Re:Entanglement Made Simple
by danbruc on Friday May 13, 2016 @11:52AM
(#11691095)
Unfortunately I have not enough time for a full reply right now, but I will come back over the weekend.
Wave function and probability distribution. You repeatedly insisted on precise language, that is why I objected your statement that the wave function is a probability distribution. And I still do, nuclear physicist or not. A wave function is complex-valued, a probability distribution is usually defined by a real-valued probability density function or a real-valued cumulative distribution function. The state 1/sqrt(2)(|0> + |1>) has probability amplitudes of magnitude 1/sqrt(2) for both states, the probability distribution you obtain when you repeatedly measure particles in that state has probability 1/2 for both states, the square of the magnitude of the amplitude. The wave function certainly defines a probability distribution but it is not itself one.
<sigh> I'm trying to educate you on physics, and you're arguing pseudo-philosophical metaphysics. Please stop. Your understanding of the terms is largely wrong. As a result, your arguments are based on falsities, and therefore also wrong. Please go read a popular book about QM before discussing this with anyone. And stop arguing with the nuclear physicist. This is one situation where I can appeal to authority without it being a logical fallacy. I've explained repeatedly why you're wrong. You don't seem to understand.
I haven't read everything again but most of your responses, especially in your last comment, simply state that I am wrong without pointing out why or providing a supposedly correct point of view. It is of course not you job to teach me physics, but simply stating that I am wrong is only of limited help to overcome misunderstandings. Besides that we are discussing a topic that has not been definitely settled and where there is disagreement even among professional physicists, so maybe we should not be too surprised about a certain amount of disagreement.
I would very much appreciate if we could continue this discussion a bit once I had time for a full reply - and I agree, we have to back up quite a bit, the discussion got fragmented pretty quickly - but I won't blame you if you declare me a lost case.
Wave function and probability distribution. You repeatedly insisted on precise language, that is why I objected your statement that the wave function is a probability distribution. And I still do, nuclear physicist or not. A wave function is complex-valued, a probability distribution is usually defined by a real-valued probability density function or a real-valued cumulative distribution function. The state 1/sqrt(2)(|0> + |1>) has probability amplitudes of magnitude 1/sqrt(2) for both states, the probability distribution you obtain when you repeatedly measure particles in that state has probability 1/2 for both states, the square of the magnitude of the amplitude. The wave function certainly defines a probability distribution but it is not itself one.
<sigh> I'm trying to educate you on physics, and you're arguing pseudo-philosophical metaphysics. Please stop. Your understanding of the terms is largely wrong. As a result, your arguments are based on falsities, and therefore also wrong. Please go read a popular book about QM before discussing this with anyone. And stop arguing with the nuclear physicist. This is one situation where I can appeal to authority without it being a logical fallacy. I've explained repeatedly why you're wrong. You don't seem to understand.
I haven't read everything again but most of your responses, especially in your last comment, simply state that I am wrong without pointing out why or providing a supposedly correct point of view. It is of course not you job to teach me physics, but simply stating that I am wrong is only of limited help to overcome misunderstandings. Besides that we are discussing a topic that has not been definitely settled and where there is disagreement even among professional physicists, so maybe we should not be too surprised about a certain amount of disagreement.
I would very much appreciate if we could continue this discussion a bit once I had time for a full reply - and I agree, we have to back up quite a bit, the discussion got fragmented pretty quickly - but I won't blame you if you declare me a lost case.