Where do numbers come from? + Quantum superposition could unravel ‘grandpa paradox’

[Secular Sanity]

Whatever, Syne. You totally avoided the question, and besides, I posted more information than you did.

And you do believe in God. I don't know how in the hell that works for you, though.

Oh, shit! It's the megalomaniac bit, isn't it?

[Syne]

Whatever, Syne.  You totally avoided the question, and besides, I posted more information than you did.  

And you do believe in God. I don't know how in the hell that works for you, though.  

Oh, shit!  It's the megalomaniac bit, isn't it?  

Yeah, you posted a lot of disconnected info (except to your copious straw man arguments...which no one could follow).

Being a theist is not the same as believing in a "Lord", except to ignorant bigots.

I answered your question. You're just too obtuse or dishonest to comprehend.

[Secular Sanity]

Yeah, you posted a lot of disconnected info (except to your copious straw man arguments...which no one could follow).  

No, I didn't.

I answered your question. You're just too obtuse or dishonest to comprehend.  

I'll just use your quote here, if that's alright with you.  

Nope. If you want to pretend to post about science, that's your prerogative. But you can't expect the more knowledgeable not to call you on misrepresentations and errors. That would be a disservice to other readers.

Like I said before, you were explaining the boson/fermion dichotomy, which is mandated by the Spin-Statistics of quantum field theory. The spin–statistics theorem binds two particular kinds of combinatorial symmetry with two particular kinds of spin symmetry, namely bosons and fermions.

Bose–Einstein statistics

The essential ingredient in proving the spin/statistics relation is relativity.

Yeah, I do make errors on occasion, just not against you on physics...or much else.

It is perfectly clear from your argument that you didn't realize that they were combined.

You keep asking about QM but then doubting my answers about QM by adding QFT. When teaching people, you don't jump to the most advanced theories. You start simple, like QM and its classical time and space. But you don't really care if anyone actually learns anything here...just so long as you can try to show someone up to distract from the nonsense you post.

It's obvious that I do care. This is just a pathetic excuse because you know you made an error (against little ole me).  

I stand by my quote, Syne. Like Einstein’s famous thought experiment of chasing the light.  "What it would be like to ride on a beam of light." You wouldn’t experience time or space.  You would be everywhere and everywhere at once.

And please, do show where I've been wrong about physics, especially in comparison to you.

Done!  You should probably tap out now.

P.S. Like I said before, maybe you should try a little boxing, Syne.  I think it would be good for you because men who do not feel easily threatened are generally less threatening.

Oh, and Mr. Theist, let me know when you’re ready to help me make an inspirational atheist video.  I have some good ideas.  How are you with typography?

I loved this one!

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/FFJais8Joq0

[Syne]

Like I said before, you were explaining the boson/fermion dichotomy, which is mandated by the Spin-Statistics of quantum field theory. The spin–statistics theorem binds two particular kinds of combinatorial symmetry with two particular kinds of spin symmetry, namely bosons and fermions.

The fermion/boson dichotomy is an empirical fact. Things that can simply be demonstrated can be known before the theoretical underpinning are fully established. And all your talk about QFT is just arm-waving, superfluous in answering the question originally asked.

I stand by my quote, Syne. Like Einstein’s famous thought experiment of chasing the light.  "What it would be like to ride on a beam of light." You wouldn’t experience time or space.  You would be everywhere and everywhere at once.

Light has no proper frame of reference, so you cannot really make assertions about it. Such thought experiments are fanciful, not factual. Light simply doesn't not experience...period.

And it's rather clear you don't know this very basic stuff.

[Secular Sanity]

The fermion/boson dichotomy is an empirical fact. Things that can simply be demonstrated can be known before the theoretical underpinning are fully established. And all your talk about QFT is just arm-waving, superfluous in answering the question originally asked.

Sorry, Syne, I really hate to do this to you. I am, though, mindful that you are mentally weaker and tend to be more emotional...due to your evolutionary psychology, but it’s for your own good.

Pauli Exclusion Principle

The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle which states that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system simultaneously. In the case of electrons in atoms, it can be stated as follows: it is impossible for two electrons of a poly-electron atom to have the same values of the four quantum numbers: n, the principal quantum number, the angular momentum quantum number, the magnetic quantum number, and  the spin quantum number. For example, if two electrons reside in the same orbital, and if their n, ℓ, and mℓ values are the same, then their ms must be different, and thus the electrons must have opposite half-integer spins of 1/2 and −1/2. This principle was formulated by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1925 for electrons, and later extended to all fermions with his spin-statistics theorem of 1940.

Bose-Einsein Statistics

Particles with an integer spin, or bosons, are not subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle: any number of identical bosons can occupy the same quantum state, as with, for instance, photons produced by a laser and Bose–Einstein condensate.

The theory of this behaviour was developed (1924–25) by Satyendra Nath Bose, who recognized that a collection of identical and indistinguishable particles can be distributed in this way. The idea was later adopted and extended by Albert Einstein in collaboration with Bose.

He sent the manuscript to Albert Einstein requesting publication in the Zeitschrift für Physik. Einstein immediately agreed, personally translated the article from English into German (Bose had earlier translated Einstein's article on the theory of General Relativity from German to English), and saw to it that it was published. Bose's theory achieved respect when Einstein sent his own paper in support of Bose's to Zeitschrift für Physik, asking that they be published together. This was done in 1924.

Light has no proper frame of reference, so you cannot really make assertions about it. Such thought experiments are fanciful, not factual. Light simply doesn't not experience...period.

It’s was a thought experiment for a fanciful candle, Syne.  I got the idea from Ethan Siegal.  

Nothing happens at once.  At once is not everywhere.  Only light is everywhere and everywhere at once.

It's good.

[Syne]

The fermion/boson dichotomy is an empirical fact. Things that can simply be demonstrated can be known before the theoretical underpinning are fully established. And all your talk about QFT is just arm-waving, superfluous in answering the question originally asked.

Sorry, Syne, I really hate to do this to you. I am, though, mindful that you are mentally weaker and tend to be more emotional...due to your evolutionary psychology, but it’s for your own good.

Pauli Exclusion Principle

The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle which states that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system simultaneously. In the case of electrons in atoms, it can be stated as follows: it is impossible for two electrons of a poly-electron atom to have the same values of the four quantum numbers: n, the principal quantum number, the angular momentum quantum number, the magnetic quantum number, and  the spin quantum number. For example, if two electrons reside in the same orbital, and if their n, ℓ, and mℓ values are the same, then their ms must be different, and thus the electrons must have opposite half-integer spins of 1/2 and −1/2. This principle was formulated by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1925 for electrons, and later extended to all fermions with his spin-statistics theorem of 1940.

Bose-Einsein Statistics

Particles with an integer spin, or bosons, are not subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle: any number of identical bosons can occupy the same quantum state, as with, for instance, photons produced by a laser and Bose–Einstein condensate.

The theory of this behaviour was developed (1924–25) by Satyendra Nath Bose, who recognized that a collection of identical and indistinguishable particles can be distributed in this way. The idea was later adopted and extended by Albert Einstein in collaboration with Bose.

He sent the manuscript to Albert Einstein requesting publication in the Zeitschrift für Physik. Einstein immediately agreed, personally translated the article from English into German (Bose had earlier translated Einstein's article on the theory of General Relativity from German to English), and saw to it that it was published. Bose's theory achieved respect when Einstein sent his own paper in support of Bose's to Zeitschrift für Physik, asking that they be published together. This was done in 1924.

LOL! And? O_o

You seem to think that Bose-Einstein Statistics and Pauli's spin-statistics theorem are the same thing...or maybe you think that one derives from the other...even though each describe different empirical observations...defined by whether the wave function is symmetric or asymmetric. Or...to be generous...perhaps you're only conflating the spin -statistics theorem with the requirements to prove it.

[Secular Sanity]

You seem to think that Bose-Einstein Statistics and Pauli's spin-statistics theorem are the same thing.

No. That would be you, when you said...

Bosons, like photons, are not subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, which is what keeps fermions, such as electrons, from occupying the same quantum state as the same time. But time in quantum mechanics is an absolute, so there is no sense in which different times could interact. Time is an a priori given that quantum states are calculated from.

I quoted this...

"The fact that particles with half-integer spin (fermions) obey Fermi–Dirac statistics and the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and particles with integer spin (bosons) obey Bose–Einstein statistics, occupy "symmetric states", and thus can share quantum states, is known as the spin-statistics theorem. The theorem relies on both quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity, and this connection between spin and statistics has been called "one of the most important applications of the special relativity theory".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)

You’re explaining the boson/fermion dichotomy, which is mandated by the Spin-Statistics of quantum field theory.  

Yet Pauli came up with the exclusion principle on empirical evidence alone. Otherwise, show me where QFT existed prior to PEP. You can't, because empirical evidence and working theories usually precede later theories that provide the underpinnings. LOL! You seem completely ignorant of empirical methods.

Like no one could have hypothesized bosons/fermions until a theory that fully explained the behavior could be formulated.

The fermion/boson dichotomy is an empirical fact. Things that can simply be demonstrated can be known before the theoretical underpinning are fully established.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon, but non-relativistic quantum mechanics couldn't explain it.

"In 1928, Paul Dirac constructed an influential relativistic wave equation, now known as the Dirac equation in his honour, that is fully compatible both with special relativity and with the final version of quantum theory existing after 1926. This equation explained not only the intrinsic angular momentum of the electrons called spin, it also led to the prediction of the antiparticle of the electron (the positron), and fine structure could only be fully explained with special relativity. It was the first foundation of relativistic quantum mechanics. In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, spin is phenomenological and cannot be explained.

On the other hand, the existence of antiparticles leads to the conclusion that relativistic quantum mechanics is not enough for a more accurate and complete theory of particle interactions. Instead, a theory of particles interpreted as quantized fields, called quantum field theory, becomes necessary; in which particles can be created and destroyed throughout space and time."

So, your little (But time in quantum mechanics is an absolute) was a non-sequitur.

[Syne]

No, the theorem is only proven using Lorentz transformations from SR.

Do you REALLY think that the phenomenological behavior of fermions and bosons wasn't known prior to an explanation and proven theorem? O_o

Pauli established his Exclusion principle before his theorem was proven.

So you tell me. What does a proof of his theorem add to the fact that photons are bosons...you know, as it pertains to your nonsense answers in this thread? O_o

You're just going to continue justifying answers you claim you aren't ad infinitum. It's boring...and repetitive.

The simple fact is that I answered a phenomenological question with a phenomenological answer. The fact that you have to specify "non-relativistic quantum mechanics" demonstrates that there is such a thing...and that is what my reply referred to.

So how would you describe time in "non-relativistic quantum mechanics"? O_o

[Secular Sanity]

No, the theorem is only proven using Lorentz transformations from SR.

Do you REALLY think that the phenomenological behavior of fermions and bosons wasn't known prior to an explanation and proven theorem? O_o

Pauli established his Exclusion principle before his theorem was proven.

An explanation and proof is what gives a principle its credibility.  There have been numerous principles throughout history that turned out to be completely wrong.

Now, back to Aaron O'Connell's experiment.  We’ll use Syne as an example.  When he is fully isolated from the forum—from our perception, he’s in a wave like state and can take any and every position at once.  Just like with the phase space.  Until you interact with it, it’s simply not there in the way we usually think of things as being there, and is in simultaneous superposition of all possible states, without time, matter, or space.    

The same thing happens with Syne.  As soon as we interact with him, his emotions cause him to collapse, and he assumes his only possible state. Once he enters our world of perception, he’s an asshole.  When he’s isolated, he’s simply not there in the way we usually think of things as being there, but once you interact with him, he becomes hyper-realistic (our physical world that we know so well), and has all the qualities of being an asshole.

[Syne]

No, the fact that all known relevant phenomena empirically follows a principle is what gives the principle credibility. Do you think people weren't using the PEP as an accepted principle prior to it being proven? O_o

Newton's law of universal gravitation was published in 1687, but wasn't proven by test until 1796 by Cavendish.

But...your elaborate little ad hominem proves you know you're talk out of your hat.