Paul,

I already told you how a measurement disturbes the microsystem: if you measure the position of an electron, it interacts with a photon and that by itself influences the position of the electron. That's it. For a more elaborate description of Heisenberg's microscope, see here.

Furthermore, about the electron just prior to a measurement of its position you wrote this: "It either had a position and was therefore existent, or it did not." Actually, no. There is a third possibility: it didn't have a position but it did exist. This view is held by the overwhelming majority of quantum physicists. It is, in fact, the accepted view in physics. I don't believe in it, but that doesn't matter here.

Let's recall that this thread arose because I stated that there is little consensus about anything beyond the truth of one's own existence. You wrote that you were stating the obvious, and I merely pointed out that there are others (in casu the majority of physicists) who hold that what you think is obvious just isn't true.

Best regards,

Marcoen

Marcoen

"I already told you how a measurement disturbes the microsystem..."

You have indeed "told" me. What you have not done is proved how this can occur, since it is an impossibility, as both the actual event and the light representation of it are previously existent. And as far as I know, it is not possible to physically affect something which has already physically occurred.

"There is a third possibility: it didn't have a position but it did exist"

That's novel. Something exists but in doing so has no spatial position, how does that work then?

"This view is held by the overwhelming majority of quantum physicists"

I know. It has to be, because the whole basis of their theory is wrong, it is contradictory to how physical existence must occur. So rationalisations like this have to be invoked in order to resolve what is actually a fundamental fault in the theory. Another one is that observation/measurement has an effect. The whole point being that physical existence is different to how this theory depicts it, in simple terms it is definitive, the theory presumes it is not.

"Let's recall that this thread arose..."

Yes, and I said that applies to everything, awareness of ones own physical existence is no different to awareness of the brick wall, in physical terms. That is, existence, as knowable to us, is definitive, it can, if practical problems can be overcome, be knowable, ie at the very least it is potentially knowable.

Paul

Paul,

Quantum physics does not offer an explanation about how something can exist without having a spatial position: it is merely laid down in the axioms that this is the case, that is, that quanta (i.e. "particles") exist without having a position in absence of observation. It is only by observation that the quantum gets a position. As Bohr put it: by observation we "compell" the particle to assume a definite position. This view has been developed in the 1920's - but I understand it if this is novel to you.

Concerning the disturbance of the microsystem we may be talking about two different things. We have to distinguish between the process that happens "inside" an observer, which transforms sensory input data into knowledge, and the (preceding) process of getting the sensory input data. The whole thing about disturbing the microsystem is about the latter process, but I think you may be talking about the former. I agree with you that this process does not disturb the system.

Your criticsm of quantum theory reminds me of that of the philosopher Meyerson. He held (in 1931) that quantum physics is a deceptive facade in that a quantum physicist pretends to hold the orthodox view while in truth his principles are entirely different, because his belief in the existence of the object at a definite position in absence of observation is solid as a rock.

Best regards,

Marcoen

Marcoen,

Very interesting and concise read. Much appreciated by someone who isn't entrenched in the world of Particle Physics. It seems to me that the notion of 'Irrational Exuberance' has not only infiltrated our economic-lives, but almost every domain of western culture (science included). While a certain amount of excitement and idealism is required to fuel progress, when taken to an extreme degree it only serves to cover up 'Inconvenient Truths' of models that aren't as complete/airtight as they proclaim themselves to be.

Take care sir!

Marcoen

No, I know it has no explanation. Nothing like basing a theory on an assertion, and one that has no validity. And then trying to get out of the resulting contradiction by asserting another false occurrence, ie that existence is determined by observation. The word novel meant daft, not that it is new to me. The whole idea that something can exist but does not have a spatial position, along with several other concepts, is just ludicrous.

"The whole thing about disturbing the microsystem is about the latter process"

You are quite right to differentiate the two aspects, many people do not. But, as I have already said, although what is received is not what occurred, this is not disturbed either. What existed (ie the light) did so up until the point of interaction. At that time it then just ceased to exist in that form. That is, what was observed, ie received, was not disturbed. It cannot be, it existed previously to being received.

On your last point, it would be fascinating to understand the sociological/ psychological genesis and development of these ideas. I suspect it was time and place, ie lack of worldwide instant communication, etc, and the superficial attraction of an apparently more dynamic way of describing the world than what the old way seemed to do. When I went to university (late 60s) there was an argument between empiricists and phenomenologists, which very much reflected the ethos of the 60s-challenge the status quo, everything is relative. Obviously, it is easy now to understand why they continue to prevail, indeed there is an industry in generating corrections, so long as the base stays.

Paul

John,

Thanks for your kind words.

I agree with you that the western system is in decay, I even believe that what we are witnessing are its last twitches.

I also agree with you that, in particular in science, enthousiasm is the driving force behind progress. But I hold that all communications about progress must nevertheless remain within the constraints of scientific discourse. Among other things, that means that one has to respect the border between what one *wants to* conclude, and what one *can* conclude. In the paper containing the Higgs claim, this border has been ignored, although the top physicists involved know precisely where it is. I consider it malpractise to say the least. The claim should be retracted.

Best regards,

Marcoen

Dear Paul,

It is true that the light received existed prior to perception. But the general idea of disturbing the microsystem is the following (although I am oversimplifying things now). If you want to know the position of an electron, you send a photon to the electron (which is our microsystem here). This causes an interaction, and the electron then sends back a photon. This latter photon is then perceived, and gives information about the electron's position. But the receiving and emitting of the photon has disturbed the electron. That's the main point.

The Canadian physicist Eduard Prugovecki has written a sublime text on the social history of physics, called `Historical and Epistemological Perspectives on Developments in Relativity and Quantum Theory´. In particular, it is about the shift in the social atmosphere in physics that came along with the development of quantum theory. It describes the rise of what Karl Popper called `the cult of narrowness´ in great detail. The text is accessible here. I think you´ll like it.

Best regards,

Marcoen

Marcoen

But the photon received reflects the state as was, ie at the interaction.

Now, whether or not that interaction has any effect on the electron is another matter. And if it did, it did. The electron is then just in a different subsequent state to what it would otherwise have been in. It is not in a different state, because the subsequent state (ie future) does not not pre-exist. And anyway, I have no doubt this electron is being bombarded by many photons.

Thanks for the reference, when I have time. You may note I post early morning as I do not sleep well, Then I get on with the day which a the moment comprises of going over my replacement camper van (the other one got stolen) then renovating my son's flat. Retirement was supposed to be a time of ret!

Paul

Paul

  • [deleted]

  • Post #101

As I remeber, it's been afewridesaround Higgs Boson, and some sources also stated聽that it has some indirect聽evidence聽of Higgs boson, the same with faster then speed of light neutrino. There are high level complexity in such experiments.聽Do聽you mean that there also politics?

As I remeber, it's been a few rides around Higgs Boson, and some sources also stated聽that it has some indirect聽evidence聽of Higgs boson. The same thing with faster then speed of light neutrino. There are high level complexity in such experiments.聽Do聽you mean that there are also politics?

    Koorosh,

    Thanks for commenting on my essay.

    As to your question: yes, politics have made their way into science (including physics). I have personally witnessed how decisions in the highest echelons were made out of pure self-interest, not at all in the interest of science. And I must add that for some this comes naturally.

    Best regards,

    Marcoen

    5 days later

    Hi there Paul,

    "whether or not that interaction has any effect on the electron is another matter."

    Yes, that is why I wrote that I had the impression that we were talking about different things. I'm glad we have sorted it out.

    "The electron is then just in a different subsequent state to what it would otherwise have been in."

    Yes, that's about it in a nutshell.

    I think the discussion has brought us closer together. I would like to bring to your attention that I have published a fundamental theory about elementary physical processes; it describes protons, electrons, neutrons, etc. as a discrete sequence of states, alternating between a particlelike state and a wavelike state; the abstract and introduction of the paper are non-technical. Perhaps this is of interest for you, given your own view that existence is a sequence of states.

    Good luck with the camper and with your son's appartment. Don't forget to take time for yourself!

    Best regards,

    Marcoen

    Marcoen

    It may be my lack of technical knowhow, but is there free access to this article?

    Paul

    Paul,

    If you have a university affiliation, you can access the paper through the digital library (most universities have a subscription to Annalen der Physik). Otherwise, there is no free access, and I'm not allowed to post the paper on the internet.

    You could send me an email (see the essay for the address), then I'll send you the paper in a reply to that email.

    Or if you prefer a hard copy, just give me your postal address.

    Best regards,

    Marcoen

    Dear Marcoen

    One theory is recognized to be true - that is, to have the ability to refute any criticism - and of course nothing is quite difficult to prove.

    Higgs theory is not true - because it can not the absolute explain for mass.

    To higg at : http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1417

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

      Hi there Hoang cao Hai,

      Thanks for providing the links to your essays. I'm rather pressed for time, but if there is a window of opportunity to read other essays I'll consider reading yours.

      I'm not sure what you meant in your first sentence.

      Do you mean that, in general, a theory is recognized to be true if it has withstood all criticism? And what do you mean by "nothing is quite difficult to prove"? Do you mean that everything is easy to prove? Could you elaborate on that?

      Best regards,

      Marcoen

      8 days later

      Hi Marcoen,

      Perhaps a more fundamental question than whether the Higgs boson exists or not is the question (I ask in my essay) to what the Higgs particle owes its mass to.

      Regards, Anton

        4 days later

        In my theory, space-time is a consequence of rest matter. Section 4 in

        Visualization of SR gives, that time runs only in rest matter, not in photons. Thus it build up time and thus space. Thus space-time is an emergent phenomenon.

        But, explanation of Higgs boson gives, that Higgs bosons give mass to rest matter, otherwise rest matter would move with speed of light.

        This second explanation is in contradiction with my explanation. Do anyone sees any explanation for this contradiction?

        As second, is it possible that a boson with mass 125 MeV exist, it has the same spin as Higgs, but it does not create mass of the elementary particles?