Photons

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes.



No.

So God doesn't play dice, we agree.

 

[durangodawood]

They are governed by laws that are related to the mathematical laws that allow casinos to make money.

I understand that. But that leaves open an aspect of their behavior that is not explained by any law.

(...which I prefer. The idea that everything runs according to law is rather terrifying. There's something deadening in that.)

 

[TillICollapse]

Great thread

Physicists please be gentle, as I'm no longer well versed in these areas ...

However it seems to me that the OP (Chesterton) isn't understanding that something can be both "yes" and "no" at the same time. Things have to be one way or the other, and that they can't be based on probabilities, and have those probabilities be called "laws" ... however this is essentially what the quantum world looks like from our POV, and it is testable and provable: things often are "yes" and "no" and "both" and "neither", all at the same time.

Superposition is an example of this, how a single photon (going back to the OP topic) can be in more than one place at one time, even to the degree that it interacts with itself, and this interaction by bumping into it's ownself can be observed (double slit experiment).

The way we understand how this probability works, is a probability wave function ... yes ? So perhaps if someone well versed can explain probability wave functions, and how they apparently collapse into single values, then it can become more clear and graspable to those who struggle with the idea that things have to be one way or another only, when they can be both at the same time ... and neither as well ... and still be described and understood with boundaries and limits.

Furthermore, there is a reason why the probabilities that exist in the quantum world do not "carry over" often to our classical experience in the same ways they exist within the quantum environment. They are not the same types of "random probabilities" such as rolling dice. The rolling dice are arguably not in a state of superposition, for example. One possible mechanism that attempts to explain where the quantum world ends and the classical world begins is decoherence .... yes ? And in bringing this up, I'm also asking ... is decoherence currently considered the most likely candidate that explains wave function collapse (or the appearance of wave function collapse) ?

 

[kevinmaynard]

Great thread

Physicists please be gentle, as I'm no longer well versed in these areas ...

However it seems to me that the OP (Chesterton) isn't understanding that something can be both "yes" and "no" at the same time. Things have to be one way or the other, and that they can't be based on probabilities, and have those probabilities be called "laws" ... however this is essentially what the quantum world looks like from our POV, and it is testable and provable: things often are "yes" and "no" and "both" and "neither", all at the same time.

Superposition is an example of this, how a single photon (going back to the OP topic) can be in more than one place at one time, even to the degree that it interacts with itself, and this interaction by bumping into it's ownself can be observed (double slit experiment).

The way we understand how this probability works, is a probability wave function ... yes ? So perhaps if someone well versed can explain probability wave functions, and how they apparently collapse into single values, then it can become more clear and graspable to those who struggle with the idea that things have to be one way or another only, when they can be both at the same time ... and neither as well ... and still be described and understood with boundaries and limits.

Furthermore, there is a reason why the probabilities that exist in the quantum world do not "carry over" often to our classical experience in the same ways they exist within the quantum environment. They are not the same types of "random probabilities" such as rolling dice. The rolling dice are arguably not in a state of superposition, for example. One possible mechanism that attempts to explain where the quantum world ends and the classical world begins is decoherence .... yes ? And in bringing this up, I'm also asking ... is decoherence currently considered the most likely candidate that explains wave function collapse (or the appearance of wave function collapse) ?

Something can be yes and no at the same time. A cat can be both dead and alive at the same time.

Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Chesterton]

They are governed by laws that are related to the mathematical laws that allow casinos to make money.

If I walk into a casino and shoot craps, are you denying that the dice are physical objects which will obey physical laws as they are released from my hand onto the table?

I know you can't deny it, but, if we were omniscient as God, (and I believe the goal of science is omniscience - omni-science ), we would know how the dice would land every time, and how many photons bounce off a rock.

 

[Chesterton]

You can have cause and effect, consistency and uniformity while allowing for randomness.

What does "allowing" mean? The word "law" has cropped up in this thread, and I understand how a corrupt cop or judge could "allow" someone to break the law, but I don't understand how it works with physics.

 

[Elendur]

What does "allowing" mean? The word "law" has cropped up in this thread, and I understand how a corrupt cop or judge could "allow" someone to break the law, but I don't understand how it works with physics.

Allowing means simply not preventing.

 

[kevinmaynard]

What does "allowing" mean? The word "law" has cropped up in this thread, and I understand how a corrupt cop or judge could "allow" someone to break the law, but I don't understand how it works with physics.

They aren't breaking a law. The road and law allows one to drive a car, truck, motorcycle, bicycle, scooter, unicycle and many other possibilities. Laws can be flexible.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If I walk into a casino and shoot craps, are you denying that the dice are physical objects which will obey physical laws as they are released from my hand onto the table?

I know you can't deny it, but, if we were omniscient as God, (and I believe the goal of science is omniscience - omni-science ), we would know how the dice would land every time, and how many photons bounce off a rock.

I can't deny that dice are physical objects that obey physical laws. But then again, so are uranium atoms.

Casinos prevent certain things, like card counting, that allow people to use information to shift the odds in their favor. A quantum casino would not need to investigate its players, because there is no way to gain information that would help you predict the decay of a uranium atom.

 

[Chesterton]

I can't deny that dice are physical objects that obey physical laws. But then again, so are uranium atoms.

So small things behave differently than large things. But the large things are composed of the small things. Why is that?

Casinos prevent certain things, like card counting, that allow people to use information to shift the odds in their favor. A quantum casino would not need to investigate its players, because there is no way to gain information that would help you predict the decay of a uranium atom.

That's neither here nor there. When the casinos took the counter-measure of increasing the number of decks from 1 to 4, 6, or 8, did they increase the probability against the player? Yes, of course. But did they violate the physical law that an ace could be dealt to anyone at anytime? No, of course not.

 

[Chesterton]

However it seems to me that the OP (Chesterton) isn't understanding that something can be both "yes" and "no" at the same time. Things have to be one way or the other, and that they can't be based on probabilities, and have those probabilities be called "laws" ... however this is essentially what the quantum world looks like from our POV, and it is testable and provable: things often are "yes" and "no" and "both" and "neither", all at the same time.

Superposition is an example of this, how a single photon (going back to the OP topic) can be in more than one place at one time, even to the degree that it interacts with itself, and this interaction by bumping into it's ownself can be observed (double slit experiment).

The way we understand how this probability works, is a probability wave function ... yes ? So perhaps if someone well versed can explain probability wave functions, and how they apparently collapse into single values, then it can become more clear and graspable to those who struggle with the idea that things have to be one way or another only, when they can be both at the same time ... and neither as well ... and still be described and understood with boundaries and limits.

Furthermore, there is a reason why the probabilities that exist in the quantum world do not "carry over" often to our classical experience in the same ways they exist within the quantum environment. They are not the same types of "random probabilities" such as rolling dice. The rolling dice are arguably not in a state of superposition, for example. One possible mechanism that attempts to explain where the quantum world ends and the classical world begins is decoherence .... yes ? And in bringing this up, I'm also asking ... is decoherence currently considered the most likely candidate that explains wave function collapse (or the appearance of wave function collapse) ?

I've never had a sig line but your excellent post, while making no sense whatsoever, did inspire me to add a sig line from Haldane. Congrats.

ETA: Apparently I'm too dumb to figure out how to make a sig line, but it was supposed to be: “Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." - J.B.S. Haldane

Oh well.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That's neither here nor there. When the casinos took the counter-measure of increasing the number of decks from 1 to 4, 6, or 8, did they increase the probability against the player? Yes, of course. But did they violate the physical law that an ace could be dealt to anyone at anytime? No, of course not.

But an ace can't be dealt to anyone at any time. The aces are at some particular location in the deck(s). These are hidden variables. The location of the aces are hidden from the players (and the house, presumably), but the location is fixed when the shuffle is done. For quantum randomness, the locations are not fixed in the shuffle. Any card really can be the ace.

I'm sorry you don't find this palatable for some reason, but this just really is the way it is.

"According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random."

The 'non-standard' interpretations of quantum mechanics violate relativity, so they are not commonly supported.

 

[TillICollapse]

I've never had a sig line but your excellent post, while making no sense whatsoever, did inspire me to add a sig line from Haldane. Congrats.

ETA: Apparently I'm too dumb to figure out how to make a sig line, but it was supposed to be: “Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." - J.B.S. Haldane

Oh well.

In what way did it not make sense to you ?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Great thread

Physicists please be gentle, as I'm no longer well versed in these areas ...

However it seems to me that the OP (Chesterton) isn't understanding that something can be both "yes" and "no" at the same time. Things have to be one way or the other, and that they can't be based on probabilities, and have those probabilities be called "laws" ... however this is essentially what the quantum world looks like from our POV, and it is testable and provable: things often are "yes" and "no" and "both" and "neither", all at the same time.

Superposition is an example of this, how a single photon (going back to the OP topic) can be in more than one place at one time, even to the degree that it interacts with itself, and this interaction by bumping into it's ownself can be observed (double slit experiment).

The way we understand how this probability works, is a probability wave function ... yes ? So perhaps if someone well versed can explain probability wave functions, and how they apparently collapse into single values, then it can become more clear and graspable to those who struggle with the idea that things have to be one way or another only, when they can be both at the same time ... and neither as well ... and still be described and understood with boundaries and limits.

Furthermore, there is a reason why the probabilities that exist in the quantum world do not "carry over" often to our classical experience in the same ways they exist within the quantum environment. They are not the same types of "random probabilities" such as rolling dice. The rolling dice are arguably not in a state of superposition, for example. One possible mechanism that attempts to explain where the quantum world ends and the classical world begins is decoherence .... yes ? And in bringing this up, I'm also asking ... is decoherence currently considered the most likely candidate that explains wave function collapse (or the appearance of wave function collapse) ?

That is simply sciences way of saying we don't really understand a thing at all about light, but we want you to believe we have it all figured out.

I am still waiting for someone to explain how a particle reflecting off a surface, conveys the detail and color of that surface to your eye? According to modern views of how the eye works, we only see what light reaches our eyes, so you only see a chair when photons reflect off its surface to your eye. So how does a particle pick up this surface, down to minute detail and color, and convey it to your eye? Said jokingly earlier, but are photons the silly putty of the universe?

Your eye then converts this into electrical signals, that are interpreted by your brain. being that light is an EM phenomenon, I tend to think it is an electrical process from beginning to end.

HowStuffWorks "How Vision Works"

"When light enters the eye, it first passes through the cornea, then the aqueous humor, lens and vitreous humor. Ultimately it reaches the retina, which is the light-sensing structure of the eye. The retina contains two types of cells, called rods and cones. Rods handle vision in low light, and cones handle color vision and detail. When light contacts these two types of cells, a series of complex chemical reactions occurs. The chemical that is formed (activated rhodopsin) creates electrical impulses in the optic nerve...

This makes the chemical unstable. Rhodopsin breaks down into several intermediate compounds, but eventually (in less than a second) forms metarhodopsin II (activated rhodopsin). This chemical causes electrical impulses that are transmitted to the brain and interpreted as light."

"
Activated rhodopsin causes electrical impulses in the following way:

1. The cell membrane (outer layer) of a rod cell has an electric charge. When light activates rhodopsin, it causes a reduction in cyclic GMP, which causes this electric charge to increase. This produces an electric current along the cell. When more light is detected, more rhodopsin is activated and more electric current is produced.
2. This electric impulse eventually reaches a ganglion cell, and then the optic nerve.
3. The nerves reach the optic chasm, where the nerve fibers from the inside half of each retina cross to the other side of the brain, but the nerve fibers from the outside half of the retina stay on the same side of the brain.
4. These fibers eventually reach the back of the brain (occipital lobe). This is where vision is interpreted and is called the primary visual cortex. Some of the visual fibers go to other parts of the brain to help to control eye movements, response of the pupils and iris, and behavior."

So it is an electrical process from beginning to end, since light is an electromagnetic phenomenon, be they charged particles or actual EM waves.

 

[kevinmaynard]

That is simply sciences way of saying we don't really understand a thing at all about light, but we want you to believe we have it all figured out.

I am still waiting for someone to explain how a particle reflecting off a surface, conveys the detail and color of that surface to your eye? According to modern views of how the eye works, we only see what light reaches our eyes, so you only see a chair when photons reflect off its surface to your eye. So how does a particle pick up this surface, down to minute detail and color, and convey it to your eye? Said jokingly earlier, but are photons the silly putty of the universe?

Your eye then converts this into electrical signals, that are interpreted by your brain. being that light is an EM phenomenon, I tend to think it is an electrical process from beginning to end.

HowStuffWorks "How Vision Works"

"When light enters the eye, it first passes through the cornea, then the aqueous humor, lens and vitreous humor. Ultimately it reaches the retina, which is the light-sensing structure of the eye. The retina contains two types of cells, called rods and cones. Rods handle vision in low light, and cones handle color vision and detail. When light contacts these two types of cells, a series of complex chemical reactions occurs. The chemical that is formed (activated rhodopsin) creates electrical impulses in the optic nerve...

This makes the chemical unstable. Rhodopsin breaks down into several intermediate compounds, but eventually (in less than a second) forms metarhodopsin II (activated rhodopsin). This chemical causes electrical impulses that are transmitted to the brain and interpreted as light."

"
Activated rhodopsin causes electrical impulses in the following way:

1. The cell membrane (outer layer) of a rod cell has an electric charge. When light activates rhodopsin, it causes a reduction in cyclic GMP, which causes this electric charge to increase. This produces an electric current along the cell. When more light is detected, more rhodopsin is activated and more electric current is produced.
2. This electric impulse eventually reaches a ganglion cell, and then the optic nerve.
3. The nerves reach the optic chasm, where the nerve fibers from the inside half of each retina cross to the other side of the brain, but the nerve fibers from the outside half of the retina stay on the same side of the brain.
4. These fibers eventually reach the back of the brain (occipital lobe). This is where vision is interpreted and is called the primary visual cortex. Some of the visual fibers go to other parts of the brain to help to control eye movements, response of the pupils and iris, and behavior."

So it is an electrical process from beginning to end, since light is an electromagnetic phenomenon, be they charged particles or actual EM waves.

Why not google how light works instead of how the eye works? That will get you more relevant information? Or would finding the answer ruin the fun?

 

[TillICollapse]

That is simply sciences way of saying we don't really understand a thing at all about light, but we want you to believe we have it all figured out.

I have no idea how you got that from my post.

I am still waiting for someone to explain how a particle reflecting off a surface, conveys the detail and color of that surface to your eye? According to modern views of how the eye works, we only see what light reaches our eyes, so you only see a chair when photons reflect off its surface to your eye. So how does a particle pick up this surface, down to minute detail and color, and convey it to your eye? Said jokingly earlier, but are photons the silly putty of the universe?

Your eye then converts this into electrical signals, that are interpreted by your brain. being that light is an EM phenomenon, I tend to think it is an electrical process from beginning to end.

HowStuffWorks "How Vision Works"

"When light enters the eye, it first passes through the cornea, then the aqueous humor, lens and vitreous humor. Ultimately it reaches the retina, which is the light-sensing structure of the eye. The retina contains two types of cells, called rods and cones. Rods handle vision in low light, and cones handle color vision and detail. When light contacts these two types of cells, a series of complex chemical reactions occurs. The chemical that is formed (activated rhodopsin) creates electrical impulses in the optic nerve...

This makes the chemical unstable. Rhodopsin breaks down into several intermediate compounds, but eventually (in less than a second) forms metarhodopsin II (activated rhodopsin). This chemical causes electrical impulses that are transmitted to the brain and interpreted as light."

"
Activated rhodopsin causes electrical impulses in the following way:

1. The cell membrane (outer layer) of a rod cell has an electric charge. When light activates rhodopsin, it causes a reduction in cyclic GMP, which causes this electric charge to increase. This produces an electric current along the cell. When more light is detected, more rhodopsin is activated and more electric current is produced.
2. This electric impulse eventually reaches a ganglion cell, and then the optic nerve.
3. The nerves reach the optic chasm, where the nerve fibers from the inside half of each retina cross to the other side of the brain, but the nerve fibers from the outside half of the retina stay on the same side of the brain.
4. These fibers eventually reach the back of the brain (occipital lobe). This is where vision is interpreted and is called the primary visual cortex. Some of the visual fibers go to other parts of the brain to help to control eye movements, response of the pupils and iris, and behavior."

So it is an electrical process from beginning to end, since light is an electromagnetic phenomenon, be they charged particles or actual EM waves.

A particle doesn't convey the details of the surface like silly putty.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the nature of the atomic structure of the object being hit and the frequencies and wavelengths of light that result from hitting it determine the nature of the visible light data that our eyes perceive.

IOW ... not every wave of light that hits our eyes is the same frequency or wavelength, they are different because the objects they hit absorb parts of the light waves (because the objects are vibrating at wavelengths and frequencies also). So our eyes focus on a particular area and translate the different wavelengths and frequencies of the light in that area which reaches our eyes. Thus, it's not that every wave of light that hits your eye is equal. If it were, arguably we would not be able to differentiate objects or color.

Imagine if each light wave were a baseball hitting your body. The harder the balls hit, the more pain your body would likely register. The softer they hit, your body would likely register them as less painful. Depending on how the lightwaves interact with an object, determines how hard or soft the baseballs hit your body, and your body translates this information into imagery information.

My analogy isn't far off either, if you believe that synesthesia is an actual phenomena, but I digress lol ...

 

[RealityCheck]

The universe is not completely explainable if theres randomenss somewhere.

No. The correct term is not "explainable" but "predictable." We can explain things without being able to predict outcomes perfectly.

We can understand and explain the physics behind shuffling a deck of cards... but that doesn't mean we can predict how a 52 card deck will be ordered after shuffling it 100 times.

We can understand the physics behind the rolling of three dice, but that doesn't mean we will be able to predict how those three dice will turn out on every roll.

And... we can understand the physics behind an electron interacting with an atomic nucleus and its energy levels, but that doesn't mean we can predict precisely where that electron is at any one moment.

But here's the thing, like I explained before. No matter what, there are a limited number of possible ways a deck of cards can be arranged, a finite number of outcomes for three dice. And there's a finite number of solutions for quantum processes. While the solution may not be knowable until the process is done, just like with the shuffled deck or the rolled dice, it must be ONE of those possible solutions. It can't be some other outcome that's not part of the solution set. You can't roll three dice and get zero. You can't shuffle the deck of cards and get twenty ace of spades in a row. And you can't get just any solution to a quantum process. There are discrete and finite solutions.

 

[Chesterton]

But an ace can't be dealt to anyone at any time.

Why do say that?

The aces are at some particular location in the deck(s). These are hidden variables. The location of the aces are hidden from the players (and the house, presumably), but the location is fixed when the shuffle is done. For quantum randomness, the locations are not fixed in the shuffle. Any card really can be the ace.

It seems to me the location is fixed, by law, before the shuffle, during the shuffle and after the shuffle. There's nothing "variable" about it.

I'm sorry you don't find this palatable for some reason, but this just really is the way it is.

I'm only playing devil's advocate. I really don't have a dog in the fight. I kind of like QM.

Actually, I like it and dislike it at the same time. If someone would only pay attention to me, I'd collapse into one opinion or the other.

 

[TillICollapse]

I kind of like QM. Actually, I like it and dislike it at the same time. If someone would only pay attention to me, I'd collapse into one opinion or the other.

Haha now *that's* a fun sig

 

[Chesterton]

In what way did it not make sense to you ?

"...something can be both "yes" and "no" at the same time."

"...things often are "yes" and "no" and "both" and "neither", all at the same time."

I'm not alone here. The famous quantum physicist Roger Penrose said in an interview a few years back (and I'm summarizing here): "There has to be something wrong with QM, because science is supposed to explain things which are logical and acceptable to the human mind, and QM doesn't do it." You know, there's also those quotes by physicists which go something like "if you think you understand QM, you don't understand QM".

Feynman on understanding quantum mechanics - YouTube

Yes, I know it's testable and observable, and some of our modern technologies operate reliably using QM concepts. But that doesn't mean it's not really funky. Then again I believe in a Triune God who is three persons in one, and a lot of people consider that mysterious, inexplicable and funky.