Quantum Mechanics: Paradoxical?

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Eyesee
So, again, how can a particle know how to behave if it wasn't sure of itself? If you were an electron and you weren't sure you were going east or west, how can you respond to some proton that approaches you? As a matter of fact, according to the schizophrenic interpretation of the universe given by QM, the proton itself wouldn't be sure if it was approaching the electron from the east or west either, so how can momentum between this simple system of particles be conserved 100% of the time?

Wavefunctions and quantum fields are well defined (notice I am not talking about what we call "particles"). They do have many symmetries, some of which imply that a subset of our interactions with them (those we call "experiments") conserve momentum and other quantities.

The confusion arises when we try to use categories ("electron", "wave", "trajectory") that are not well suited for their description.

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Wavefunctions and quantum fields are well defined (notice I am not talking about what we call "particles"). They do have many symmetries, some of which imply that a subset of our interactions with them (those we call "experiments") conserve momentum and other quantities.

The confusion arises when we try to use categories ("electron", "wave", "trajectory") that are not well suited for their description.

Ok, this reply makes much sense.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
Possibly. You see, I said that it didn't
appeal to common sense. Then I said that common
sense is for common circumstance. Then I said
that Quantum Mechanics doesn't deal with
common circumstances. Conclusion: A different
line of reasoning, then that which is "common",
is required to understand the Quantum world.
This new line of reasoning is still logical
(or so it seems to be, after having read
Arkhron's posts), it is just better suited
for dealing with the "uncommon".

What does "logical" mean to you ?
I proposed a nearly similar solution. However,
my solution is that of a totally different
reasoning system (different common sense).

The difference is that in that case my definition
of "logical" is just that the new r.s. does
not result in internal paradoxes - it is consistent.

Ahrkron's definition, with which you claim to agree,
is that "logical" means more than that - there
are some general criteria which define what
is "logical" and this new r.s. is the same in this
respect as that what you call "common sense".

However, is there anything you can be certain of
in the Universe to create such criteria ?
Hasn't reality shown us repeatedly that what
we consider absolute and certain is not really so.
(I should point out that my current ignorance
about what ahrkron called "structural rules" for
"logical" systems may in fact mean that they're
the same as my self consistency consideration above
and nothing more, and I simply didn't know that.
But, all those rules and stuff he mentioned sounds
like too many limmitations to me.
What can I say ? I'm foolish and I'll have to study
this stuff before I can express a really educated
opinion on this.)

Originally posted by Eyesee
How can a particle know how to interact with
any other particle if it isn't even sure
of who it is? We may be UNCERTAIN about the
particle's state functions but I think it
knows very well who it is at every moment
in time. I've got three words for you:
Einstein's hidden variables.

QM crushes the classical physics trait
of individuality. It is not possible to
distinguish between similar particles
more than it is possible to distinguish
between individual water drops in the ocean.

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
Leonardo Da Vinci

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eyesee
I find your rebuttal question inadequate. My question was directed at the fundamental properties of the particles themselves whereas yours address the different arrangements of particles resulting in different properties- the former is about apples, the latter, of orangutangs. And even then, I think you answered your own question in your question: our assortment of particles is different than other animals- it would only be amazing if we were the same and not different. Would you expect your car keys to open the front door of your house?

So, again, how can a particle know how to behave if it wasn't sure of itself? If you were an electron and you weren't sure you were going east or west, how can you respond to some proton that approaches you? As a matter of fact, according to the schizophrenic interpretation of the universe given by QM, the proton itself wouldn't be sure if it was approaching the electron from the east or west either, so how can momentum between this simple system of particles be conserved 100% of the time?

------------------------------------------------------------
The universe exists for Helen Keller the same way as it does for every one else.

You may have missed the point of my rhetorical question (afore-quoted), so I will try to be more clear: Why do you think that a particle knows something? You keep speaking of particles as individual, conscious, entities - when they are, in fact, neither individual or conscious.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

What does "logical" mean to you ?
I proposed a nearly similar solution. However,
my solution is that of a totally different
reasoning system (different common sense).

"Logic" is the use of reasoning systems (to be absolutely basic). So, it doesn't matter what reasoning system you use, or what premise it's based on, you still have something "logical".

Ahrkron's definition, with which you claim to agree,
is that "logical" means more than that - there
are some general criteria which define what
is "logical" and this new r.s. is the same in this
respect as that what you call "common sense".

Yes, it's in the same respect as "common sense" because it's the same reasoning system, merely without the premise: "an individual object can exist in only one state, at any given time".