Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] determinism for Neil (et al).

Expand Messages
  • grant hallman
    At 12:46 PM 31-05-04 -0500, Neil wrote: [snip] ... That s just not so. HUP applies to /all/ objects, regardless of scale. It applies to a Neil-size object
    Message 1 of 50 , Jun 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      At 12:46 PM 31-05-04 -0500, Neil wrote:

      [snip]

      >> >Fundamental determinism has no dependency on our ability to
      >determine
      >> >things, it is based on an orderly progression from one moment to
      >the
      >> >next. IOW, what makes for fundamental determinism is what each
      >> >subatomic entity "determines", not what we determine. HUP does
      >> >nothing to restrict an entity from possessing a particular
      >> >time/position/momentum in this momentum, and proceeding to another
      >> >precise time/position/momentum in the next.
      >>
      >> All true, yet does not go far enough. HUP is not just a statement
      >about our
      >> ability to measure, it is an observation about a fundamental propery
      >of
      >> matter,
      >Neil2: No, it is a statement about the behavior of some very large
      >scale objects, that we normally think of as very small.

      That's just not so. HUP applies to /all/ objects, regardless of scale. It
      applies to a Neil-size object walking down the street, a Jupiter-object
      orbiting the sun, an electron hitting (or not) an anti-electron in a
      pseudo-atom of electronium. The scale of HUP is set by the value of h-bar:
      1.05456e-034 Js.

      We /think/ of it as applying to atoms, nuclei, electrons, because that's
      the largest scale at which HUP first dominates "ordinary" physics. But as
      things get smaller, the the apparent effect of HUP only increases. Below
      the scale of an atom, HUP _is_ the "ordinary" physics, and Keplers laws
      fade while Scroedinger becomes the norm.

      >a property which affects the behavior of matter whether there's
      >> anyone around to see it, or not. One example would be the hydrogen
      >atom.
      >> One can think of it (mind u this is an analogy not a proof) as an
      >electron
      >> wandering around in the inverse-square field of a proton, and face
      >the
      >> question physics faced in 1899: why don't the electrons fall into
      >the
      >> protons?
      >Neil2: Good question. Unfortunately nobody knows what an electron is
      >made of, or what quarks are made of. So all anybody can do is watch
      >these huge objects (electrons and quarks) do unpredictable things and
      >use probability to make some descriptions of their behavior.

      Yeah - some extremely _accurate_ statistical descriptions.

      >> Teeny little orbits like planets wouldn't serve, because an orbiting
      >> electron is a constantly accelerated electron, and Maxwell had
      >already
      >> shown that an accelerated charge radiates energy (EMR), so such a
      >system
      >> should spiral in and crash.
      >>
      >> A later interpretation (post-Heisenberg) is that the electron cannot
      >be
      >> confined too closely near a proton because that would violate HUP.
      >It's not
      >> some sentient observer, but in a sense the "proton" that would
      >"know" the
      >> electron's momentum x velocity too closely. So as a direct
      >consequence of
      >> the electron's HUP-shyness, it sits sort of near the proton, neither
      >> falling onto it nor circling around it, held there in a little
      >> probabilistic cloud by whatever it is that HUP really means.
      >>
      >> Shroedinger put this on a quantitatively mathematical basis with his
      >wave
      >> equation. The psi term which represents the "wave", has
      >> _no_physical_interpretation_. Only the square of psi has, and that
      >> interpretation is "the probability of finding the electron in a
      >given
      >> volume" (the volume over which psi is integrated). The fact that
      >hydrogen
      >> atoms exist, is an example of HUP being an attribute of matter,
      >independent
      >> of "observation" in the sense of a person is looking.
      >Neil2: If you define matter as the smallest things we currently know
      >of, OK. Problem is, there has to be something a great deal smaller
      >that we haven't figured out yet.

      I just said that. I also said, HUP will rule smaller things - whatever they
      are - even more than it affects "great big" things like electrons. Don't
      start groping for a "Deterministic God of the Gaps", you'll look like a
      Fundamentalist ;)

      >> >> While we don't know everything about the nature of matter,
      >> >everything
      >> >> points to this principle being universal, thus if, as, or when
      >> >smaller
      >> >> structures are discovered, they will also be subject to HUP. In
      >> >particular,
      >> >> it will be impossible even in principle to know their momentum x
      >> >velocity,
      >> >> or energy x time, below h-bar.
      >> >Neil: True, we can never know these things precisely, but
      >fundamental
      >> >determinism does not rest on our knowledge, it rests on
      >deterministic
      >> >actions at a the most fundamental level, whatever that turns out to
      >> >be.
      >>
      >> It rests on that and on one other thing...
      >>
      >> >> Turning to chaos theory, one sees that even small uncertainties
      >(on
      >> >the
      >> >> scale of h-bar) are quickly magnified as real events unfold, to
      >> >limit
      >> >> predictability (even in principle) to gross statistical analysis
      >> >rather
      >> >> than specific, deterministic calculations. I see no way to
      >recover
      >> >the
      >> >> universe-as-clockwork from this.
      >> >Neil: OK, Grant, you don't see it, and it seems to me that you are
      >> >looking for determinism from a human perspective on down. Try to
      >turn
      >> >your mind's eye to the fundamental and build up.
      >>
      >> One of us isn't seeing it, and i think it's u...
      >Neil2: I don't think so Grant, you keep trying to use a probabilistic
      >analysis of a large scale object to "prove" what "can't" be happening
      >to something that hasn't been observed or modeled yet.

      I'm not "using" probabilistic analysis, i'm telling u that the very best
      theory we have for how matter behaves at scales below molecules
      (Schroedinger), tells us we're /limited/ to probabilistic analysis, because
      that's how matter really works. We've only been allowed to think "planets
      have orbits" and "billiard balls have trajectories" as long as we've been
      confining our observations to stuff so big (larger than molecules), and
      measurements so imprecise (under 6 decimal places or so), that HUP can be
      neglected.

      But if u want to take a system even as simple as 1000 He atoms in a box,
      and "determine" it for as briefly as even a second, you just can't ignore
      HUP any more. All chaos theory does, is explain why HUP reaches out of the
      atomic scale so fast, to bollix up the larger scale.

      >> >Assume, just for a moment, that the Universe is a perfect
      >clockwork,
      >> >and every cog is deterministically engaged with its surrounding
      >cogs.
      >>
      >> Wait. Right there, in that assumption, is your violation of HUP.
      >Neil2: No, because HUP applies to large scale objects, not the
      >"cogs".

      Dead wrong. HUP applies to /all/ objects. The smaller the objects, the
      greater they are affected by HUP. Of course, physics cannot prove some
      small object may be found which violates this so-far universal principle,
      in the same sense physics cannot prove God didn't make the Earth some day
      in October 4004 BC with all the fossils, photons and radioisotopes
      _just_so_, but to me the two suppositions are comparably plausible.

      >The
      >> assumption already puts us in a different universe than the one we
      >inhabit.
      >> The one we inhabit does not _allow_ perfect little cogs.
      >Neil2: Since you don't know what those cogs are, how they operate, or
      >how they travel through space, you have no basis for this statement.

      I have this basis: no particle in the history of particle physics has been
      found to violate HUP, at any scale, under any circumstances. Even empty
      space is not immune. Quantum foam is a HUP phenomenon. Your speculation is
      wildly out of step with established physics. If u keep this up, you're
      gonna have to cross the floor and sit with the YECs! ;)

      [snip multiple copies of "does too!" - "does not!"]

      >> >So, sadly, we are at base still stuck with philosophical arguments
      >> >about fundamental determinism. So I ask, what does fundamental
      >> >non-determinism even mean? Action without cause? Things are a
      >> >certain way and then all of a sudden something just goes poof for
      >no
      >> >reason?
      >>
      >> Examples of that abound. "Poof", there goes an atom of Co-60. Now
      >it's an
      >> atom of Ni60, and an electron, and a gamma photon.
      >Neil2: Again you confuse the actions of electrons, quarks, and
      >photons with fundamental actions. These things just are not
      >fundamental. They seem to go "poof" because we don't know how they
      >work. These things are huge black boxes, and we don't know their
      >internal functions, the best we can do is a probabilistic analysis of
      >these enormous black boxes. No fundamental "poof" here at all.
      >
      >
      >U think there's a way,
      >> even in principle, to tell which nucleus is about to pop?
      >Neil2: As an observational matter it may be impossible to get to that
      >level, I don't know. If, by "in principle"

      By "in principle" i mean, whatever that level is, and the 42 levels below
      /it/, they /all/ are constrained by HUP. ("Oops - '42' - i shouldn'ta told
      ya that" <- lame Hagrid imitation ;)

      > you mean do I think that
      >the quarks of a nucleus are made up something very much smaller that
      >behaves deterministically, and if that deterministic operation could
      >somehow be precisely modeled in a closed form solution, would the
      >decay then be predictable? Yes.

      That would be nice. Unfortunately Schroedinger and Heisenberg tell us "no",
      and they've been right more than either of us. Well, more that you, anyway ;))

      >One bit of evidence pointing to this is the great regularity of half
      >lives. A particular nuclear configuration decays with a particular
      >probability. If, at base, it was all just random poof, why would it
      >be so regular and so dependant on nuclear configuration?

      Look, i too want to say that predictable statistics is underlain by
      clockwork. I also want to say there's no cosmic speed limit, and if it were
      up to me, electrons would either share the same quantum numbers or give us
      a good reason why they don't. The annoying fact is, our common sense simply
      has to be checked at the door, if we want the right answers when we go
      really small or really fast. Schroedinger rules molecules and below, until
      a better theory comes along. And that better theory will absolutely have to
      converge to Schroedinger's in the limit, just as QM and GR converge to
      Newton in the limit. I know this, because Schroedinger /already/ works.
      Heck, it's good enough to explain the whole Periodic Table of the Elements,
      ab initio from a proton and an electron.

      >Consider a deck of 52 playing cards, fairly shuffled, on a table face
      >down. If one turns them over one at a time the order of appearance is
      >deterministic, the order is predetermined by the placement which
      >already exists. But since I left my X-Ray vision glasses at home, I
      >can't predict precisely what card will appear. I can us a very valid
      >probabilistic model to analyze the order of appearance of the cards.
      >
      >Now let's say I take out all the hearts, reshuffle the deck, and again
      >place the deck face down on a table. I still have a deterministic
      >order of appearance, but now a different probabilistic model is valid.
      >Thus, the validity of the probabilistic model is based upon the black
      >box deterministic process of the system.

      Sure, we can use analyses like that, but at atomic scale, they're just
      analogies. U can call a Co-60 nucleus a bag of nuclear fluid if u want, u
      can call a proton a pair of up quarks and a down quark if it makes u feel
      better about understanding it, but if u want to do _science_ you have to
      get the math right too. And the math will only take u so far in a
      commonsense, physical understanding, and no farther. In particular, at no
      scale and in no phenomenon or analysis will the math take u lower than HUP.
      If u want to think this is a coincidence, fine - the world needs optimists.
      Personally, i (and every physicist i ever met) think it's telling us
      something about how matter actually works: "Uncertainly".

      >U think there's
      >> little gears inside, little quarks or strings or even smaller, more
      >> fundamental stuff, whose trajectories could in principle be tracked
      >and
      >> predicted? Not.
      >Neil2: Simply saying the word "not" is hardly a substantial argument
      >
      >A quark is huge. Strings are still highly speculative at best. A
      >gear is just a metaphor which ties into the notion of a universal
      >clockwork.

      As a thought-experiment, have at it, knock yourself out. As a way of saying
      "the universe is predictable in principle", it's simply not talking about
      _this_ universe. In this universe, not only are the interactions between
      particles unpredictable, but u can't even know the exact starting
      conditions, below HUP.

      >> Why not? Because of HUP. HUP says u can't even track the electron
      >around a
      >> proton, because it's too fuzzy.
      >Neil2: Electrons are great big huge black boxes. What is inside the
      >box?

      In fact electrons have never been found to have any structure whatsoever
      AFAIK, but if there /is/ something inside, it's subject to HUP too.

      >The _electron_ is too fuzzy, not the
      >> observations. Even when no one's looking, hydrogen atoms don't
      >collapse.
      >> And the nucleus is an environment orders of magnitude smaller than a
      >great
      >> big barn of a hydrogen atom.
      >Neil2: Ok, now go down who knows how many orders of magnitude below
      >the quarks in the nucleus. Unfortunately, nobody knows what that is.

      Every order of magnitude you drop down, HUP becomes even more powerful.
      Well, HUP stands still at 1.05456e-034 Js, and u drop farther and farther
      into the mists.

      >> > Something from nothing? Nothing from something?
      >> >Teleportation of something through absolutely nothing at all for no
      >> >reason?
      >>
      >> Yep,
      >Neil2: Nope. Maybe the problem here is that you are a big thinker,
      >and I think such small thoughts:-)
      >
      >
      >it's called tunneling.
      >Neil2: This happens to huge things like electrons, and they don't go
      >through nothing at all, they go through space. Tunnels give the
      >appearance of things popping from one place to another, but when the
      >tunnel is discovered the transportation isn't mysterious anymore.

      There is no "tunnel". There is only "here", "there", and an electron,
      sharing time between them, notwithstanding a barrier higher than it has
      energy to cross. Schroedinger is very good at calculating this.

      >By way of another very rough metaphor, I am proposing that the
      >electron gets broken down for shipment, transported through something
      >called space (not nothing at all), and put back together at the
      >destination.
      >
      >
      >Electrons do it. Whole helium atoms do it.
      >> Schroedinger's equation tells us how much, how far, how fast, how
      >likely.
      >> But not "how", and not "which one"
      >Neil2: That's why Schroedinger's equation is so incomplete.

      It may be incomplete, but it isn't _wrong_. It already works, quantitatively.

      cheers - grant
    • tinroad66
      Tin: Mr. Appleton is asked a very simple straightforward question, does speciation happen ? Even Andrew has answered in the affirmitive, as have Laurie s
      Message 50 of 50 , Jun 10, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Tin: Mr. Appleton is asked a very simple straightforward question,
        does speciation happen ? Even Andrew has answered in the
        affirmitive, as have Laurie's intelligent, educated, authorities at
        AiG. Shouldn't Mr. Appleton at least get his own side right ?
        Despite the straightforward simplicity of the speciation question,
        somehow Laurie doesn't even seem to quite understand the question.
        He responds with comments on the fossil record ! His response is
        screwed up on a topic entirely different from speciation. How did
        ole Laurie get so confused ?

        Laurie Appleton has a gigantic mess on his hands, it doesn't look
        like he'll ever be able to untangle himself from his own words. How
        ironic.



        > Tin: Laurie have you figured out yet wether it's "OK" to admit
        that
        > speciation actually happens. Or do you still disagree with your
        > betters, your authorities, at AiG (see links 3-5 below).
        >
        > >
        >
        > LA> It is evolutionists themselves who admit that the fossil
        > record is "the most obvious and serious OBJECTION that can be
        > urged against the theory." (Charles Darwin). Others say
        > that;

        Tin: Then the theory is in great shape and you argue against
        yourself, as well as totally dodging the question which is
        speciation. In reality, fossils gaps are much larger for creationism
        than for science. According to creationism there should be an entire
        preflood civilization in the Precambrian. We should be finding human
        fossils, human artefacts which should include houses, farms, fields,
        fences, graveyards, barnes, carts ----- heck we should be finding
        towns. Not only are those not find, we never find any modern mammals
        of any kind nor other major life forms. No birds, no reptiles,
        dinosaurs, flowering plants, no land plants, no insects, no
        amphibians, no transitional hominids, no transitional mammal-like
        reptiles to name just a few of the creationist missing links, which
        is really a missing chain. If creationism is true these life forms
        must have been alive and we should be finding some them. But of
        course, as usual, what is expected from creationism is never found.

        Meanwhile science is missing things like a few small soft bodied
        marine life forms, 600 million years old --- some "needles",
        creationism is missing an entire civilization --- the
        entire "haystack". Ooooops! Where *DID* that entire civilization
        go ??

        So Mr. Appleton has evaded one topic, only to expose glaring
        refutations of creationism on a second topic. Maybe next time he can
        bring up a third area of weakness, while trying to evade these last
        two. I look forward to Mr. Appleton's next post.

        Mr. Appleton, you have evaded the question which as you should
        recall is speciation. Why didn't you have anything even remotely
        related to speciation in your post ? Why are you unable to
        acknowledge the simple truth of speciation ? Why are running from
        the truth on this topic ? Let's refresh Mr. Appleton's memory.

        Intelligent folks on both sides agree, speciation happens:

        ---links #1 & 2--observed instances of speciation

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html


        ---link #3---AiG acknowledges speciation----
        from article, "Arguments we think creationists should not use"

        http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

        --excerpt----
        `No new species have been produced.' This is not true—new species
        have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important
        part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the `kind',
        and involves no new genetic information. See Q&A: Speciation.

        --link #4---AiG acknowledges speciaton again--
        http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0303.asp


        ---link #5----AiG likes fast speciation-----

        article "Speedy species surprise"

        http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n2_speedy.
        asp

        --excerpt----

        "Other examples of rapid adaptation, even to the extent of
        producing `new species'–speciation–abound. (If a population arises
        from another which cannot interbreed anymore with its parent
        population, it is generally defined as a new species.) Creation
        magazine recently reported how evolutionists described as `alarming'
        the rate of change in the wingspan of European fruit flies introduced
        accidentally to America.8,9,10 Similarly, rapid changes have been
        reported recently for Drosophila fruit flies and sockeye salmon–
        within just nine and thirteen generations respectively.11"

        -------

        Tin: All intelligent, educated individuals on both sides agree
        speciation happens. AiG and talkorigins don't agree on much but they
        agree that Laurie is completely wrong. Speciation happens. Laurie's
        disagreement with reality and his authorities, takes on an additional
        layer of muck in light of the following;

        "Those who reject their own leading scientific authorities must
        be seen as being UNSCIENTIFIC and their views have no point or
        substance." ~Laurie Appleton, after disagreeing with his authorities.

        Rather than straightening this mess out, Mr. Appleton seems to be
        making his plight even worse with each additional post. Please carry
        on.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.