Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Answerer · 06-29-2002, 06:21 PM

Guys, in addition to two other interpretions in quantum physics which is Copenhagen and many world. I have found a third and better(I think) one that is known as the transactional interpretion. Here is the link:

<a href="http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html" target="_blank">http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html</a>

Please share your comments.

Friar Bellows · 06-29-2002, 08:14 PM

If they could find experimental evidence for their so-called "advanced waves" then I think the scientific community would sit up and take notice. They argue that while the Transactional Interpretation doesn't predict anything new, it still has value because it allows us to easily visualise complicated quantum processes, and this might help us gain future insights and breakthroughs. It seems to me to be more philosophy of science than science, but that's probably just my misinformed and ignorant opinion.

echidna · 06-30-2002, 04:01 PM

Oooops

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]

echidna · 06-30-2002, 06:04 PM

Let me try again.

Well TI seems OK, I haven�t seen anything to discredit it. I understand that amongst it�s main controversy is that it requires quantum communication backwards in time.

Quote:

The obvious "backwards in time" character of the transaction model warrants careful consideration of whether causality is preserved. In a sense the TI tells us that absorber "causes" the transaction which precedes it in time sequence, in violation of cause-before-effect. To come to terms with this aspect of the TI it is necessary to carefully consider the nature of causality and the physical evidence which supports it.

And later �

Quote:

i.e., in the TI the emitter is given a privileged role because it is the echo received by the emitter which precipitates the transaction rather than that received by the absorber. Thus the past determines the future (in a statistical way) rather than the future determining the past.

It certainly helps with this chicken and egg problem which has been bugging me �

Either way, the quantum world remains very weird.

Answerer · 07-01-2002, 04:41 AM

Just as I suspected, another poor attempt to make the quantum world 'predictable'.

ohwilleke · 07-01-2002, 11:38 AM

Promising. Certainly, one of the troubling aspects of QM is the distinction it makes between observed and unobserved phenomena. Placing this on a more solidly defined footing and acknowledging that QM may involve backwards in time transactions, seem plausible to me.

echidna · 07-01-2002, 03:15 PM

It�s funny how science relentlessly confronts our boundaries of reality &demands that we stretch our �absolute� notions of existence.

Heh, the words �seems plausible to me� are also how I regard God.

Liquidrage · 07-01-2002, 05:47 PM

The CI isn't science as it isn't testable and makes no predictions that are testable. It also presupposes hard free will.

QM has never been a complete theory.
QM allows people to work with the sub-atomic world using statistical probabilities. It is a great achievment of mankind without doubt. But it isn't even close to a GUT.

Sure, we can have fun here and there and make guesses as to what is really going on in the sub atomic world. But thats all these interpretations are. Guesses. Some are just better then others.

One day we'll hopefully have a theory that does go beyond QM and explains what is going on down there. But we don't have it yet. Until we do there's no reason to take QM beyond what it really says. And what it says that we can use statistical probabilities to describe the sub atomic world.

Friar Bellows · 07-01-2002, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
The CI isn't science as it isn't testable and makes no predictions that are testable.

I think that's a rather restricted notion of science. It means that very little of what theoretical physicists do is science because they only do science when they make a testable prediction. But what is a testable prediction? Should it be testable in principle or testable in practice? If the latter, then the level of our technology would define what is and what isn't a science, which seems absurd to me. If the former ... well, actually, I don't exactly know what "testable in principle" means.

There seems to be two sorts of physicists: those who accept QM and use its equations to extract specific information about the small-scale world; and those who scratch their heads and wonder what QM really means. Which might have something to do with what "really means" really means.

Liquidrage · 07-01-2002, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Friar Bellows:


I think that's a rather restricted notion of science. It means that very little of what theoretical physicists do is science because they only do science when they make a testable prediction. But what is a testable prediction? Should it be testable in principle or testable in practice? If the latter, then the level of our technology would define what is and what isn't a science, which seems absurd to me. If the former ... well, actually, I don't exactly know what "testable in principle" means.

There seems to be two sorts of physicists: those who accept QM and use its equations to extract specific information about the small-scale world; and those who scratch their heads and wonder what QM really means. Which might have something to do with what "really means" really means.

Actually, you misrepresented what I wrote. I never stated nor implied that theoretical physics is not science. Nor did I ever state that just because something isn't testable now doesn't mean it isn't science nor that it wont ever be testable.

I was stating the CI is not testable because we cannot observe that which we do not observe. Not to mention true free will being paramount in the theory.
The CI is psuedoscience at best. It is slightly better (but only slightly) then saying there is an invisible hand that can never be detected in any way that is responible for pushing matter around and this is gravity.

If testability is ignored then there is no way to rule out the possible from the probable.

Now, onto what QM really means. Here's the problem. QM in it's current form cannot tell you what QM really means.
Why? Because it is not a complete theory.
Don't take this as me putting down QM. I'm in awe of it to be honest. In fact I read allmost nothing these days but physics. But what is apparent is that QM itself is not enough to interperet what QM really means.
There are levels below what QM can describe that give rise to what QM does describe. Until these processes are known there is no way to truely know what QM really means.

06-29-2002, 06:21 PM	#1
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	Transactional interpretion Guys, in addition to two other interpretions in quantum physics which is Copenhagen and many world. I have found a third and better(I think) one that is known as the transactional interpretion. Here is the link: <a href="http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html" target="_blank">http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html</a> Please share your comments.

06-30-2002, 04:01 PM	#3
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Oooops [ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-29-2002, 08:14 PM	#2
Friar Bellows Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: arse-end of the world Posts: 2,305	If they could find experimental evidence for their so-called "advanced waves" then I think the scientific community would sit up and take notice. They argue that while the Transactional Interpretation doesn't predict anything new, it still has value because it allows us to easily visualise complicated quantum processes, and this might help us gain future insights and breakthroughs. It seems to me to be more philosophy of science than science, but that's probably just my misinformed and ignorant opinion.

07-01-2002, 04:41 AM	#5
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	Just as I suspected, another poor attempt to make the quantum world 'predictable'.

07-01-2002, 11:38 AM	#6
ohwilleke Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA Posts: 4,834	Promising. Certainly, one of the troubling aspects of QM is the distinction it makes between observed and unobserved phenomena. Placing this on a more solidly defined footing and acknowledging that QM may involve backwards in time transactions, seem plausible to me.

07-01-2002, 03:15 PM	#7
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	It�s funny how science relentlessly confronts our boundaries of reality &demands that we stretch our �absolute� notions of existence. Heh, the words �seems plausible to me� are also how I regard God.

07-01-2002, 05:47 PM	#8
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	The CI isn't science as it isn't testable and makes no predictions that are testable. It also presupposes hard free will. QM has never been a complete theory. QM allows people to work with the sub-atomic world using statistical probabilities. It is a great achievment of mankind without doubt. But it isn't even close to a GUT. Sure, we can have fun here and there and make guesses as to what is really going on in the sub atomic world. But thats all these interpretations are. Guesses. Some are just better then others. One day we'll hopefully have a theory that does go beyond QM and explains what is going on down there. But we don't have it yet. Until we do there's no reason to take QM beyond what it really says. And what it says that we can use statistical probabilities to describe the sub atomic world.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.