Can superposition be tested by gravity?

[tom.stoer]

congratulations. very incisive.

thanks a lot

 

[tom.stoer]

Ontological Vs Epistemic, Theory

Are you referring to "some of them are physically measurable, some of them not"? That's not the same.

 

[yoda jedi]

Are you referring to "some of them are physically measurable, some of them not"? That's not the same.

please if can, read again my previous post.

 

[yoda jedi]

There are no impossible questions; there are only questions that cannot be answered by given epistemological tools. But questions that cannot be answered by one epistemological tool perhaps can be answered by another epistemological tool. In particular, questions that cannot be answered by a measurement (e.g., where is the Sun during the night) can be answered by a theory (e.g., Newton theory of gravity). The mistake that some scientists make is to assume that measurement is the ONLY epistemological tool. But it is not! Therefore, "where is it when we aren't measuring it" is a question that CAN be answered - by a theory.

or a deeper theory.

 

[yoda jedi]

Are you referring to "some of them are physically measurable, some of them not"? That's not the same.

refering to that

...All this must have come to Heisenberg as a scathing attack on what he regarded as his fundamental orientation, derived from reading Einstein's early works, and being guided by them from the start, right through his most recent triumph. But now, in this meeting, Einstein, whose development away from positivistic instrumentalism to a rational realism...


...Perhaps this discussion helped Heisenberg eventually to embark on his own epistemological pilgrimage, ending later with a kind of neo-Platonism in the description of nature through the contemplation of symmetries...

 

[tom.stoer]

OK, first of all I should say that "epistemic" and "phenomenological" are not quite the same - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy) - but they are rather close in our context.

It may be dangerous to use "phenomenological" b/c there is a confusing cross-reference to physics where one tries to construct phenomenological models which are not "the real world" but which capture some "aspects of reality" - e.g. the non-relativistic quark model.

All what I wanted to say is that according to realism "ontological entites" need not be grounded in measurements. Of everything that can be measured "does exist", but there may be entities that "exist", but can never be measured "e.g. wave functions".

I think we can never decide if a wave function does "exist" (not only b/c we do not know what "exist" really means; the wave function is not a phenomenon), but we can be sure that we "need it" in our models (we use it in orer to describe phenomena efficiently).

 

[yoda jedi]

OK, first of all I should say that "epistemic" and "phenomenological" are not quite the same - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy) - but they are rather close in our context.

not discussing that point, i agree with you to some degree.

It may be dangerous to use "phenomenological" b/c there is a confusing cross-reference to physics where one tries to construct phenomenological models which are not "the real world" but which capture some "aspects of reality" - e.g. the non-relativistic quark model.

agree, and rutherford model, landau theory...

All what I wanted to say is that according to realism "ontological entites"
need not be grounded in measurements.
Of everything that can be measured "does exist", but there may be entities that "exist", but can never be measured "e.g. wave functions".

of course, noway.
or entities that are no ontological "e.g. wave functions" ergo; no real.
like you say "MAY"

I think we can never decide if a wave function does "exist" (not only b/c we do not know what "exist" really means;
...the wave function is not a phenomenon),
but we can be sure that we "need it" in our models (we use it in orer to describe phenomena efficiently).

its unknown, because as you say:


Phenomenological Theory: A theory which expresses mathematically the results of observed phenomena without paying detailed attention to their fundamental significance.

or/and

from Greek: phainómenon "that which appears"
are wave functions real ?
represent reality (ontological entity) ? or our knowledge of reality (epistemic fact)?

is the wave function a phenomenon ? maybe.

 

[tom.stoer]

I think we should agree that from now on we are leaving physics and enter the philosophical domain. So this would be a good moment to pause, be happy about some agreement, and stop talking about philosophy (not that it's not interesting - but it's not the right place).

 

[yoda jedi]

I think we should agree that from now on we are leaving physics and enter the philosophical domain. So this would be a good moment to pause, be happy about some agreement, and stop talking about philosophy (not that it's not interesting - but it's not the right place).

read:

Quantum Physics
are wave functions real?
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=400515

..."epistemic -- of, relating to, or involving knowledge"

As opposed to

"ontic -- of, relating to, or having real being"

So, "psi epistemic" means the wave function is knowledge about ... , it doesn't necessarily "exist" or have "being." In BM, psi definitely exists and acts on the quantum particles, so psi is ontic. Of course, it could be both, but in RBW it's purely epistemic...