My pleasure. Though I don't really have a specific aim (if this was directed
at me?). I was pointing out what I saw as a very strange, myopic standard of
'science education', expressing wonder at how scientific literacy gets pared
down to a willingness to accept belief not only in evolution, but a rather
narrowly defined evolution, and general lamentation/curiosity at how QM
remains utterly off the radar in comparison.
> QM is counterintuitive and weird. The various Q theories are weird at
> least as theories go. Some in QM suggest, don't try to figure it out just
> accept your observations and go on. Bohr said "there is no quantum reality."
> ETC. Etc. The question arises, at least in my own mind, that perhaps
> something was unknown in the 1930's when Bohr proposed his Copenhagen
> explanation that we might know about today? Would you be so kind as to help
> me develope that thought?
>
Well, I can try to answer your questions. But I'm actually not coming here
intending to build up one particular point of view of QM over another, even
if I do have my own vague suspicions and preferences. For me it's enough to
bring QM to the table, point out just how weird it is and how varied the
possibilities are, etc. It took me a long time to even accept what was going
on in QM, period, and start recognizing the possibilities and implications.
Somehow, I think that's more valuable than definitely telling people what to
think about QM.
> 1. Is it correct to use the term "quantum wholeness" to refer to N.
> Bohr's statement that there is "an indivisible wholeness," an unanalyzable
> wholeness that binds the quantum object and the measuring apparatus into an
> undivided whole, a quantum system?
>
Correct? I suppose it depends on what you mean. To refer to Bohr's
statement/idea? Sure. Correct as in certain truth? I'm not certain.
> 2. Do you agree with the following statement?
> The concept of nonlocality develops from the attempts to answer questions
> raised by Einstein and developed something like this. The A. Einstein, Boris
> Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen (EPR) paradox was part of a long running debate
> between Einstein and Bohr. The EPR paradox was designed to test, at least
> philosophically, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle but the debate soon
> shifted to other issues. Einstein maintained that the reason the two
> particles in the EPR paradox have correlated properties, was because they
> had the same source and there was no need for then to communicate at faster
> than light speed. Bohr maintained that the paradox's argument was too weak
> to overturn quantum theory. This argument of the debate was said to involve
> locality, with Einstein's position being termed local and Bohr's nonlocal.
>
I'd agree in a general sense, but it seems oddly worded. I'd talk about
nonlocality insofar as it was arrived at and inferred by experiments, the
math involved, etc. In other words, the intellectual debate is less
interesting than the experiments that have been performed (Though, again,
it's interesting how I managed to hear Einstein's name all throughout my
education, with zero mention of his problem with QM and such. Or about QM at
all.)
>
> 3. and this?
> John Bell proposed a theorem in which he was able to demonstrate that the
> amount of correlation of two particles from a single source due to local
> effects would be less than the correlation obtained if the two particles
> were considered part of a quantum system (nonlocal). Alan Aspect and others
> were able to perform experiments that tested Bell's theorem and these
> demonstrated that quantum systems exhibit nonlocality.
>
Not aware offhand. I recall that Bell was actually attempting to support EPR
with his experiment, but ended up providing some considerable evidence that
undermined it.
Aspect's experiments supposedly do a very good job of illustrating just how
much local realism has to be 'given up' in order to remain consistent with
the results. Answer being, 'more than many physicists are comfortable with,
but the alternatives are even more distasteful'.
>
> 4. and this?
> The term "nonlocality" refers to the concept that two particles from the
> same source considered as a quantum system exhibit amore correlation than
> they otherwise should and the two particles appear to communicate at faster
> than light speed.
>
Sounds right to me.
> 5. and this?
> The term "wave-particle duality" refers to the long standing realization
> that light and other quantum bodies exhibit properties of both waves and
> particles. Newton proposed a particle theory of light, while his
> contemporary Christian Huygens proposed his own wave theory.
>
Sounds reasonable, except what seems involved with making light, etc behave
'like a wave' or 'like a particle' is generally regarded as key.
>
> 6. and this?
> Although quantum wholeness, nonlocality, and wave particle duality have
> been demonstrated -------- by experiment and observation, currently there is
> no description of a natural phenomenon that would explain them.
> I am still searching for a suitable adjective to put in the -----.
> Perhaps you can suggest one.
>
I'm not sure what to say on this one. Again, I'm less interested in talking
about what has been certainly demonstrated, and more about the experiments
themselves, the possibilities, etc. Especially considering that QM
inevitably leads to metaphysical considerations.
>
> Thanks, more questions tomorrow.
> Michael McCray
>
Sorry if I'm not of more help with these questions, but by all means, I'll
try to answer whatever you ask. The questions QM leads to (about
materialism, realism, locality, consciousness, etc) are to me the most
interesting thing, along with the experiments themselves.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 18 04:50:13 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 18 2008 - 04:50:14 EST