-
In total there are 14 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 14 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1086 on Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:03 am
Can anyone elucidate on this please? Schrödinger
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
- johnson1010
-
Tenured Professor
- Posts: 3564
- Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
- 15
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 1280 times
- Been thanked: 1128 times
The cat is indicative of our limits, not the nature of reality.
It is impossible to observe quantum level events accurately because our instruments are still all thumbs. When you blast these particles with energy to get a look at them you change them. Like turning a fan on a desk of paperwork to get a good look at it.
This is similar to the event horizon problem. If the sun were to disappear right now we would not notice it’s absence for 8 minutes (assuming gravity cannot exceed the speed of light), as that is how long it takes for its light to reach us. So, we won’t know if the sun is still there, RIGHT NOW, until 8 minutes into the future. So, like the cat, the sun is both existent and non-existent simultaneously until the event horizon reaches us. Whether or not we observe it, however, does not change the status of the event.
This is the whole “tree falls in the woods with no one to hear it” thing all over again.
Thinking of quantum packets, when you look at a possible area for the particle to be based on your best predictive analysis you are saying that the particle must reside in these places based on percentages. You could say there is a 1 percent chance it will be in part A, and a 1 percent chance it will be in part B, but a 99.99 percent chance it lies somewhere between the two.
It is impossible to observe quantum level events accurately because our instruments are still all thumbs. When you blast these particles with energy to get a look at them you change them. Like turning a fan on a desk of paperwork to get a good look at it.
This is similar to the event horizon problem. If the sun were to disappear right now we would not notice it’s absence for 8 minutes (assuming gravity cannot exceed the speed of light), as that is how long it takes for its light to reach us. So, we won’t know if the sun is still there, RIGHT NOW, until 8 minutes into the future. So, like the cat, the sun is both existent and non-existent simultaneously until the event horizon reaches us. Whether or not we observe it, however, does not change the status of the event.
This is the whole “tree falls in the woods with no one to hear it” thing all over again.
Thinking of quantum packets, when you look at a possible area for the particle to be based on your best predictive analysis you are saying that the particle must reside in these places based on percentages. You could say there is a 1 percent chance it will be in part A, and a 1 percent chance it will be in part B, but a 99.99 percent chance it lies somewhere between the two.
- MaryLupin
-
- Junior
- Posts: 324
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:19 pm
- 15
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
Isn't it wonderful! So much of what we (humans) take to be inviolable, like logic, appears to be only applicable at one specific organizational level of reality. That creates the most wonderfully absurd sense of happiness in me.Interbane wrote:That's what's so interesting about it Mary, the quote I provided is from an explanation of the uncertainty principle that shows my logic to be wrong.
I've always found it rather exciting to remember that there is a difference between what we experience and what we think it means.
-
-
Experienced
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:43 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 13 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
Re: Can anyone elucidate on this please? Schrödinger
Schrodinger's thought experiment was actually designed to point up a problem they were all having at the time. Namely, when--exactly--does a "probability wave" collapse into real history? Under the Copenhagen interpretation, this matter never got settled. (Reference "Wigner's Friend" thought experiment.)
In fact, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does have exceptionally good evidence to demonstrate its necessity. It simply isn't true that particles even have both of these properties at the same time, for every scale you might be viewing them at. When quantum effects are important, the very idea of them having both perfect position and momentum becomes incoherent, and even God can't know both at once, below the level of precision specified by Heisenberg.
I can explain this by an analogy with musical notes, if you'd like details.
In fact, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does have exceptionally good evidence to demonstrate its necessity. It simply isn't true that particles even have both of these properties at the same time, for every scale you might be viewing them at. When quantum effects are important, the very idea of them having both perfect position and momentum becomes incoherent, and even God can't know both at once, below the level of precision specified by Heisenberg.
I can explain this by an analogy with musical notes, if you'd like details.
- johnson1010
-
Tenured Professor
- Posts: 3564
- Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
- 15
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 1280 times
- Been thanked: 1128 times
Re: Can anyone elucidate on this please? Schrödinger
Hit us up with this musical note explanation.
That is a fun reference point.
That is a fun reference point.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
-
-
Experienced
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:43 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 13 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
Re: Can anyone elucidate on this please? Schrödinger
OK, here goes!
I am going to see if I can write a few simple songs. But I want to write them so as to completely specify the notes/"pitches" of the song, and the rhythms/durations of each note. Is this possible?
To keep it simple, I will make my songs entirely out of Middle A quarter notes ("A"), alternating with quarter rests ("_"), thusly:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quantum Etude #1, by R. Young
mm60: (Tempo 60 quarter notes per minute, or 1 quarter note per second)
A_A_|A_A_|A_A_|A_A_|.... (repeat and fade)
Now--boring though this etude may be--everyone who hears it will agree that each note has a well defined pitch and duration. But let's try a slight variation. Let's do an accelerando; same notes & rests, but let's let the tempo increase as it goes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quantum Etude #2, by R. Young
mm60:
accel.
A_A_|A_A_|A_A_|A_A_|...(repeat and fade)
(Notice that there is no end to the accelerando, since I haven't said when to stop getting faster. How far can we take this? (Luckily, in this day & age, we can allow our computers to play things at arbitrarily fast tempos, so we don't need to rely on imprecise human musicians. Thus, we can take this accelerando to ridiculous extremes.)
If we let the tempo keep doubling every bar, let's say, then in a short time we will encounter a slight problem. My notes stop having pitches! This is because a note needs to have at least a few waves in a row to be perceived as notes, rater than click noises.
The first note, at mm60 had 440 complete waves, then stopped. After one doubling of the tempo, a middle A only has 220 waves. If we tabulate the durations of our "notes" at each doubling of mm, we would get these numbers of waves per note:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
440
220
110
55
27.5 (Half waves, and fractional waves, add non-harmonic components from this point, on.)
13.75
6.875
3.4375 (very, very click-y, to the ear.)
1.71875
0.859375 (no pitch is defined from here on, even theoretically, since pitch relies on the repetition of a waveform.)
0.4296875
etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
With this background, let me draw the analogy with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of position/momentum (there's more than one type of UP):
note <=> particle (or "wave packet");
position in "score time" (aka "rhythmic value") <=> position in space / "x";
pitch <=> momentum / "p";
pitch / rhythm are specified orthogonally on the page, which makes them <=> orthogonal pairs;
The takeaway is that I cannot perfectly specify both a rhythm and a pitch beyond a certain accuracy. Notes which are too short stop having pitch at all. And pitch cannot be specified perfectly, either, since the waves have some finite onset, otherwise known as "attack". Physically, this attack time can never be precisely 0 seconds long, since that would require our speakers and eardrums to move infinitely fast. Many other limiting factors enter into this limit, such as the springiness of any transmitting medium, like air molecules, which have momentum.
Also, the same problem occurs in a 'complimentary' fashion: If I try too hard to specify my rhythmic values, as for instance, if I write 1,000 snare drums per quarter note at mm60--or about 9 flags--I lose any hope of perceiving the events as notes, and what we hear instead is a 1,000 hz wave; Notes at this rhythmic precision stop being individual 'events', and become a "frequency" which the ear processes as a single note.
(I would write this musical example out as "Quantum Etude #3", but it would take up more space than I think is allowed!)
Lastly, to complete the analogy:
(smear in rhythm) * (smear in pitch) ≥ (constant) <=> ΔxΔp ≥ ℏ/2π;
If pressed, I think I could calculate a value for this musical constant.
I am going to see if I can write a few simple songs. But I want to write them so as to completely specify the notes/"pitches" of the song, and the rhythms/durations of each note. Is this possible?
To keep it simple, I will make my songs entirely out of Middle A quarter notes ("A"), alternating with quarter rests ("_"), thusly:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quantum Etude #1, by R. Young
mm60: (Tempo 60 quarter notes per minute, or 1 quarter note per second)
A_A_|A_A_|A_A_|A_A_|.... (repeat and fade)
Now--boring though this etude may be--everyone who hears it will agree that each note has a well defined pitch and duration. But let's try a slight variation. Let's do an accelerando; same notes & rests, but let's let the tempo increase as it goes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quantum Etude #2, by R. Young
mm60:
accel.
A_A_|A_A_|A_A_|A_A_|...(repeat and fade)
(Notice that there is no end to the accelerando, since I haven't said when to stop getting faster. How far can we take this? (Luckily, in this day & age, we can allow our computers to play things at arbitrarily fast tempos, so we don't need to rely on imprecise human musicians. Thus, we can take this accelerando to ridiculous extremes.)
If we let the tempo keep doubling every bar, let's say, then in a short time we will encounter a slight problem. My notes stop having pitches! This is because a note needs to have at least a few waves in a row to be perceived as notes, rater than click noises.
The first note, at mm60 had 440 complete waves, then stopped. After one doubling of the tempo, a middle A only has 220 waves. If we tabulate the durations of our "notes" at each doubling of mm, we would get these numbers of waves per note:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
440
220
110
55
27.5 (Half waves, and fractional waves, add non-harmonic components from this point, on.)
13.75
6.875
3.4375 (very, very click-y, to the ear.)
1.71875
0.859375 (no pitch is defined from here on, even theoretically, since pitch relies on the repetition of a waveform.)
0.4296875
etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
With this background, let me draw the analogy with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of position/momentum (there's more than one type of UP):
note <=> particle (or "wave packet");
position in "score time" (aka "rhythmic value") <=> position in space / "x";
pitch <=> momentum / "p";
pitch / rhythm are specified orthogonally on the page, which makes them <=> orthogonal pairs;
The takeaway is that I cannot perfectly specify both a rhythm and a pitch beyond a certain accuracy. Notes which are too short stop having pitch at all. And pitch cannot be specified perfectly, either, since the waves have some finite onset, otherwise known as "attack". Physically, this attack time can never be precisely 0 seconds long, since that would require our speakers and eardrums to move infinitely fast. Many other limiting factors enter into this limit, such as the springiness of any transmitting medium, like air molecules, which have momentum.
Also, the same problem occurs in a 'complimentary' fashion: If I try too hard to specify my rhythmic values, as for instance, if I write 1,000 snare drums per quarter note at mm60--or about 9 flags--I lose any hope of perceiving the events as notes, and what we hear instead is a 1,000 hz wave; Notes at this rhythmic precision stop being individual 'events', and become a "frequency" which the ear processes as a single note.
(I would write this musical example out as "Quantum Etude #3", but it would take up more space than I think is allowed!)
Lastly, to complete the analogy:
(smear in rhythm) * (smear in pitch) ≥ (constant) <=> ΔxΔp ≥ ℏ/2π;
If pressed, I think I could calculate a value for this musical constant.
-
-
Experienced
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:43 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 13 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
Re: Can anyone elucidate on this please? Schrödinger
If I can figure out how to include some music clips, I'll post them here. They may make this example a lot more intuitive.
- Dexter
-
- I dumpster dive for books!
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 144 times
- Been thanked: 712 times
Re:
I don't know enough about it to say anything definitive, but as your quote indicates, I was under the same impression -- that we can't just say it's a limitation of measurement. That would be too easy -- it wouldn't really be that weird then. But that can't explain some of the experimental results like the double slit and quantum entanglement. I am partial to your thought that we need a better theory though. (See the Feynman quote in my sig!)Interbane wrote:I
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is similar in that the limitation or error is human. Because we cannot know both a particle's position and momentum precisely at the same time does not mean a particle doesn't have position and momentum, it merely means the only methods of measurement to deduce these quantities is severely limited. Of course, this is where quantum mechanics trumps human intuition;
"In fact, states with both definite position and momentum just do not exist in quantum mechanics, so it is not the measurement equipment that is at fault."
But then perhaps our theories aren't quite up to the task? I read the quantum mechanics articles in most of the science magazines each month, and still think it's the most surreal of our sciences. Discoveries in this field are fascinating.
-
-
Experienced
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:43 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 13 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
Re: Can anyone elucidate on this please? Schrödinger
One of the points I had hoped to bring out in my musical analogy was that a waveform is not something which can have a definite point-like position in the first place. It doesn't even have a precisely defined center, since the ends of it necessarily grade in. This is equally true of quantum wave packets.
In a similar way, their momentum is ill-defined, as well. Since the momentum is defined as mass*velocity, and velocity is Δp/time, the lack of available positional precision implies that the momentum is at least as unknowable as the position is. At best, all you get is some sort of average value.
As long as we have this waviness going on, no new theory can ever make the classical "wishful thinking" of Einstein back into a reality. The "particles" just aren't partical-y enough! QM therefore likes to call them "wavicles", which is exactly how I think of musical notes. When a classical composer conceptualizes the notes on his score, he thinks of them as having way more of a precision than is in fact available. He neglects that both the frequency of them (pitch) and the time of them (rhythm) are inherently vague. For most "human scale"/human playable notes, these factors can be neglected, but if you ever have occasion to actually edit music at the "sample-level" resolution, you will quickly realize that the smears are omnipresent, both in time and pitch. An accurate, knowledgeable composer will understand these problems innately (if not consciously), as for instance, when he writes for pizzicato strings, and is expecting the section not to hit all these pizz's at exactly the same instant. If that were to happen, it would just sound like one really loud pluck, with all the wavefronts in much too close a phase to be the same thing at all.
In a similar way, their momentum is ill-defined, as well. Since the momentum is defined as mass*velocity, and velocity is Δp/time, the lack of available positional precision implies that the momentum is at least as unknowable as the position is. At best, all you get is some sort of average value.
As long as we have this waviness going on, no new theory can ever make the classical "wishful thinking" of Einstein back into a reality. The "particles" just aren't partical-y enough! QM therefore likes to call them "wavicles", which is exactly how I think of musical notes. When a classical composer conceptualizes the notes on his score, he thinks of them as having way more of a precision than is in fact available. He neglects that both the frequency of them (pitch) and the time of them (rhythm) are inherently vague. For most "human scale"/human playable notes, these factors can be neglected, but if you ever have occasion to actually edit music at the "sample-level" resolution, you will quickly realize that the smears are omnipresent, both in time and pitch. An accurate, knowledgeable composer will understand these problems innately (if not consciously), as for instance, when he writes for pizzicato strings, and is expecting the section not to hit all these pizz's at exactly the same instant. If that were to happen, it would just sound like one really loud pluck, with all the wavefronts in much too close a phase to be the same thing at all.
Last edited by Randall R. Young on Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Penelope
-
- One more post ought to do it.
- Posts: 3267
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:49 am
- 16
- Location: Cheshire, England
- Has thanked: 323 times
- Been thanked: 679 times
- Gender:
Re: Can anyone elucidate on this please? Schrödinger
Randal, I do want to thank you for your posts. I do think there is a curious link between music and mathematics and here the link goes even further in helping to explain something about quantum theory.
I am going to print off your post about musical notes in order to study it more closely. But I can see where you are leading with it.
Excellent. Many, many thanks.
I am going to print off your post about musical notes in order to study it more closely. But I can see where you are leading with it.
Excellent. Many, many thanks.
Only those become weary of angling who bring nothing to it but the idea of catching fish.
He was born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world is mad....
Rafael Sabatini
He was born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world is mad....
Rafael Sabatini