Reputation: 26
Not if the coin is not minted imperfectly and is heavier on one side.Originally Posted by Eferos
There is also the Measurement Problem. The cat does not exist.If we assume that the cat exists, we can not determine the state, all states of the cat are equal and therefore all states of the cat must exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
In order for the atoms that form the cat to be measured there has to be conscious observer.
Reputation: 677
Well, it's problematic to say so;
Let's assume you have a perfect coin; How do you describe a perfect coin?
It has exact defined parameters (a normal throw will always result A or B with equal probability, therefore 1/2)
It's parameters are unaltered over the period of the measurement.
You will throw and always get A or B, the longer you throw, the surer you will be that this coin is perfect.
That's what Archimedes would already have come up with.
However, if you take a picture of this coin for future reference (or look at it and take a note of the result of the experiment), the probability, that the coin only looks like state A but is in state B is never zero.
If you have this perfect coin, you will not be able to determine if it is perfect. An indefinite research will end at the boundaries of the uncertainty theorem and than stagnate.
If you start doing this with 100s of perfect coins, in special orders, you will even get waves of probability and interference effects, just with photon detection or electron spin.
This is the way it works.
The idea of a perfect coin does not contribute to reality.
It's irrelevant how perfect a coin is, or how long it can keep that character, as soon as the perfection reaches this limit of being close to the boundaries of uncertainty.
(The though experiment does include an idea of a perfect experiment (the coin actually lands on A/B with 1/2 chance) to show it is obsolete; even talking about it is in physical sense paradox, because the reality is never affected in the way it lands, but in the way it apeared to land, through all it's results that contribute to the measurement.)
Schrödinger proposed to fire a machine-gun into a bunker through a punching column (in once a dark and once a lit room) to recreate the interference pattern of light, but as far as I know this experiment was never executed (because there are simpler methods to get the result I suppose, however I think it would have been very convincing).
Reputation: 12
Which uncertainty? Do not misinterpretate the uncertainty theorem.
It merely states that if we define the uncertainty dA in the measurement of A by its dispersion, (dA)^2 = <(A - <A>)^2> - <A>^2 then
(dA)^2 * (dB )^2 >= (1/4) * <i[A,B]>^2
For the case where we have the opertators A = p and B = x, it yields
(dpdx)^2 >= (1/4)*<i>^2
=> dpdx>= (1/2)*
If the operators commute like in the case of the hydrogen atom in which the Hamiltonian, the square of the angular momentium and the component of the angular momentum along the z-axis commute, then the uncertainty relation would give >=0, which means that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not limit the precision when "measuring those 3 operators". Something that was impossible in the case of p and x, since the operators p and x do not commute with each other and thus give a inrevokable uncertainty according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
In order to apply the uncertainty theorem to the coin toss, we would have to identify which two operators we are looking at. It becomes though bizarre when applying theorems meant for one area in science on a completely different area. Hm, maybe the two operators would be
A. Side shown
B. Toss trajectory
Can you be sure that those two operators do not commute? (I still think it is bizarre)
Or, should we be reasonable and call the coin "perfect" when the probability is very close to 50% after a very large amount of tries?
Because, what is the alternative? Should we start calling something true if and only if it happens in absolutely all cases without any theoretical exception? Because if we start doing that, then there are so many contexts where we can no longer use the word "true". In such case, so many scientific formulas used to describe nature could never be called true or fact, because there are often special cases in which you can add correction terms to make your formula more appropiate to approximate nature. When a formula is verified, it is rarely if ever exact on the dot, there are often fluctuations and different errors to take into account.
Instead of creating a massive confusion, it is better to just call something true and perfect, when it approximates very well in the overwhelming majority of cases. In which case we can say that classical mechanics is correct in its proper field of use. Same applies to quantum mechanics.
Reputation: 372
Why do you bring up how a blind man can taste reality and so forth? It is irrelevant.
A deaf man can taste a part of reality, but he can not ordinarily gain access to sound. Does this mean that sound does not exist? Saying that he can still taste a part of reality for instance, has no bearing on the issue.
Even if matter is not observed, it still exists. Your assertion means nothing. If matter is there, then it is there no matter of it is observed or not.
By reality, we speak of matter, of physics, hence terms such as "the physical reality"(redundant as they may be, seeing as we have no reason to believe in anything other than the physical reality).
Nothing more, nothing less. On the other hand, it is arguably human subjective impressions that are less real, seeing as they can be mistaken, and is sometimes even contradictive to how the physical world really is.
We constantly measure various aspects of reality. Again, if you cannot provide a context for your use of the word "measure", it's meaningless.
And no, it is not our consciousness that determines what reality is. It is our consciousness allows us to observe reality, which is what it is.
How is this relevant to anything? I'm not arguing quantum mechanics, I'm arguing your fallacious position that a persons state of consciousness determines what is real. I dare you to find a single piece of evidence to support this. Vague references to complex scientific theories isn't going to cut it, unless you can back it up by proving your own education on the topic.
Based on the way you speak of it, I'm inclined to believe that you don't have any idea what you're talking about really.
The Common Sense United Front
ZAZAZAZAAAA, DADADADAAAA DAAAA, SHWAMSHWAMSHWAMMMM DUUUU DIIIII DAAAAAAAAAA
Reputation: 12
Logic and thus "True & False" is a basic fundamental of any scientific research. "Cause & effect", on the other hand, is not a such fundamental, which you described very well with your example of atomic decay.
There is no need to involve philosophy in science. Science uses models to describe nature but the philosophical implications is beyond the scope of science itself.
Quantum mechanics is a model of nature that agrees very well with experiments in many areas. It is able to explain and predict experimental results which classical mechanics was unable to explain. The philosophical implications regarding determinism, "cause & effect" and "reality" are not scientific objectives.
Now a question I find interesting is: when can scientific result be considered to be a "fact"? I argued that is reasonable to see some statements about probabilties as "facts".
Posting Permissions
