>You have not idea what you are talking about. You want to shift definitions when it is convenient.

What definitions? You mean the "Copenhagen Interpretation"? Turns out there is no one, single definition. Even physicists who claim to support it don't agree on what, precisely, it is.

The problem is that you were lazy and complacent. You didn't do any research, so you only *thought* you knew what the CI was. In fact, what you did was to set up a straw-man and then set fire to it.

Congratulations.

You might try spending a little time with Asher Peres's little monograph to which I linked. You might actually learn something.

You've been in denial since I posted an excerpt from Charles Townes's book on the maser — an excerpt contradicting your assertion that his invention disproves the uncertainty relation. He claims it does not.

Once more:

Are you claiming Charles Townes is wrong?

>I really don't want to put much thought into this right now.

Please don't strain yourself. (Remember what happened to Elvis when he strained himself.
When it comes to thinking and doing #2, my advice is "Take it easy.")

>It says a lot that you would tell someone who is wrong that they should stop thinking about philosophy.

That would be poignantly true had I actually said that. In fact, I said,

"Don't give up your day job. Philosophizing isn't your bag."

Did I say "don't philosophize"? No.

You either didn't read my post carefully or you told an itty-biddy fib.

That's OK, caballero. I'm feeling expansive and at home in the universe today, so I forgive you.

>Which is exactly what I said.

No it isn't.

You spoke confidently about your ability to "track" something called a "first photon" and a "first molecule." Those are classical terms — the opposite of what Charles Townes wrote about in his history of his own invention where he spoke of photons (plural) and molecules (plural) being "anonymous", i.e., without any way for an observer to distinguish, classically, a "first" from a "second" from a "third", etc. The moment you start claiming to be able to number particles and track them individually, they are no longer anonymous: they have names ("first", "second", "third", etc.).

So you were incorrect on that point, and now pretend either that you didn't write what you wrote, or that you didn't mean what you meant. No doubt you honed that talent for backpedaling by means of your legal training. It worked.

Your two main problems are that not only do you have a confused notion of the uncertainty relations, but you have a confused notion of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Even advocates of that admit that there are several different interpretations. See this paper by Israeli quantum physicist Asher Peres:

http://cds.cern.ch/record/404139/files/9...
"Karl Popper and the Copenhagen Interpretation"

"When we are discussing quantum theory, we should refrain from using classical terminology—or at least be aware that we do so at our own risk.
In classical mechanics, a particle has (ideally) a precise position and a precise momentum. We can in principle measure them with arbitrary accuracy and thereby determine their numerical values. In quantum mechanics, a particle also has a precise position and a precise momentum. However, the latter are mathematically represented by self-adjoint operators in a Hilbert space, not by ordinary numbers. Their nature is quite different from that of the classical position and momentum. In the early quantum literature, operators were called q-numbers, while plain numbers were c-numbers (Dirac, 1926). Likewise, to avoid confusion, we should have used in quantum theory names such as q-position and q-momentum, while the corresponding classical dynamical variables would have been called c-position and c-momentum. If such a distinction had been made, it would have helped to prevent much of the present confusion about quantum theory. It is the imperfect trans- lation from the q-language to the c-language that led to the unfortunate introduction of the term “uncertainty” in that context.

[The Uncertainty Relation] puts a lower bound on the product of the standard deviations of the results of a large number of measurements performed on identically prepared systems. Each one of these measurements is assumed to have perfect accuracy (any experimental inaccuracy would have to be added to the quantum dispersion) [NB: which means, you can forget about any confusion here between the Uncertain Relation and the Observer Effect]. There is no “uncertainty” connotation here, unless this uncertainty merely refers to future outcomes of potential, perfectly accurate measurements that may be performed on such systems.

What is, indeed, the Copenhagen interpretation? There seems to be at least as many different Copenhagen interpretations as people who use that term, probably there are more. For example, in two classic articles on the foundations of quantum mechanics, Ballentine (1970) and Stapp (1972) give diametrically opposite definitions of “Copenhagen.” There is no real conflict between Ballentine and Stapp on how to understand quantum mechanics, except that one of them calls Copenhagen interpretation what the other considers as the exact opposite of the Copenhagen interpretation. I shall now explain my own Copenhagen interpretation. It relies on articles written by Niels Bohr. Whether or not you agree with Bohr, he is the
definitive authority for deciding what is genuine Copenhagen.

Quantum mechanics provides statistical predictions for the results of measurements
performed on physical systems that have been prepared in specified ways . . . The preparation of quantum systems and their measurement are performed by using laboratory hardware which is described in classical terms. The necessity of using a classical terminology was emphasized by Bohr (1949) whose insistence on this point was very strict:

'However far the [quantum] phenomena transcend the scope of classical physical explanation, the account of all evidence must be expressed in classical terms. The argument is simply that by the word ‘experiment’ we refer to a situation where we can tell others what we have done and what we have learned and that, therefore, the account of the experimental arrangement and the results of the observations must be expressed in unambiguous language with suitable application of the terminology of classical physics.'

The keywords in that excerpt are: classical terms ... unambiguous language ... terminology of classical physics. Bohr did not say that there are in nature classical systems and quantum systems. There are physical systems for which we may use a classical description or a quantum description, according to circumstances, and with various degrees of approximation. It is according to our assessment of the physical circumstances that we decide whether the q-language or the c-language is appropriate. Physics is not an exact science, it is a science of approximations. Unfortunately, Bohr was misunderstood by some (perhaps most) physicists who were unable to make the distinction between language and substance [NB: this last point applies to patent lawyers, too, such as dbhalling], and he was also misunderstood by philosophers who disliked his positivism.

Bohr willingly admitted that any intermediate systems used in the measuring process could be treated quantum mechanically, but the final instrument always had a purely classical description (Bohr, 1939):

'In the system to which the quantum mechanical formalism is applied, it is of course possible to include any intermediate auxiliary agency employed in the measuring process [but] some ultimate measuring instruments must always be described entirely on classical lines, and consequently kept outside the system subject to quantum mechanical treatment.'

. . . In summary, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, as Bohr apparently understood it, quantum theory is not a description of physical reality. It also does not deal with anthropomorphic notions such as knowledge or consciousness. All it does is to provide correct answers to meaningful questions about experiments done with physical systems."

>Yes, by attributes he clearly meant defining attributes,

Nah, I don't think so. Because if that's what he "clearly" meant, then (1) he would have said so explicitly (instead of saying "some of the attributes", or "those attributes"); and (2) you would not have previously hedged your defense of his post by meekly saying "I DOUBT Rozar meant any attributes . . ."

You went from "I doubt he meant X" to "he clearly meant X". You don't mind pointing to anything he actually wrote to back up your sudden confidence, do you? I'll wait patiently and reread Atlas Shrugged while you're at it.

>perhaps interpretation is not your strong suit.

Perhaps not. I see however, that confirmation bias is definitely one of yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty...

"Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty.

It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology. It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather,

<<<any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer.>>>"

* * * * * *

Which goes back to my earlier posts regarding what a quantum entity like a molecule might be doing to another quantum entity like a photon. Clearly, in that context, uncertainty relations need not apply. It's only when you, the scientist, try to use some classical measuring device and interact with the molecule-photon system — when you try to track "that" molecule, or "the first" photon, in order to say something about individual quantum entities in a classical way –that uncertainy relations enter.

>he meant defining attributes

As I said, philosophizing is not his strong suit. Rozar neither says nor suggests anything about defining attributes or an essential attribute. He merely uses the plural "some attributes" or "those attributes"; viz.,

1) "A is no longer A because some of the attributes change"

2) "When you are identifying something you identify those attributes"

3) "if those attributes change it is no longer A."

>you went out of your way to take Rozar out of context.

You went out of your way to put words in his mouth.

>Woah woah woah. You're damn right A is no longer A because some of the attributes change. When you are identifying something you identify those attributes, if those attributes change it is no longer A.

Fantastic! So when you hit a baseball from home plate to the outfield, you've changed one of the ball's attributes — position — as well as, quite possibly, subtle aspects of its shape, mass, etc. Right? Right! And the upshot, according to you is that it cannot be the same baseball that was originally hit. For you, it's a different baseball.

And if you pick a green banana and put it on your kitchen table for a few days until it turns yellow (and then, finally, brown), for you, it is no longer the same banana you originally picked, but a completely different entity! It was first a "green thing" and now it's a "yellow thing", so for you, it's not the same entity with changed attributes, but a different entity with a different identity!

And since everything changes some attribute or attributes over any time increment Δt, it follows that, according to you, identity — "A" — doesn't persist over Δt; and if, according to you, identity doesn't persist over Δt (a time increment made arbitrarily small as you wish), then it's obvious to those of us who can reason that you are denying the objective reality of identity altogether! For you, there can only be a continuous change of attributes, with a corresponding continuous change of identity at any arbitrarily small Δt.

My advice?

Don't give up your day job. Philosophizing isn't your bag.

Here's a hint:

The identity of an entity is precisely that aspect that doesn't change simply because some attribute changes. That's why Ayn Rand as a little girl in Russia is the same entity — with the same identity — as the Ayn Rand smoking cigarettes in her Manhattan townhouse. Some of her attributes have changed, but not her identity. Ayn Rand is Ayn Rand. A is A.

"A" incorporates attributes, but it isn't identical to them. Identity persists over time; attributes change over time.

>but don't condescend to the point that people who disagree with you fail to comprehend the basis of their own philosophy you jack ass.

Well, thank you, sweet pea for combining in such a charming way being wrong, unintelligible, and rude at the same time.

In return, may I just as charmingly suggest that you run along and eff yourself so that the adults here can continue a serious discussion? Thanks!

>If an atom can determine the energy and time of a photon exactly that violates the uncertainty principle.

And as I posted earlier, you can daydream about "an" atom (one you've located and tracked) determining the energy and time of "a" photon (another one that you've located, tracked, studied, and observed to have had both its energy and its frequency determined by "that" atom; unfortunately, when you actually try to observe, track, and study "that" one atom, and "that" one photon, your precision will be limited by the uncertainty principle — irrespective of your instruments' precision.

I said nothing about your measuring tools being so crude as to interfere with the phenomena you're looking it (the "observer effect"). You can make your tools as precise as you wish; the increased precision of your measurements of "that" atom's (x) will correspond to your having lost precision in "that" atom's (p); and the increased precision of your measurements of "that" photon's (e) will cost you a loss of precision in your measurements of "that" photon's (f). That has nothing to do at all with your tools influencing the results.

For a refresher, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_ef...)

"In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.

The observer effect on a physical process can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques.

Historically, the observer effect has been confused with the uncertainty principle . . .

. . . The uncertainty principle has been frequently confused with the observer effect, evidently even by its originator, Werner Heisenberg. The uncertainty principle in its standard form actually describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the precision in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose precision in measuring the other."

>That is a **specific** molecule. **That** molecule . . .

I can see you're confused on a basic level regarding the uncertainty principle.

The uncertainty principle doesn't forbid anyone from talking about individual atoms, molecules, or photons, as if they were macroscopic classical entities imparting all kinds of information they're observed. It forbids one from actually setting up a classical measuring device and performing an experiment in which one attempts to observe conjugate attributes of the particles on quantum scale, such as position/momentum or energy/frequency of one, individual particle. In actual concrete attempts at observation with a classical measuring device, the uncertainty principle will always hold: the more you try to discover directly about "that molecule's" position, the less you'll know about "that molecule's" momentum. Similarly for direct measurements of "that molecule's" energy and frequency.

It's the quantum analogy of "opportunity cost" in economics: if you want a highly accurate measurement of one thing, you must give up a highly accurate measurement of something else.

Your thought process seems to be something like this:

"Sure, at no time have we stimulated JUST ONE molecule and tracked it; we've stimulated a whole population of molecules. But that population comprises individual molecules, so it must be that there's a 'first' molecule that becomes stimulated, then a 2nd one aligns itself with the first, a 3rd aligns itself with the 2nd, etc., until the entire population of molecules is aligned."

Imagining such a scenario, or talking about it, doesn't contradict the uncertainty principle, because you're not observing or physically interacting with anything: you're just daydreaming. No problem.

But you've ultimately confused "talking about an individual 'first' particle" or "imagining what an individual 'first' particle is doing" with actually observing an individual particle, and identifying it as the 'first' particle with a classical measuring device.

It's a common error when pondering the uncertainty principle.

The main problem is you've confused "words about a thing" with "observations of the thing itself."

Sounds not only subjectivist to me, but an actual instance of Primacy of Consciousness.