What do you believe?

[doublecross]

That is not necessary. If we can both be civil, we can do it here.


Quantum theory does not deal with histories.
The part of quantum theory that we care about deals with uncertainty.

It says that sometimes a particle will have a range of values in place of a value.


For example, quantum theory say that a particle does not necessarily have a fixed location, but rather a range of locations.


You would say, the particle is located at position x +/- the uncertainty.

Quantum theory say that this uncertainty is not a limitation in how well we can measure, but rather a limitation on how the precision of the information itself.
At any moment the particle can exist an any point within that range.



However, no part of this means that there are multiple histories; that is a completely unrelated topic.





You would say "the particle existed within this range of locations".

It would be incorrect to say "there is one history where the particle was at position x, and a different history where the particle was at position y."



You seem to think that every possibility creates its own possible history. This simply is not the case.


There is one history, because only one possibility actually occurred.

[Bloodshadow]

That is not necessary. If we can both be civil, we can do it here.

All right, if you say so...

There is one history, because only one possibility actually occurred.

No. All possible outcomes occur simultaneously. That's why the particle is not a particle, but a probability wave, until we observe one of the possible outcomes. Stephen Hawking's book clearly states this, and I see no reasons for him to write false information.

The part of quantum theory that we care about deals with uncertainty.

I don't think quantum theory is only about uncertainty. Uncertainty itself does not explain how photons behave like both particles and waves, and if you fire individual photons one by one they still form the interference pattern.

I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but just exactly how well do you understand quantum theory? Are you a professional physicist, professor, teacher, etc? I know that as a high school student with limited understanding of physics I probably have no right to state this, but to me it seems that you're ignorant of one of the key aspects of quantum theory.

Claiming parallel universes is one thing, but claiming that every possibility leads to an alternate HISTORY is just silly.

If you claim that the timeline branches out as you go forward, but it doesn't branch out when you trace backwards, I suppose that is understandable. In one particular parallel universe, there is only one history that led to that universe. However, if we trace time back to moments before the big bang, time starts to behave like a spatial dimension; how would this work?

In Stephen Hawking's book, The Grand Design, one of the chapters talks extensively about "multiple histories". Have you read it? Again, I don't think Hawking is trying to spread blatantly false information, so I'm curious to see how your belief works out considering what Hawking wrote in his book.

[doublecross]

Ok, the point I am making is that the probability wave *IS THE ONE POSSIBILITY*


This is what I am saying.

Within that range, it is not possible to determine precisely what value it had, but you can declare that there is one history, and that history is that the particle was represented by the probability range.

[Bloodshadow]

Ok, the point I am making is that the probability wave *IS THE ONE POSSIBILITY*

Er, no. All possibilities happen simultaneously. When a photon travels from point A to point B, it doesn't take one single path. Instead, it takes all possible paths. Collectively these paths behave like a wave, which is why two photons can interfere with each other. I believe this is the third time I've stated that this is already scientifically proven to be true, by the double slit experiment and probably some other experiments I haven't heard of.

Can you answer my other question? Are you a professional physicist or professor?

[doublecross]

 

Ok, the point I am making is that the probability wave *IS THE ONE POSSIBILITY*

Er, no. All possibilities happen simultaneously. When a photon travels from point A to point B, it doesn't take one single path. Instead, it takes all possible paths. Collectively these paths behave like a wave, which is why two photons can interfere with each other. I believe this is the third time I've stated that this is already scientifically proven to be true, by the double slit experiment and probably some other experiments I haven't heard of.

See, the difference that we are arguing about is a semantic one.
You can say that it is taking all possibly paths, and that this means that there are many different histories.
However, I can say, also correctly, that the act of it taking all possible paths constitutes one event.


In fact, you described one history.

"Instead, it takes all possible paths."  <= That could be either described as one history or infinite, and we would both be correct. It is not an agrument over physical fact.

[OldTrees]

Ok, the point I am making is that the probability wave *IS THE ONE POSSIBILITY*

Er, no. All possibilities happen simultaneously. When a photon travels from point A to point B, it doesn't take one single path. Instead, it takes all possible paths. Collectively these paths behave like a wave, which is why two photons can interfere with each other. I believe this is the third time I've stated that this is already scientifically proven to be true, by the double slit experiment and probably some other experiments I haven't heard of.

Can you answer my other question? Are you a professional physicist or professor?

I am a college student who has not had any additional Quantum Theory education other than Wikipedia, youtube videos of quantum physicists and high school students like you.

However I must point out that while the math has a high certainty. The interpretations of the data cause very diverse interpretations that are currently competing. The multiple histories is one interpretations, another is a probability wave that collapses upon observation, yet another is that the probabilities each represent another universe, yet another is that the probabilities are just probabilities and that it does in fact have a set history but the history is just unknowable. These interpretations do not have very good evidence for them other than they each fit the data. Some of the theories are downright unscientific at this time (multiple universes is untestable)

[doublecross]

However, all of those can appropriately be called "one history".    An unknowable position, or a probability wave, is still one history.

[Bloodshadow]

See, the difference that we are arguing about is a semantic one.

Really? It's not just me unable to comprehend quantum theory? I keep picturing you looking down at me in contempt, saying "you fail physics forever".

You can say that it is taking all possibly paths, and that this means that there are many different histories.
However, I can say, also correctly, that the act of it taking all possible paths constitutes one event.

Are you saying that we are both correct?

[doublecross]

You don't fail physics forever. Our argument stopped being one of physics.


As to whether or not we are both correct... yes and no.

We both were describing the same phenomenon, but describing it differently.

Whether that makes us both correct is up to you to decide.


Your point was that a probability wave means that many different outcomes all occurred.

My point was that what you described could be considered to be one event, and thus one history.


Now, would you care to discuss the philosophy and not the physics of my point, which, by now, is probably pages and pages back?

[Bloodshadow]

We both were describing the same phenomenon, but describing it differently.

All right, all right. Model-dependent realism. Neither model is more correct than the other.

Now, would you care to discuss the philosophy and not the physics of my point, which, by now, is probably pages and pages back?

Okay. Your beliefs only further augment my cynical belief that mistakes can never, ever be amended or forgiven. I do something wrong, and the deed is forever etched into existence; it cannot be erased even if I go back in time and correct myself.

[doublecross]

I actually find that comforting. I find permanence comforting.

[Bloodshadow]

I actually find that comforting. I find permanence comforting.

On the contrary, I find it horribly depressing. I often think that a single mistake is enough to utterly destroy me, making me into a piece of complete garbage that doesn't deserve to exist. How can you find it comforting when every single mistake you made haunts you for all eternity?