ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

My conclusion to Q1

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Jul. 25 2002, 9:54 pm

My conclusion to Q1

I’m sorry that I don’t get the chance to reply to all of your posts. I wish I could reply to them all and to everyone’s, but I don’t have all the time in the world. I have replied to some. I don’t feel that completely obligated to reply to all of your posts on this topic. I have requested that you keep this in one or two topics, but you kept on making new topics over & over again flooding the board, one of the few boards that do not get flooding. After looking at all of your posts you just say the same thing over and over again. Then you make 2 topics about one idea, so I’m not going to continue to promote this. All I will say as my conclusion is the bellow. You have stretched the meaning of probability and what quantum mechanics is about.

First I will look into the uncertainty principle (also called: indeterminacy principle) it says at the quantum level where the laws are governed by quantum mechanics (or the quantum theory) it is impossible to say the exact position plus momentum of a particle. This principle also tells us that if we have a better idea to tell us the quaintly of one the result of that will be we will have less on the other. (But remember that it will not be less then Plack’s constant) That proves it unless you can other wise which you have not.

This principle was developed by German physicist Werner Heisenberg in 1927. He looked at the quantum theory (developed by Max Planck) and looked at the math and the results from several tests. Using what we know of quantum mechanics, the nature of partials, and other variables. After publish his information some scientists thought that this violates the rules and law of cause & effect. Other people like Albert Einstein (you have misunderstood what Einstein really said) thought that it did not contradict the laws of this or the scientists that could discover these laws. This shows that we know that cause & effect are not the issue here.

Einstein said that he does not think that "God plays dice with the world", but he did agree with the paramount issues at hand. I have tried to explain how infinity connects to probability because of that I do not think I would be affective at showing you a proof of this. But the issue is that Einstein was talking about philosophy not science. I know that you cannot disprove the quantum theory and you have not, you just say that philosophy comes in. (I know that you did not say that, but that’s what its really about here)

Stistics was first used to understand quantum mechanics after looking at it we can now use probability to say what ratio it will be here and there. Of course it uses probability and statistics. Please don’t change what physics says. We cannot say just here is the probabilty if we don’t the the stattics we first need to look at it. Then we can deveope probabilty into a topic like this one. That goes with everything thats like saying that the game theory is not about probabilty, but it is.

You have to understand quantum mechanics this can be proved to show someone that probability is a factor of life. Unless you can prove these wrong then you cannot say probability is wrong.

We don’t know the future. Is this correct or not?
Of course we don’t so we use probability. All it is a prediction of what will happen.
We know the cause of rain correct?
Yes, by what you are saying we must not know the cause. We can know the cause, but there are variables that we can not say 100% so there for we cannot say 100% this is the future. Cause and effect - yes, but the unknown variables come into play,
we don’t the future so we predict.


Lets look at dice. You have 2 dice each individually with a chance of getting 1 through 6. When you put both of them in you have a 36 combination possibility. 7 is the most likely hit # because more #s add up to

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Jul. 25 2002, 9:55 pm

Lets look at dice. You have 2 dice each individually with a chance of getting 1 through 6. When you put both of them in you have a 36 combination possibility. 7 is the most likely hit # because more #s add up to it. If you look at the chances for every possibility 2 through 12 there are better odds for the middle #s and less odds of getting the other #s. Probability - I know this is what we are really debating about, but it applies, its like saying that this is false. The math is correct, of course you will land on 7+/- more then any other. You cannot disprove this.
2. ______
3. _________
4. _____________
5. _________________
6. ____________________
7. ________________________
8. ____________________
9. _________________
10 _____________
11 _________
12 ______

What about deductive reasoning?
Lets apply Boolean algebra use its simple logic. That simple grade school math can be used also. Deductive reasoning is subbed for p:q.

I can give a statement with probability to P to Q also. So lets just look at the basics of probability and apply what we know about deductive reasoning. Someone could just say part over whole, but that really does not give good depth. Probability is about outcome so the possibility of an outcome that will happen is P. The probability saying that the outcome will not occur is q = 1 - p. So the probability that the outcome will occur lets give a ratio p:q and the probability against that is q:p.
**2+ outcomes
What I said works fine, but what if we have two or more common outcomes. For example those two outcomes would be X and Y are p and P, so the odds favoring X and not favoring Y would be p to P. Or what about when an event must turnout to be common exclusive outcomes O1 , (O1, O2, . . . technically here it would be assigned On and n would be superscripted.) when looking at that the different probabilities would be p1 , . . . And for the # values that support the outcomes would be v1 , . . . So put it all together E=p1+v1+p2+v2+ . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The math is not the issue here, though unless you want it to become this then I can already prove the math. The answer to your question is here.

Geometric probability applies to. At randomly lets say we have a computer that picks a # on a # line then it shoots out a dart at that target. We don’t know what it will predict we know the cause, but that’s not the issue here.

I’m sorry but you have not proved your point. You have only said that it does not exist in nature and its all about cause & effect. Like I said we don’t always know the future, but we can predict. If you agree with the math, then there is . . .
nothing wrong with throwing predictions to the language of math.

For my conclusion of this I’m sorry that you wont see the facts at hand. You are just looking at what a theory says and then filling in the blanks or the unknown that you cannot see on paper. Just because something’s is already on the time line, does not mean there is no room for prediction. You watch a game on TV. Who do you think will win? I say "so in so", that’s probability just with deductive reasoning. Cause & effect? Like I have said look at the var.’s.

Signing off for the probability debate

Master Q
StarTrek_MasterQ@yahoo.com

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Jul. 25 2002, 9:59 pm

Sorry about all of my sp. / grammar errors and my continuation was meant to say "con’t"

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Jul. 25 2002, 10:21 pm

You probably won’t take my word for it so heres directly form the MS Encarta encyclopedia:

"Formulated in 1927 by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, the uncertainty principle was of great significance in the development of quantum mechanics. Its philosophic implications of indeterminacy created a strong trend of mysticism among scientists who interpreted the concept as a violation of the fundamental law of cause and effect. Other scientists, including Albert Einstein, believed that the uncertainty involved in observation in no way contradicted the existence of laws governing the behavior of the particles or the ability of scientists to discover these laws."

"According to classical theory, the energy, as measured by the voltage of the emitted electrons, should be proportional to the intensity of the radiation. The energy of the electrons, however, was found to be independent of the intensity of radiationwhich determined only the number of electrons emittedand to depend solely on the frequency of the radiation. The higher the frequency of the incident radiation, the greater is the electron energy; below a certain critical frequency no electrons are emitted. These facts were explained by Einstein by assuming that a single quantum of radiant energy ejects a single electron from the metal. The energy of the quantum is proportional to the frequency, and so the energy of the electron depends on the frequency."

"Another way of expressing the uncertainty principle is that the wavelength of a quantum mechanical principle is inversely proportional to its momentum. As atoms are cooled they slow down and their corresponding wavelength grows larger. At a low enough temperature this wavelength is predicted to exceed the spacing between particles, causing atoms to overlap, becoming indistinguishable, and melding into a single quantum state. In 1995 a team of Colorado scientists, led by National Institutes of Standards and Technology physicist Eric Cornell and University of Colorado physicist Carl Weiman, cooled rubidium atoms to a temperature so low that the particles entered this merged state, known as a Bose-Einstein condensate. The condensate essentially behaves like one atom even though it is made up of thousands."
"He[Einstein] next important developments in quantum mechanics were the work of German-born American physicist and Nobel laureate Albert Einstein. He used Planck’s concept of the quantum to explain certain properties of the photoelectric effectan experimentally observed phenomenon in which electrons are emitted from metal surfaces when radiation falls on these surfaces."
"According to classical theory, the energy, as measured by the voltage of the emitted electrons, should be proportional to the intensity of the radiation. The energy of the electrons, however, was found to be independent of the intensity of radiationwhich determined only the number of electrons emittedand to depend solely on the frequency of the radiation. The higher the frequency of the incident radiation, the greater is the electron energy; below a certain critical frequency no electrons are emitted. These facts were explained by Einstein by assuming that a single quantum of radiant energy ejects a single electron from the metal. The energy of the quantum is proportional to the frequency, and so the energy of the electron depends on the frequency."

"Another way of expressing the uncertainty principle is that the wavelength of a quantum mechanical principle is inversely proportional to its momentum. As atoms are cooled they slow down and their corresponding wavelength grows larger. At a low enough temperature this wavelength is predicted to exceed the spacing between particles, causing atoms to overlap, becoming indistinguishable, and melding into a single quantum state. In 1995 a team of Colorado scientists, led by National Institutes of St

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Jul. 25 2002, 10:22 pm

I wont go on beyond that but
He does not agree with the philosophical aspects and the own defined connections with the Chaos theory. He thought that there were problems, but with the probability factor & cause plus effect I have answered that question.

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Jul. 25 2002, 10:45 pm

"I’m sorry that I don’t get the chance to reply to all of your posts. I wish I could reply to them all and to everyone’s, but I don’t have all the time in the world. I have replied to some. I don’t feel that completely obligated to reply to all of your posts on this topic. I have requested that you keep this in one or two topics, but you kept on making new topics over & over again flooding the board, one of the few boards that do not get flooding."
I never asked that you reply to all of them. Some of them were just to put ideas out there. And don’t forget you are the one who is objecting, so it’s up to you what to talk about.

"After looking at all of your posts you just say the same thing over and over again. Then you make 2 topics about one idea, so I’m not going to continue to promote this. All I will say as my conclusion is the bellow. You have stretched the meaning of probability and what quantum mechanics is about."
The only that that is consequential is that all main assertions be proved. If by saying I say the same things over and over again is that I’m not taking into account what you’re saying, then from now on there will be no mistake about that. You’ll know for sure that I’m directly responding to your statements.


"First I will look into the uncertainty principle (also called: indeterminacy principle) it says at the quantum level where the laws are governed by quantum mechanics (or the quantum theory) it is impossible to say the exact position plus momentum of a particle. This principle also tells us that if we have a better idea to tell us the quaintly of one the result of that will be we will have less on the other. (But remember that it will not be less then Plack’s constant) That proves it unless you can other wise which you have not."
It would only prove it if your statement of it was proven true, which you didn’t give a demonstration of in any case. Isn’t it true that scientists don’t say subatomic particles don’t have a exact position and momentum at the same time? If the answer is yes, it is true that they don’t say that then the statement that it is impossible to tell what the exact position of a particle plus it’s momentum are at the same time doesn’t disprove that it doesn’t have momentum and position at the same time.


"Statistics was first used to understand quantum mechanics after looking at it we can now use probability to say what ratio it will be here and there. Of course it uses probability and statistics. Please don’t change what physics says. We cannot say just here is the probabilty if we don’t the the stattics we first need to look at it. Then we can deveope probabilty into a topic like this one. That goes with everything thats like saying that the game theory is not about probabilty, but it is."
Statistics and probability are not the same thing. Statistics examines the actual actuated physical events and then lists how they are distributed. Probability predicts the likelihood of a event by a particular possible outcome over all possible outcomes. The results of statistics are not achieved through probability. They are achieved by observing the results of an experiment, or by counting the actual events. Which is totally different than probability in any measure. And statistics doesn’t give a likelihood. It’s gives percentages, which are then used for whatever type of analysis you wish. What is actually happening here is probability is using the statistical results to form it’s likelihood ratio. That is the only relationship of statistics to probability in this situation. What that implies I won’t get into. I’ll just say probability and statistics are different.


"We don’t know the future. Is this correct or not?"
That&rsqu

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Jul. 25 2002, 10:47 pm

"We don’t know the future. Is this correct or not?"
That’s correct.


"Of course we don’t so we use probability. All it is a prediction of what will happen."
But how can you make any prediction without factoring in casuality into it?


We know the cause of rain correct?
It seems.

"Yes, by what you are saying we must not know the cause. We can know the cause, but there are variables that we can not say 100% so there for we cannot say 100% this is the future. Cause and effect - yes, but the unknown variables come into play, we don’t the future so we predict."
Maybe this is one of the reasons why I repeat myself so many times. I never said you must the know the cause, I said, you must take into account that there is a cause. So you see, the reason I repeat myself isn’t a fault.


"Lets look at dice. You have 2 dice each individually with a chance of getting 1 through 6. When you put both of them in you have a 36 combination possibility. 7 is the most likely hit # because more #s add up to."
Slow down.. Here’s my question to you, which I’ve asked before with getting a reply. Please reply this time. How is 7 the most likely outcome when it is the most common possibility? What is the reason for why it is the most likely because it is the most common?

"I’m sorry but you have not proved your point. You have only said that it does not exist in nature and its all about cause & effect. Like I said we don’t always know the future, but we can predict."
Yes we can predict, but probability is not a method by which it’s done.

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Jul. 25 2002, 10:52 pm

"Other scientists, including Albert Einstein, believed that the uncertainty involved in observation in no way contradicted the existence of laws governing the behavior of the particles or the ability of scientists to discover these laws."

That’s true, because it doesn’t contradict them. Saying that you don’t know how to predict an outcome doesn’t mean that there isn’t a way to predict it, and that’s the same thing Einstein is saying.

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Jul. 25 2002, 11:07 pm

In the case of the In the case of the uncertainty principle we had to look at the statistics first before you can give variables of probability. I know that they are different, but how can we say that here is the ratio if we did not examine what happens and the results of and that is what defines statistics.
Also for a example of this principle look at blackbodies and a graph on the x,y axis. When we review the red hot and white hot electromagnetic radiation produced and we see a constant set in the variables of this graph we get a frequency from 3.0 X 10^12 to 2 X 10^14 hertz see a constant in the lines or Placks constant. Also if we look at a experiment that holds H2O. This box has on the fair end something to block the H2O it also has two doors that can be open or close. The final thing that this experiment has is a wave detector that detects how intense the waves are. Ok now we drop the H2O in with one door open the results are that the more intense area is where the door is open. Ok now lets open both doors you might be thinking that the results would be split, but they are not. What happens here is that the waves cross cancels each other and increases in other areas also. Where is the more intensity? It’s on the other end in the middle of the 2 doors. Ok now lets take the same box, but this time we will use Electrons. When we shoot out electrons we only shoot out one at a time so that it reaches the detector. The same thing also happens when both doors are open the electrons cross cancel the same graph results as the waves. People thought that the results here would be divided like if we dropped marbles, but its not. You can also use light (protons instead of electrons). By looking at it not the unknown happening it is unknown to say which door it will go through with 2 doors open.

Here is what you really want:
Also if we look at quantum tuonling and set a signal to go as fast as possible with a block because quantum mechanics the signal and its particles will be about 1/2 blocked because of probability. The imposable happens and this time we had a signal go faster then light. (We can send a signal possibly, but not matter) This shows that it is not possible to say where each partial is located & how probability kicks in for the location (if its exact or if it got through the blocking device its about probability again and the other things I have stated).

Master Q

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Jul. 25 2002, 11:09 pm

About the dice? Because more #s add up to 7 so more combinations of dies equaling up to it.

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Jul. 25 2002, 11:15 pm

He did not really say that. He said that this principal is true and that it does not violate that.

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Jul. 25 2002, 11:20 pm

"In the case of the In the case of the uncertainty principle we had to look at the statistics first before you can give variables of probability. I know that they are different, but how can we say that here is the ratio if we did not examine what happens and the results of and that is what defines statistics."

Your operating under misconceptions, and I made a mistake. The statistical results already give you the possible outcomes. Probability has no role in this scenario because the results are assessed by statistics, and not to a approximation, but to a absolute degree, to a particular whole percentage. That’s what my mistake was. I thought they used probability too, but they don’t. They only use statistics.

Just as long as same effects have same causes is not disproved the outcome to possible outcome ratio for all events is 1:1. The only way to disprove this claim is to disprove that casuality is the how all events, including microcosmic events, occur. Does quantum mechanics disprove that?

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Jul. 25 2002, 11:22 pm

Yes, the principle is true, but the so called principle can’t be called a real principle because it’s incomplete in the view of Einstein. So he was saying it is true but it isn’t comprehensive.

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Jul. 25 2002, 11:23 pm

And my question is how? How is that because more numbers add up to seven that it will occur more than other combinations? How is that possible? What is the reason?

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Jul. 25 2002, 11:26 pm

Lets look at the game theory. It uses statistics yes but at the heart its probability.

A particle
We can say that in this case it might land on here and here - looking at statistics but when you really look at it then and there relationship to anther yes there is probability in it because after the examination we can give a ratio. And if you look at my experiment examples it proves that we. The principle by definition we cannot say it will be here or there even in statistics the results sometimes say it will land here and others here so probability plays its role.

Master Q

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: King B IX

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum