Quantum Whatnot

[mhc]

if an object had no movement, theoretically it could not exist, Einstein would be turning in his grave!

"until it reached its quantum mechanical 'ground state' — the lowest-energy state permitted by quantum mechanics" - this model of quantum mechanics is flawed

"According to quantum theory, particles act as waves rather than point masses on very small scales. This has dozens of bizarre consequences: it is impossible to know a particle's exact position and velocity through space, yet it is possible for the same particle to be doing two contradictory things simultaneously" - impossible

i also agree consciousness has no place in quantum mechanics, however, the fact remains it is inherited from it.

[Dirac]

if an object had no movement, theoretically it could not exist, Einstein would be turning in his grave!

Do you mean to say that all objects can be made to move by changing reference frame? Or something more quantum mechanical? Einstein ended up seeming rather short sighted about quantum mechanics.

"until it reached its quantum mechanical 'ground state' — the lowest-energy state permitted by quantum mechanics" - this model of quantum mechanics is flawed

Flawed how?

"According to quantum theory, particles act as waves rather than point masses on very small scales. This has dozens of bizarre consequences: it is impossible to know a particle's exact position and velocity through space, yet it is possible for the same particle to be doing two contradictory things simultaneously" - impossible

Impossible how?

[mhc]

Do you mean to say that all objects can be made to move by changing reference frame? Or something more quantum mechanical? Einstein ended up seeming rather short sighted about quantum mechanics.

Im sure quantum mechanics would seem rather short sighted to Einstein to!


Flawed how?
if a model preposses to have a "lowest-energy state" on an object which can not have a "lowest-energy state", the model is flawed

Impossible how?
nothing can exist as something else simultaneously.

"it is impossible to know a particle's exact position and velocity through space, yet it is possible for the same particle to be doing two contradictory things simultaneously"

it would make more sense to say

"it is possible to know a particle's exact position and velocity through space, yet it is impossible for the same particle to be doing two contradictory things simultaneously"


(somehow i stuffed up the quotes on this post - sorry) - fixed

[mhc]

from what i can see, to "fix" the model of quantum mechanics, an object should be defined as something like "a man playing a drum over x amount of time" not "the drum" itself

[Dirac]

Im sure quantum mechanics would seem rather short sighted to Einstein to!


Flawed how?
if a model preposses to have a "lowest-energy state" on an object which can not have a "lowest-energy state", the model is flawed

The "lowest-energy state" does not mean "zero energy state".

Impossible how?
nothing can exist as something else simultaneously.

Quantum mechanical objects can exist in superpositions of states. This has been shown by experiment.

"it is impossible to know a particle's exact position and velocity through space, yet it is possible for the same particle to be doing two contradictory things simultaneously"

it would make more sense to say

"it is possible to know a particle's exact position and velocity through space, yet it is impossible for the same particle to be doing two contradictory things simultaneously"

It might make more sense to you, but those two sentences are not the same, and experiments only support the "nonsensical" one. Experiment has to be the ultimate arbiter.

Is yours essentially an argument from incredulity?

from what i can see, to "fix" the model of quantum mechanics, an object should be defined as something like "a man playing a drum over x amount of time" not "the drum" itself

I'm not sure I follow.

[mhc]

The "lowest-energy state" does not mean "zero energy state".


Quantum mechanical objects can exist in superpositions of states. This has been shown by experiment.


It might make more sense to you, but those two sentences are not the same, and experiments only support the "nonsensical" one. Experiment has to be the ultimate arbiter.

Is yours essentially an argument from incredulity?


I'm not sure I follow.

it is not incredible if a model/theory can state it has taken an object to its own definition of lowest energy state, i can make that claim about anything also.

"Quantum mechanical objects can exist in superpositions of states. This has been shown by experiment." i can show a group of objects in different states to, showing an object exisiting in more than one state at the same time is different.

"I'm not sure I follow."

in order to solve how anything can exist in more than one state at the same time, one first needs to understand that it can not. time dictates this. therefore, logically, for the theory/ies of quantum mechanics to work, quantum mechanics first needs to understand that the objects which it is applying its logics to are not singular objects, rather groups of objects interacting and consuming energy over time. thus a man playing drums is an object

[Krill]

in order to solve how anything can exist in more than one state at the same time, one first needs to understand that it can not. time dictates this.

What's your reason for thinking that time dictates that nothing can exist in more than one state at the same time?

[mhc]

What's your reason for thinking that time dictates that nothing can exist in more than one state at the same time?

life, what else?

[Krill]

life, what else?

If you want to engage in a discussion it's usually best to make your premises clear.

Is your claim that you've never, in your life, experienced something that exists in more than one state at the same time?

[mhc]

yes

any object that has passed any length of time will always be different to the same object which never passed through time, and it is not possible for an object to not pass through time