Signs you're having cognitive dissonance

[TheMeInTeam]

This is quite normal because reality does not fit into tidy either or boxes.

For instance:

(1) One can believe that light is both a wave and a particle at the same time.

(2) I can be both pro-immigration and anti-immigration at the same time.

"Fun with definitions" is related to what OP is describing and you often see it when such happens, but it's different. It's a tool used when the issue crops up, not the issue unto itself.

Arguing over definition when both sides agree on the measured facts is vexing and pointless. Arguing over definition as a cover to ignore evidence is one of several ways to do what OP describes.

 

[Hygro]

Hey Hygro, this appears to be what "cognitive dissonance' means in psychology



This seems to disagree with a part of your definition. Just sayin'

Yeah, I might have to update that. But check this out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Somewhat related but almost the opposite is cognitive dissonance, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.

Maybe I need a third definition, like of something defining: "signs you're avoiding cognitive dissonance for its own sake" or "how you know you're pre-selecting information to avoid having to think through cognitive dissonance".

 

[Lexicus]

What if you believe in, like, a quantum superposition of two contradictory ideas?

 

[CivCube]

- When you feel so relaxed very relaxed so soothing

Everything is just fine

 

[Hygro]

I guess what I'm saying is that people aren't cognizant of their cognitive dissonance, even if it is felt strongly, and they resolve it quickly. So to recognize cognitive dissonance, you have to look for proxy signs like

#umpteen: Having an ADHD space-out moment when someone starts saying something cooler than what you thought was cool.

 

[uppi]

This gives me cognitive dissidence. If its not a wave and not a particle, then what else could it be?

A quantized field. The descriptions as waves and as particles are both just models that fail to describe the behavior of light in all situations. And it is not like light behaves sometimes as a waves and sometimes as particles: you can create situations where both models fail.

So if you suspect cognitive dissonance about the particle-wave duality, you are on the right track.

 

[CivCube]

Generally speaking, I've tended to get feelings of dissonance whenever I run into certain words used for subtly dishonest purposes.

 

[14thwarrior]

This gives me cognitive dissidence. If its not a wave and not a particle, then what else could it be?

Both it can be both, it has both wave and particle like attributes.


The wave particle duality of matter merely says that it behaves as one or the other depending in which way you look at it. If you try to measure it as a wave it seems to be a wave, if you try to measure it as a particle it behaves as a particle which passes between the two slits to the back plate.

There's nothing magical about this state of affairs, the wave front appears on the back plate. When you measure the particle it appears as a particle which may pass between either slits with a 50/50 chance.

Nothing confuses me more than people getting confused about physics.

Think of it this way there's that weird twisty thing that makes a bird look like it is in a cage, if you twist it fast enough. Particle wave duality is just the same. Twisting the image of a bird and a cage fast enough will show you a bird in a cage. Matter is much the same, when you view it at the speed of light doing its stuff, it is not easy to see it as it truly is.

 

[uppi]

Both it can be both, it has both wave and particle like attributes.

The wave particle duality of matter merely says that it behaves as one or the other depending in which way you look at it. If you try to measure it as a wave it seems to be a wave, if you try to measure it as a particle it behaves as a particle which passes between the two slits to the back plate.

There's nothing magical about this state of affairs, the wave front appears on the back plate. When you measure the particle it appears as a particle which may pass between either slits with a 50/50 chance.

Nothing confuses me more than people getting confused about physics.

There is no way to measure light as a wave. In the end you always register photons on a detector and get shot noise on any wave you want to measure. What happens is that you only have to boxes in your mind (particles and waves) and depending on the light doing something that you find more compatible with one of these boxes you put it into that one. But this is just a cognitive process*, it does not describe reality.

Take for example the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect:Two photons with identical properties and zero relative phase impinging on a 50:50 beam splitter. If light was a wave, you would expect constructive interference in one output port and constructive in the other, so that both photons come out of one defined port. If light was particles, these would have zero interactions and you would expect the photons to be randomly distributed over both ports. What actually happens is that the two photons always come out of the same port, but you do not know which one.

*Actually a great sign of cognitive dissonance: No matter what the outcome of an experiment is, you can explain it to fit you view.

 

[Hygro]

*Actually a great sign of cognitive dissonance: No matter what the outcome of an experiment is, you can explain it to fit you view.

That's a good one to watch out for.

 

[warpus]

Yeah, I might have to update that. But check this out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Somewhat related but almost the opposite is cognitive dissonance, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.

Maybe I need a third definition, like of something defining: "signs you're avoiding cognitive dissonance for its own sake" or "how you know you're pre-selecting information to avoid having to think through cognitive dissonance".

Hmm well it will take me some more coffee and time to process these ideas.

There are definitely contradictory ideas swirling around in that brain of mine. I am not quite sure how they get along, but they do.

 

[14thwarrior]

There is no way to measure light as a wave. In the end you always register photons on a detector and get shot noise on any wave you want to measure. What happens is that you only have to boxes in your mind (particles and waves) and depending on the light doing something that you find more compatible with one of these boxes you put it into that one. But this is just a cognitive process*, it does not describe reality.

Take for example the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect:Two photons with identical properties and zero relative phase impinging on a 50:50 beam splitter. If light was a wave, you would expect constructive interference in one output port and constructive in the other, so that both photons come out of one defined port. If light was particles, these would have zero interactions and you would expect the photons to be randomly distributed over both ports. What actually happens is that the two photons always come out of the same port, but you do not know which one.

*Actually a great sign of cognitive dissonance: No matter what the outcome of an experiment is, you can explain it to fit you view.

So what would you call the interference pattern on the back plate, if not a form of measurement?

You can also measure where the wave isn't, using detectors, this builds a picture of a wave front without directly affecting the wave itself. IIRC correctly they are called squib detectors or something like that.

The duality comes from the way something is measured, it seems the observation itself is as important to the form of energy and matter as the substance intrinsic state.

in essence, if one uses energy to detect a wave it becomes something different but still wave like. Think of it like touching the ripples of a pond, each impart of energy creates waves of its own changing the nature of the wave.

It's true that one can't directly measure a wave, without causing interference or what some call "wave function collapse", in mathematical terms, or more precisely that which is explained by the uncertainty principle, but one can infer its form by it's effect. Just like many things in science and likewise quantum mechanics inference is a power tool tool.

 

[Lexicus]

So what would you call the interference pattern on the back plate, if not a form of measurement?

What that is actually measuring is the position of particles- not waves. The particles form a pattern that suggests they act as waves - and uppi is exactly correct, that latter part is a cognitive process and doesn't reflect reality.

 

[14thwarrior]

What that is actually measuring is the position of particles- not waves. The particles form a pattern that suggests they act as waves - and uppi is exactly correct, that latter part is a cognitive process and doesn't reflect reality.

That's not entirely true though is it, it depends on interpretation. If you believe in many worlds or Copenhagen, many minds, shut up and calculate, aka as Copenhagen lite the wave can be real or not depending on how you interpret the data. In that sense the interference pattern can be used to determine a stochastic picture of the wave that is real and not just a mathematical construct using the imaginary plane.

In some cases determinism rules in others stochastic or randomness and pure maths rule.

At the end of the day interpretation is aa philosophical veneer placed over the evidence, but it still raises very real concerns and, potentially a reality rather than an ideal mathematical construct.

As I said before you cannot measure the wave directly but you can infer its existence from its effect. If you try and measure it directly you create a particle like entity that strikes the back plate like a bullet from a gun, if you do not measure it and let it pass to the back plate, the interference fringes return to the picture. It's a moot point whether a photographic back plate is a measure but it is evidence of the wave.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

This never happens to me, as I am never wrong.

 

[14thwarrior]

This never happens to me, as I am never wrong.

Me neither I think I was wrong once when I was 2, but I might be mistaken...

 

[Tahuti]

What if you believe in, like, a quantum superposition of two contradictory ideas?

I'm inclined to believe that whatever you can think of, probably exists in an alternate dimension, somewhere.

Then again, I played too much The Longest Journey games, so take it with a grain of salt if you please.

 

[14thwarrior]

I'm inclined to believe that whatever you can think of, probably exists in an alternate dimension, somewhere.

Then again, I played too much The Longest Journey games, so take it with a grain of salt if you please.

That's the essence of the many worlds (and its alternative many minds) interpretation of quantum mechanics, which ironically makes the wave real and deterministic. The wave/particle exists in every possible state in infinite parallel universes. Because of that it is "deterministic". QM is pretty weird though.

Scientists take the many worlds interpretation very seriously, to the point where there is a general disagreement across the board as to what is really happening. And a sort of slap contest between those who follow the more conventional physics and people who don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

The wikis not bad and since it's pretty much philosophy they don't mangle science much more than usual.

Many worlds
Main article: Many-worlds interpretation

The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which a universal wavefunction obeys the same deterministic, reversible laws at all times; in particular there is no (indeterministic and irreversible) wavefunction collapse associated with measurement. The phenomena associated with measurement are claimed to be explained by decoherence, which occurs when states interact with the environment producing entanglement, repeatedly splitting the universe into mutually unobservable alternate histories—distinct universes within a greater multiverse. In this interpretation the wavefunction has objective reality.

Sounds like a bad sci fi plot but meh.

I think I just bored myself. lol

There is no way to measure light as a wave. In the end you always register photons on a detector and get shot noise on any wave you want to measure. What happens is that you only have to boxes in your mind (particles and waves) and depending on the light doing something that you find more compatible with one of these boxes you put it into that one. But this is just a cognitive process*, it does not describe reality.

Take for example the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect:Two photons with identical properties and zero relative phase impinging on a 50:50 beam splitter. If light was a wave, you would expect constructive interference in one output port and constructive in the other, so that both photons come out of one defined port. If light was particles, these would have zero interactions and you would expect the photons to be randomly distributed over both ports. What actually happens is that the two photons always come out of the same port, but you do not know which one.

*Actually a great sign of cognitive dissonance: No matter what the outcome of an experiment is, you can explain it to fit you view.

Exactly so but it depends. And yes the essence of experiment is in physics, rather blurred. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

In physics the definition of sound is a noise that can be perceived by the human ear.

I think we're all pretty much on the page what is in question is only the semantics.

As Niels Bohr once said:

"We can all agree that your theory is crazy, my only concern is, is it crazy enough to be true?"

Weird science.

 

[Lexicus]

That's not entirely true though is it, it depends on interpretation. If you believe in many worlds or Copenhagen, many minds, shut up and calculate, aka as Copenhagen lite the wave can be real or not depending on how you interpret the data.

I get all this, but you've sidestepped the issue which is that you can't measure the light as a wave.

 

[14thwarrior]

I get all this, but you've sidestepped the issue which is that you can't measure the light as a wave.

I Haven't at all the uncertainty principle part explains it. The evidence of the wave is inferred of course by the interference fringes. Measurement though makes the wave form uncertain but it does not necessarily say there is no wave form, quite the opposite in fact.

As I said whether you consider the photo back plate as a measurement is a moot point.

As I also said it depends on what interpretation you follow, you can see the evidence as deterministic and hence follow it back through the maths to the exact values and hence a backplate can infer an absolute reality with the wave functions extent, (wave function real, determined) or you can see it as stochastic and simply say the wave function is something unknowable. It all depends on your point of view. Both literally and figuratively in this case.

You can not of course directly measure the wave as I said for the reasons I said, but science is not bound that way. it can use inference too.

If physics only relied on exact measurement it would be dead now. The people who have developed these interpretations of stochastic or probabilistic mechanics and the maths involved, have though very hard about proof and evidence and measurement to the point where some have said inference makes the proof, and others have said that is nonsense. It all depends...

Wave/particle duality exists, it is not a mistake, it is not something anyone would argue about in physics. The essence of matter is clearly and provably both a wave and a particle, it shares the characteristics of both. QED

In essence what you seem to be saying, if I am not mistaken is no one has ever said or proved or shown light is a wave nor can they ever because of the nature of photons et al, this is of course false. Not just false it is clearly against all current scientific thinking. If you want to argue light is not a wave form or electrons or whatever, you are most welcome but the proofs and hence the evidence say otherwise.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Think about it?