Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
March 1, 2015 at 10:02 pm
(March 1, 2015 at 9:35 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: Doesn't that undermine determinism? That would depend upon how one considers determinism and whether or not the universe is deterministic.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
March 1, 2015 at 10:37 pm
(This post was last modified: March 1, 2015 at 10:39 pm by Surgenator.)
(March 1, 2015 at 10:01 pm)bennyboy Wrote: (March 1, 2015 at 9:31 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Not if I don't want it to. If I know when the photon will arrive at your eye, I can block it before it gets there. Right. And it was ALWAYS going to hit there, from the time it started its journey a thousand years ago. You just didn't know it yet. How do you know that some photons didn't hit your eye?
Quote:Quote:If I were to set all of the universe to a previous state, quantum mechanics states that it is NOT a guarantee the photon will hit your eye. The probability distribution will still be the same, but the observation (the photon hitting your eye) may not be. The photon might hit another particle along the way that it didn't hit the previous time. That is how QM works.
The timelessness of the photon introduces a simultaneity. In at least one frame, that photon's emitter and your eye are brought into relation with each other, and there is no time in which causality can disrupt this. That means with regard to the motion in our timeline, our "observation" (which doesn't exist AFAIK) of the photon is a kind of illusory artifact, as is any interaction we think we've had.
You're forgetting all the particles that are in between the emitter and the receiver. There is nothing preventing the photon from interacting with any of the other particles other than probability.
(March 1, 2015 at 9:35 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: (March 1, 2015 at 9:31 pm)Surgenator Wrote:
If I were to set all of the universe to a previous state, quantum mechanics states that it is NOT a guarantee the photon will hit your eye. The probability distribution will still be the same, but the observation (the photon hitting your eye) may not be. The photon might hit another particle along the way that it didn't hit the previous time. That is how QM works. Doesn't that undermine determinism?
Kinda the point. The wave function (the probability distributions) are deterministic but the observations (what option is taken) is probabilistic.
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
March 1, 2015 at 11:45 pm
(This post was last modified: March 1, 2015 at 11:45 pm by bennyboy.)
(March 1, 2015 at 10:37 pm)Surgenator Wrote: You're forgetting all the particles that are in between the emitter and the receiver. There is nothing preventing the photon from interacting with any of the other particles other than probability. Sure there is, and the OP is about that: that a timeless entity is not subject to causality. Restating things as we already think of them in our own framework doesn't really say much-- however the philosophical implications of trying to reconcile null values, infinities, and finite values in a single system mean that mundane way of looking at things is flawed.
Anyway, I think we're starting to get the wheel-go-round effect. Should we officially dub this thread exhausted?
Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
March 2, 2015 at 1:26 am
(This post was last modified: March 2, 2015 at 1:27 am by Surgenator.)
(March 1, 2015 at 11:45 pm)bennyboy Wrote: (March 1, 2015 at 10:37 pm)Surgenator Wrote: You're forgetting all the particles that are in between the emitter and the receiver. There is nothing preventing the photon from interacting with any of the other particles other than probability. Sure there is, and the OP is about that: that a timeless entity is not subject to causality. Restating things as we already think of them in our own framework doesn't really say much-- however the philosophical implications of trying to reconcile null values, infinities, and finite values in a single system mean that mundane way of looking at things is flawed.
Anyway, I think we're starting to get the wheel-go-round effect. Should we officially dub this thread exhausted?
You're failing to realize that all the possible interactions are brought into simultaneity in the photon's reference frame. If a photon had a 50% chance of interacting with a another particle but didn't, the probability of interaction still exist independent of which frame you're in.
Edit:
I don't like giving people the last word when I believe they are flatly wrong. 
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
March 2, 2015 at 1:24 pm
(March 2, 2015 at 1:26 am)Surgenator Wrote: You're failing to realize that all the possible interactions are brought into simultaneity in the photon's reference frame. If a photon had a 50% chance of interacting with a another particle but didn't, the probability of interaction still exist independent of which frame you're in. What does the word "chance" mean to you in the context of a single photon?
Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
March 2, 2015 at 1:38 pm
(March 2, 2015 at 1:24 pm)bennyboy Wrote: (March 2, 2015 at 1:26 am)Surgenator Wrote: You're failing to realize that all the possible interactions are brought into simultaneity in the photon's reference frame. If a photon had a 50% chance of interacting with a another particle but didn't, the probability of interaction still exist independent of which frame you're in. What does the word "chance" mean to you in the context of a single photon?
Chance is a non-zero probability. It doesn't matter if I apply to many photons or a single one. If I say a chance of interaction and a non-zero probability of interaction are interchangeable.
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
March 2, 2015 at 8:57 pm
(March 2, 2015 at 1:38 pm)Surgenator Wrote: (March 2, 2015 at 1:24 pm)bennyboy Wrote: What does the word "chance" mean to you in the context of a single photon?
Chance is a non-zero probability. It doesn't matter if I apply to many photons or a single one. If I say a chance of interaction and a non-zero probability of interaction are interchangeable. Okay, that's fine. You are simply reasserting the idea that there is built-in indeterminacy embedded in QM events, which are chance-based, chance being the polar opposite of determinism. And that's what the OP is about: if photons are truly timeless, then from the photon's "perspective," the emitter and the receiver are brought into a simultaneity, which means that as soon as the photon leaves its emitter, its receiver must be "known." At best, you have a paradox: determinism in one framework, and indeterminism in the other.
But we've already talked about all that. I suppose I really do have to let you reassert your reassertion one more time, and then unless there are no new ideas, then it's really over. Last word in 5. . . 4. . . 3. . . 2. . . 1. . . 
Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Photons and determinism, part 2
March 3, 2015 at 12:34 am
(March 2, 2015 at 8:57 pm)bennyboy Wrote: (March 2, 2015 at 1:38 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Chance is a non-zero probability. It doesn't matter if I apply to many photons or a single one. If I say a chance of interaction and a non-zero probability of interaction are interchangeable. Okay, that's fine. You are simply reasserting the idea that there is built-in indeterminacy embedded in QM events, which are chance-based, chance being the polar opposite of determinism. And that's what the OP is about: if photons are truly timeless, then from the photon's "perspective," the emitter and the receiver are brought into a simultaneity, which means that as soon as the photon leaves its emitter, its receiver must be "known." At best, you have a paradox: determinism in one framework, and indeterminism in the other.
But we've already talked about all that. I suppose I really do have to let you reassert your reassertion one more time, and then unless there are no new ideas, then it's really over. Last word in 5. . . 4. . . 3. . . 2. . . 1. . .
From my framework, the events look like this:
emitter (@ 0:00), possible interaction 1 (@ 0:20), possible interaction 2 (@ 1:02), receiver (@ 1.20)
From the photon's framework, the events look like this:
emitter (@ 0:00), possible interaction 1 (@ 0:00), possible interaction 2 (@ 0:00), receiver (@ 0:00)
You cannot ignore the other possible interactions just because you go into the photon framework. All the other possible interactions simultaneously can occur. If one of the other possible interactions occurred, the photon would not hit your eye. I don't know how to make any more simpler than this.
|
