Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Quantum Physics

  1. #1

    Angry Quantum Physics

    Can the quantum sciences, like quantum physics be considered a "soft sciences" because of their probabilistic and uncertainty?

  2. #2
    DRANG NACH BETA NF Oppai Anschluss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    In the place
    TIM
    LSI-C 683 sx/so
    Posts
    371
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm most inclined to call them math religious tbh
    LSI-C 6w5 8w9 3w4 sx/so

    Every problem on earth can be solved by the liberal application of ordnance

    "Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked. In a word, each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life."


  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,154
    Mentioned
    816 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by plasmatorpedo1043 View Post
    Can the quantum sciences, like quantum physics be considered a "soft sciences" because of their probabilistic and uncertainty?
    Scientific is what objective. Probalistic models are objective and have practical usage.
    Quantum physics can't be excluded from the science because has probabilistic models.

    The more problem with quantum physics is that observer influences on the results. As this mb thought as not objective experiment and hence the conclusions based on such experiments.
    I suspect, that at least some of _principally_ probabilistic models of QF mb turned to predifined laws with the addition of new dimensions. The reality may to have several variants of timelines which are predifined, while an observer (or his consciousness' perception) may shift between them.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  4. #4
    a two horned unicorn renegade Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Playing with your head
    TIM
    Ne-ILE-C 7 LEFV
    Posts
    3,816
    Mentioned
    167 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    In the end it seems to work. In sciences there are plenty of things that just seems to work. How would you derive evolution?


    Ok quantum physics explains lots of things. What about chemistry?

    The process itself might have lots of quirks... but probabilistic...
    Sol mb F type due to his inability to think alternatives.


  5. #5

  6. #6
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,766
    Mentioned
    262 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by plasmatorpedo1043 View Post
    Can the quantum sciences, like quantum physics be considered a "soft sciences" because of their probabilistic and uncertainty?
    No, this is a misconception. The methodology used to study quantum physics is the same as any other hard science or area of physics: a mixture of math, intuition, and empirical observation. The formalism of quantum mechanics is rigorously defined, unlike the soft sciences which tend to rely more on fuzzy concepts that are harder to put into formal language.
    The higher, the fewer

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

  7. #7
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    906
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The problem is that there is no underpinning theory to quantum mechanics. It is a hodge-podge of empirical formulas that work extremely well, but the "why" behind the formulas is left wide-open. I look at it like a jigsaw puzzle that represents reality - it is clear what each piece represents, but there is no real way the pieces fit together. I think a comparsion could be made to some types of psychology, where the idea is simply to "shut up and compute" (e.g., statistical correlations) without considering the underlying theory. However, it is supposed to be a hard science, and therefore highly accurate in some respects (unlike the soft sciences)...

    (By the way, I find the "real thing" incredibly hard to study. The level of mathematical aptitude, combined with the lack of underlying theory makes it really hard to understand... With the right books, something like special relativity is actually miles easier to grasp...)
    Last edited by jason_m; 02-14-2019 at 02:30 AM.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,054
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There's a way to do quantum physics without using probability:

    Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions

    The probabilistic predictions of quantum theory are conventionally obtained from a special probabilistic axiom. But that is unnecessary because all the practical consequences of such predictions follow from the remaining, non-probabilistic, axioms of quantum theory, together with the non-probabilistic part of classical decision theory.
    https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9906015



    In the end, David Deutsch says this:

    Quote Originally Posted by David Deutsch
    (52:14) A belief in probability in quantum theory may not prevent you from developing quantum computers, quantum algorithms in practice. But because probability and the Born rule entail fundamental misconceptions about the physical world, they could very well prevent you from developing the successors of quantum theory. And in particular, Constructor theory is the framework in which I suspect successors to quantum theory will be developed. As I said, Constructor theory is incompatible with physical probabilities.
    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    The problem is that there is no underpinning theory to quantum mechanics. It is a hodge-podge of empirical formulas that work extremely well, but the "why" behind the formulas is left wide-open. I look at it like a jigsaw puzzle that represents reality - it is clear what each piece represents, but there is no real way (as of now) the pieces fit together. I think a comparsion could be made to some types of psychology, where the idea is simply to "shut up and compute" (e.g., statistical correlations) without considering the underlying theory. However, it is supposed to be a hard science, and therefore highly accurate in some respects (unlike the soft sciences)...
    Arguably, the asking and answering to the question of "why" is what leads to new discoveries and more progress. But because the "shut up and calculate" approach has prevented people from asking the question of "why", physics has stagnated for decades without any real progress since quantum physics. It's simply awaiting a new successor theory that will resolve the contradiction between Einsteinian physics and quantum physics, which are in direct conflict with each other.

  9. #9
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,766
    Mentioned
    262 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    The problem is that there is no underpinning theory to quantum mechanics. It is a hodge-podge of empirical formulas that work extremely well, but the "why" behind the formulas is left wide-open.
    QM is a well-defined theory in the mathematical sense, it's about operators on Hilbert space. It's the interpretation that's the problem, of why this formalism is needed.
    The higher, the fewer

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •