"Uncertainty" principle is just wave mechanics.
It's only "uncertain" because you expect particles when the reality is wave-like.
"Uncertainty" principle is just wave mechanics.
"Uncertainty" principle is just wave mechanics.
It's only "uncertain" because you expect particles when the reality is wave-like.
Doesn't the uncertainty principle exist in all formulations of QM, not just wave mechanics.
In fact they will, since any non-commuting pair of operators can lead to an uncertainty principle.
That's true. But unlike most waves, when I measure the location of "an electron", I get a really small point on a screen. How do you explain that?
LMAO, what do you expect? One of those split in very small chunks spread out like a smashed fly on a screen?
Sure, why not? Naively, if I look at a wave pulse on a rope, or a water wave, or something like that, through a pixelated grid, and asked "where is the wave" the answer would be smeared out. "Well it's mostly in the middle here but it's also a bit over there and over there, etc."
What is it that distinguishes quantum mechanics waves from other waves that causes particles to emerge in just the former case? I never see particles or any particle analog when making wave pulses in rope or water.
> why not?
Because is quantized, you can't have fractions of a photon or fractions of an electron. If we could have fractions of a photon experimental data would be wildly different.
I think the original sense in which the word "quantum" was used was to refer to the quantization of energy levels, not particles. I don't really see the connection. And the waves aren't quantized (in the way you are using the term) until they "collapse". Prior to measurement they are modeled as perfectly non-discrete.
>What is it that distinguishes quantum mechanics waves from other waves that causes particles to emerge in just the former case?
It can be modeled as a wave. "like a wave". Various models of the thing is not the thing. This was explained and seemingly ignored
>particles to emerge
The behavior observed is what is emergent. Particles are a model of what we observe, just as waves model something else about what we observe. Valence shells are a model as are bohr atoms. A model of a discrete event is different from a model of a continuity. These are all different parts of the things measured, not "the thing itself".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_map_is_not_the_territory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination
In summation some individual quanta fits our model of particles rather well, and a lot of them in series have a distribution you can model as a wave and on interacting have properties of waves such as cancellation, amplification, etc. All aspects of the same thing, none of it means the thing thus modeled "is the model". You can assume it is naively but that makes for all manner of silly contradictions.
>The_map_is_not_the_territory
it can absolutely be given enough resolution and boundaries.
>it can absolutely be given enough resolution and boundaries.
Law of identity. No, no it cannot.
Think you've a point somewhere in all that sarcasm to share with the rest of the class?
>Law of identity. No, no it cannot.
you can perfectly atomically rebuild it and replace it and it fricking is the same territory. I'm so fricking tired of this moronic philosophical argument.
what you want to say is that without having enough information you don't know as much as as you would if you had access to ALL of the information. anyone unironically using it should be whipped
>you can perfectly atomically rebuild it and replace it and it fricking is the same territory.
And then it ceases to be a map.
>I'm so fricking tired of this moronic philosophical argument.
You may not be understanding it as I do, at the very least. That is why I also included the relevant articles to related concepts, such as reification and the quip "all models are wrong". It may help to look them over.
>what you want to say is that without having enough information you don't know as much as as you would if you had access to ALL of the information.
No, actually. The more information a model contains the more likely it suffers overfit and poor predictive accuracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting
So the more you try to shape the map into the territory the less useful it is as a map, and the less like a map it becomes. So too for models.
>anyone unironically using it should be whipped
From where I'm standing it genuinely seems as though you don't understand it or any of the related concepts. There's a reason I give wiki articles.
>And then it ceases to be a map.
no it doesn't it's the best map if you are looking for as much information as possible about the territory.
an atom is the best map for a same element atom. it contains all of the info, it's a complete map. the issue is with getting access to all info, studying it.
let's use a simpler example, a cup. you can have drawings and 3D simulations, but the best map for a cup is any other cup coming from the same assembly line. the most complete map for a cup.
>no it doesn't it's the best map if you are looking for as much information as possible about the territory.
Per linked articles that is not the case, excepting where one might be defining "information" here such that one is begging the question.
>an atom is the best map for a same element atom. it contains all of the info, it's a complete map.
This is an equivocation. If "map" is synonymous with "atom", then you have effectively written "an atom is the best atom for an atom, because it contains all the same information as that atom."
>the issue is with getting access to all info, studying it.
Why, yes, the issue is with mapping it. Almost... almost as if maps are distinct from their territories. For more reasons than one. Funny how that works.
If you think I can't get more condescending keep being a little shit and find out.
>If you think I can't get more condescending keep being a little shit and find out.
why would you think I'm being condescending you monkey?
the map is information about something. you are trying to force a "never can be the territory" and you didn't really answer my fricking question you weasel. why?
pretty clear how maps came about isn't it? bandwidth and storage issues anon. the better we got at storage and bandwidth the more info we started putting into the maps. why tho? why do we have google earth maps? why are they scanning the underground of the whole planet? isn't it for even more information in the map?
when does this stop you idiot? and fricking why? to make sense to your shit philosophy concepts or? you primitive homo
>why would you think I'm being condescending
You're being obtuse. I'm condescending because you are being obtuse.
>you are trying to force
Inform. I tried to inform you. Now I'm increasingly leaning toward mockery because you think you know better when you really don't, and are being an obnoxious child about it. I am not at all surprised you can't figure out what it means, as the attitude you're displaying toward being informed of things you don't know about would make your learning anything a miracle.
>the map is information about something
And if you are not begging the question in your definition of "information", that means it must be useful. It can't be useful for a map if it's the very thing for which you are constructing a map. Repeat ad infinitum of infinite maps of oh god everything has been machined into paperclips now why
>pretty clear how maps came about isn't it? bandwidth and storage issues anon.
No, actually, there's a paradox involved that you'd learn about if you tried learning about things.
>you primitive homo
That's Professor Primitive homosexual to you, zoomer.
you talk like a gay and you're shit's all moronic.
do you actually think about the shit you are saying? notice how you didn't make any fricking point
>do you actually think about the shit you are saying?
Yes.
>notice how you didn't make any fricking point
Your narcissism is obscuring it. The point is you suck and your attitude, if not bait, guarantees you will keep sucking. Consider it a warning.
you come to IQfy and feel offended? really?
you act like a little prick. said nothing really, couldn't explain yourself any of the shit you sent me read, overall you avoided to make any fricking point because you couldn't really. because you don't understand it.
>you come to IQfy and feel offended?
Not offended. You just make it impossible to help you by thinking you know things you don't and refusing to learn by resources provided to you as a result. It's your life to ruin kid I'm not offended if you make your life suck. Not my fault the horse won't drink when lead to water, just sad for the horse is all.
How dare you be an instrumentalist you're supposed to talk out your ass about all kinds of things not in evidence to make content for the Hitler/AncientAliens channel.
Chud's law for science. Non-procreative sex descends into degeneracy. Non-procreative science descends into philosophy.
>by resources provided to you
you should have been able to explain it yourself. it's pretty simple, where is the limit between the map and the territory, how do you formally define it?
Instrumentation. What we can measure is the limit.
we know atoms are identical and we have atom resolution in what we make (CPUs and shit). sure CPU are not identical, but mostly because of complexity and poor control of matter, at this point. the argument can be easily had on just a few atoms. we "see" them, enough to determine if one or two. which is good enough, since atoms are fungible. so then, with enough info, the map can become the territory, was all I was arguing for. not every time, just that the map can become the territory with enough resolution.
>you should have been able to explain it yourself.
You should be able to ask about things instead of acting like a shit. Shittier you act the less anyone's going to be willing to spoon feed you or help you out because that requires effort you're actively discouraging.
>it's pretty simple, where is the limit between the map and the territory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_content
Case in point. I could explain, but you're demonstrably not worth it by your own lack of effort reading what people give you and bad attitude when that was pointed out. So you can go ahead and figure it out the hard way.
>how do you formally define it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodness_of_fit
>Shittier you act the less anyone's going to be willing to spoon feed you
well that's just your ego. imagine denying someone something they need and costs you nothing just because you didn't like the way they tickled your balls. that's weakness really
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_content
why do you find it so hard to simply sinthetise a concept or idea, in your own words? why are you deferring responsability for your argument anon? smells like weakness again.
>well that's just your ego
In a way, since I value my time and you don't. Put another way, it's efficient resource allocation. I can dismiss you effortlessly while doing something else. Making explanations to fit guessed at level of understanding is another matter, and you're not worth it as you make the process impracticable with the narcissism.
>why do you find it so hard to simply sinthetise a concept or idea, in your own words?
Why is everything you write straight out of the narcissistic personality disorder playbook? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_injury
I can, you're just not worth it. That's what you get when you don't respect other people: Mutuality. I don't respect you enough to think it would help you even if anybody tried.
>why are you deferring responsability for your argument anon? smells like weakness again.
Yeah yeah reverse minimize deflect attack or whatever stage of the injury-related DARVO you're at now.
If you are just trolling you are doing a remarkable job acting the transparent narcissist though. Like do you have a guide for the baiting or... ?
>narcissistic personality
>I can, you're just not worth it.
mush
You get what you give. It's called mirroring. If you don't like what the mirror shows that isn't the mirror's fault. You've got problems, kid, and if you don't like people not valuing you in response to your behavior maybe start valuing other people and changing your behavior.
I sincerely hope for your own sake this is attempted trolling. I also know if it isn't you literally won't let yourself fathom that sympathy is anything but a power play.
>You get what you give. It's called mirroring.
yeah surely you wouldn't abuse anything to comfort your inner weakness. also your dissonance isn't reassuring, I suspect you are not able to perceive things for what they are, you seem to project a bunch of shit on reality. good luck corrupted anon
>yeah surely you wouldn't abuse anything to comfort your inner weakness
What you're doing is called "projection". Really none of these narcissistic defenses work if anyone knows about them because everyone can see, well, exactly that about you. It's sad.
>also your dissonance isn't reassuring, I suspect you are not able to perceive things for what they are, you seem to project a bunch of shit on reality.
Also sad you're that afraid someone can see you for who you are even anonymously. But hey, ain't called pathology for nothin.
>good luck corrupted anon
You need all of it you can get to deal with NPD. Sooner the better. More habitual it becomes, well, it isn't good.
>I can, you're just not worth it. That's what you get when you don't respect other people
looking at your previous responses you did waste a lot of finger-energy into writing it. you could have, and I want to clearly point out that at any time, you could have made a point to the starting argument. so by your very own words, you have CLEARLY wasted a bunch of energy into defending your precious b***h ego. you put a lot of words into defending it, zero towards the argument.
you keep confusing you having an insecure inner b***h and masking it with being integrated.
>so by your very own words, you have CLEARLY wasted a bunch of energy into defending your precious b***h ego
Flaw in your analysis: I don't consider it a waste, else I wouldn't be doing it. Just isn't what you want, and like a toddler you're throwing a tantrum over it. Is what happens when narcissistic supply is denied, you get reactions from "narcissistic rage" to narcissistic injury and the like.
Really the only down side is I have to treat you as shitty as you treat everyone else. For most people that's really hard.
>you keep confusing you having an insecure inner b***h and masking it with being integrated.
ruh roh raggy, we're hitting schizophasia.
I really do hope there's some inkling of "self awareness" in the narcissist but the way they act, real or fake, is fricking disturbing. You can point out and illustrate every single thing they do, while they're doing it, and they just... can't stop doing it to save their ass literally or figuratively. Singularly most fricking disturbing thing to witness in a person.
>I don't consider it a waste,
well that's fricking clear anon. you used a lot of replies to paint me your ego, that I should respect and worship. you keep hinting at it, you'll act friendly when I'll show signs of respect, without you earning it in the first place. I kinda despise that shit, it's weakness.
>well that's fricking clear anon.
Except to you, since you thought it a contradiction
so, well, whoopsie? Can you admit you made a mistake? Doubt it.
>you used a lot of replies to paint me your ego, that I should respect and worship.
Worship? You're still projecting onto me what you want and think of people who, and this is the sad thing, just want basic decency. Kind of fricked up how you view that, which is why you treat people like shit so transparently.
>you keep hinting at it, you'll act friendly when I'll show signs of respect
It's called fairness. You want people to do things for you, such as help you understand something, you don't act like a shithead about it. You're not special and this behavior is unacceptable regardless of who you are.
>without you earning it in the first place.
With the narcissistic cherry on top. People don't have to suffer "earning" your so-called "respect". Common decency is not something special you've right to withhold while making demands of others, and the "respect" of such a person has less value than cow shit. You make your "respect" worthless because you don't value people enough to treat them decent in the first place.
>I kinda despise that shit, it's weakness.
Weakness is needing to have people "earn" your treating them like people. You're not strong enough to treat people as individuals valuable for their own sake or hold yourself to a higher standard, else you wouldn't classify common decency as "worship" and or such simple respect of others as to be withheld until they weather your shitty personality sufficiently for you.
This game only works on the ignorant and vulnerable. Don't say I didn't warn you.
you are objectively deranged
>you are objectively deranged
Just now figured that out?
>Think you've a point somewhere in all that sarcasm to share with the rest of the class?
Yeah, my point is your whole ass post is a bunch of pretentious mumbo jumbo, wannabe professor.
>we can't get at the "ontology" of the thing, what it is, because we cannot directly observe it as you might see rain or clouds
Directly observing a phenomena doesn't have anything to do with ontology, pseud.
0/10 bait was too obvious dude
>anything I don't like is bait
Pseud reaction.
better luck next time fren ¯_(ツ)_/¯ but might I suggest a hobby?
Emergent property.
See gif.
There is nothing in rules of game of life that specify particle-like objects, yet "gliders" - easily recognizable, very localized phenomenons exist in this automata.
Wave-like with the focus on the word "like" - universe in its mechanics is not exactly like a wave on a lake - this alone is not enough to explain all of it - but it's similar enough for wave-like behavior to be very prominent in all of our measurements.
Just for everyone, in general, so long as you just go with what's apparent without reifying. That is, mistaking models of apparent behavior (i.e. epistemology) for what the thing is (i.e. ontology). Quantum mechanics is very easily understood conceptually. It's all interactions with things you can't see that have deterministic properties and probability distributions, sometimes conditional probability distributions that bad actors play up to make appear magical when they're things you see every day.
Or examples of such emergence like anon posted here .
The thing that probably bothers the most people is the fact we can't get at the "ontology" of the thing, what it is, because we cannot directly observe it as you might see rain or clouds. That there may be some limit to our ability to directly access reality and test it, and so limits to what we can know in some ordinary way. This of course leads to the problem of underdetermination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination
For example, is apparent randomness fundamental or merely local with a larger order that merely appears random? How large must the scale be to even be able to devise test to answer such a question? Most answers to all the questions people have had are stuck in that underdetermined phase until we slowly, progressively, figure out negations to them such that we can exclude them. Of course, it is far more likely that answers will resemble phenomena we already know than something wholly unexpected e.g. powered by invisible unicorns, so you don't throw the baby (everything else we know) out with the bathwater. Unless you're a grifter, of course, and want people's minds so open their brains fall out for your financial benefit.
>That is, mistaking models of apparent behavior (i.e. epistemology) for what the thing is (i.e. ontology).
There is no such thing as "what the thing is". There is only apparent behavior.
Anyone claiming otherwise is a crackpot metaphysicist and shouldn't be taken seriously by civilized society.
What are you guys going to do when mathematics proves Wolfram's crock is equivalent to Gary's blur in excel?
Someone didn't read the thread.
Or is a bot.
Quantum mechanical objects do not behave "like particles" and do not behave "like waves". Quantum mechanical objects behave exactly like quantum mechanical objects.
>"Uncertainty" principle is just wave mechanics.
Uncertainty principle is just a mathematical consequence of the Fourier transform.
Most "I fricking love science" types couldn't derive it or tell you what the Δ means.
Who cares if it's real or not? As long as it works.
yeap
the problem is combining the discrete and continuous properties of matter. no one knows how to do this so we are stuck with paradoxical descriptions of reality where something is both a wave and a particle. waves are continuous, particles are discrete and there is no theory which can combine the two into something coherent
Summary of this thread so far:
Uncertainly principle is the incapability to make an accurate measurement, if we had a better method the uncertainty would vanish