addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1linklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Speaker Series: Dr. Sheldon Smith

  • Jul 27, 2014 · 4:00 PM
  • This location is no longer available

I am thrilled to announce that QPDG will be hosting its first guest speaker, Dr. Sheldon Smith!  Dr. Smith is a professor at UCLA, with an extensive list of publications, included below.

Dr. Smith will be presenting on the idea that Quantum Mechanics is incomplete--that it leaves something out when it describes nature, in particular, when it says that systems are in entangled superpositions.  He will briefly discuss the argument that Quantum Mechanics is incomplete as discussed in the famous 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen.  Dr. Smith will then describe why the simplest way of completing Quantum Mechanics cannot be adequate.

Note that that the style of the event will be "lecture with interruptions", as opposed to a distinct lecture and Q&A period.

I'm very excited for this event, and I hope you'll join us :)



Ph.D., Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 1998.Fields of interest: Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Physics, History of Science, Kant.Publications[CV]

"Causation in Classical Mechanics," forthcoming in the Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics.

"Does Kant Have a Pre-Newtonian Picture of Force in the Balance Argument? An account of how the balance argument works," Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science.

"Elementary Classical Mechanics and the Principle of the Composition of Causes," Synthese, 173 (3):[masked], 2010.

"Symmetries and the Explanation of Conservation Laws in the Light of the Inverse Problem in Lagrangian Mechanics," Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 39:[masked], 2008.

"Causation and its Relation to 'Causal Laws'," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 58 (4):[masked], 2007.

"Continuous Bodies, Impenetrability, and Contact Interactions: The View from the Applied Mathematics of Continuum Physics," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 58 (3):[masked], 2007.

"Special Cases, Composition of Causes, and the Complexity of Nature," Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38: 80-96, 2007.

"Are Instantaneous Velocities Real and Really Instantaneous? An Argument for the Affirmative," Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 34:[masked], 2003.

with John Earman and John Roberts, "Ceteris Paribus Lost ," Erkenntnis, 57:[masked], 2002.

"Violated Laws, Ceteris Paribus Clauses, and Capacities," Synthese, 130 (2):[masked], 2002.

"Models and the Unity of Classical Physics: Nancy Cartwright's Dappled World,"Philosophy of Science, 68:[masked], 2001.

"Resolving Russell's Anti-Realism About Causation," The Monist, 83(2):[masked], April 2000.



Join or login to comment.

  • Mitch

    @Chip: The gravity problem is that if we are using point particles, "r" doesn't *go* to zero but is literally zero every time there is a collision. That means an inverse square law literally requires division by zero. He could have added: using point particles brings into doubt the whole idea of particles colliding, rather than eternally passing *that* close to each other. And more surprisingly, if collisions *can* happen, classical mechanics doesn't tell us how to handle a simultaneous three way collision.

    August 1, 2014

    • Mitch

      Why are we talking about photons? Classically, all particles are point particles, not just photons. So "m" is not automatically zero, protons can be shot at each other, at electrons etc. and raise the question of what the theory predicts is the will happen gravitationally when particles collide. And the answer is gobbledygook because we find ourselves dividing by zero.

      August 3, 2014

    • Mitch

      Relativity predicted that photons and all other particles should be affected by gravity in a very interesting way: everything just travels in "straight lines.". It takes a little explaining to clarify what that means, and took some experimentation to convince scientists that Einstein was right, but that explains why even objects with no mass* respond to the gravity of objects that do.

      1 · August 3, 2014

  • Mitch

    Those problems fall under the category of "the theory breaks down in certain situations." He also mentioned that we can't solve Einstein's or Newton's equations for a system which actually has several things in it. This is a common, recurring problem in physics: generating pretty equations is not automatically the same thing as generating predictions, because we may not be able to solve those equations! (For those who like string theory, this is the only problem it really has -- we just don't have the skills or tools to get numbers using its equations. Yet?)

    The problem of why or when or even whether we can rely on "true" equations is a big one. If you want to know why he thinks our current apparently-true theories are going to prove wrong (in the picky sense of "wrong") look up the "pessimistic meta-induction."

    August 1, 2014

  • Ugo C.

    Here is a YouTube video from the recent World Science Festival panel on quantum mechanics, which took place in New York City just a couple of weeks ago:
    https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/GdqC2bVLesQ

    Very interesting debate, moderated by Brian Greene, on four Quantum Mechanics Interpretations: dynamic collapse, hidden variables, many worlds, and quantum bayesianism. Participants include philosopher of science David Albert and cosmologist Sean Carroll.

    2 · June 29, 2014

    • Ugo C.

      In 1997 Max Tegmark polled 48 participants of the conference “Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theory,” held at the University of Maryland, about their favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics. While the Copenhagen interpretation gathered the most votes, the many-worlds interpretation turned out to come in second. See http://arxiv.org/pdf/...­.

      1 · July 19, 2014

    • Ugo C.

      It's interesting to notice how much of current physics is getting into non-falsifiable territory. Other examples are the multiverse (by definition not observable), and string theory extra dimensions (in principle observable but in practice completely out of the question). Physicists and philosophers of science are having a great time debating whether all this is science or metaphysics. See for example "The multiverse as a scientific concept" at http://scientiasalon....­, and the article Falsifiability under http://edge.org/respo...­

      1 · July 29, 2014

  • Howard G.

    I really enjoyed Dr. Smith's presentation and his willingness to answer question afterwards.

    July 28, 2014

  • Howard G.

    I really enjoyed Dr. Smith's presentation and his willingness to answer question afterwards.

    July 28, 2014

  • David

    Thank you Vanessa for hosting, and Professor Smith for a most thought inspiring talk

    1 · July 28, 2014

  • Campbell

    I deeply regret that I cannot come today after all. I really wanted to be there for this terrific speaker! Trouble is I am just too unwell today to get down there. Sorry. Please forgive last minute notice. Will miss you all -- I love this group!

    July 27, 2014

  • A former member
    A former member

    It was awesome being my first meeting, and most people looked like theirs pictures posted on here!

    July 28, 2014

  • Katherine B.

    Speaker was credible and knowledgeable and conducted a great question-answer session. Keep up the good work. More is good, more is better.

    July 28, 2014

  • Ramak R.

    great meetup . thanks

    July 28, 2014

  • Kate

    EXCELLENT!

    July 28, 2014

  • Bill

    Excellent

    July 28, 2014

  • Laura T.

    I'm running about a half hour late :-(

    July 27, 2014

  • harriet l.

    I am so sorry that I am unable to make this meeting, and have to cancel at this late date. I sure hope to make the next session. Thanks so much for all that You do. I appreciate it very much.

    July 27, 2014

    • Vanessa

      Thanks for letting us know. See you next time!

      July 27, 2014

  • Katherine B.

    About locality. One needn't posit the existence of connections, just the possibility. As for your other two arguments, they rely heavily on the assumption of physical measurement without considering what space might be.

    July 26, 2014

  • Mitch

    By the way, does anyone else remember seeing a tee-shirt that said "reality, causality, locality--pick two" or am I conflating this topic with things like "we can do this job quickly, properly, cheaply--pick two"?

    1 · July 13, 2014

    • Katherine B.

      My tee-shirt says reality and causality.

      July 25, 2014

  • A former member
    A former member

    I was at the Yahoo Community room last Sunday 7/20 and I counted 63 chairs. If we arrange the chairs in the periphery of the room and dispense with the tables, there will be space for more than 45 attendees. And of course, some that have signed up will not show up.

    July 24, 2014

  • Mitch

    A reminder that QM can still surprise us: if you distribute three objects into two boxes, one box has to end up with more than one object in it. Unless ... quantum mechanics. (There are ways to prepare the three objects so that you will never find more than one in a box when you conduct this experiment.)

    https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/you-shouldn’t-try-pigeonhole-quantum-physics?mode=topic&context=43

    July 19, 2014

  • A former member
    A former member

    Darn. Going to be out of town again!

    July 15, 2014

  • Mitch

    I think whether something is "missing" from QM to properly explain entanglement is a slightly awkward question. We have to decide what we want explained. Nothing missing anything if QM is accepted as a different way of looking at things that predicts what we ask it to, so that physical locality becomes just a quaint feature of bygone theories which need not be accounted for. Maybe being part of a single system simply counts as a newer better version of "locality." Maybe pilot waves are the newer, better replacement. (A "post-localist" can still yearn for "missing bits" of QM, like the part that meshes the standard model with general relativity, so it isn't as simple as defining away awkwardness. We still want our theory to account for ... if not all relevant experimental observations, then something darn close.)

    July 13, 2014

    • A former member
      A former member

      We developed fear, so we wouldn't try to pet a lion, we developed courage so we can climb a tree for a fruit... we have not developed anything in relation to trying to understand quantum mechanics and why we need to besides trying to find where we came from and then thinking that will lead us to where we are going and most importantly why.

      July 13, 2014

    • A former member
      A former member

      The more me learn, the more we see lines, we start living inside a box. Imagine if we found out somehow all the stars in the universe were entangled since the big bang? Imagine if there exist two forms of gravity, Do we think like that? NO because we set ourselves up to think we understand what we understand yet using those same laws of physics and quantum physics can make that possible can't it? Branches upon branches upon branches...

      July 13, 2014

  • Campbell

    String theory plus Edward Witten. (Thanks, Denise.)

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-witten.html

    1 · June 24, 2014

    • A former member
      A former member

      This dude, Edward Witten needs to let his hair grow out. THAT would be epic. This guy thinks like Einstein did in his younger years. Without the limits and without the rules. Once you see a set of rules, you get stuck within your box for sure man.

      July 11, 2014

  • A former member
    A former member

    I wanted to share with you guys, my crude and "elementary school" attempt at the double slit experiment "switch". I would be happy to bring it with me to this meeting ... I know some of you will probably laugh at me but I don't care.

    here it is:
    Pix1: this is the USB microcontroller/laser and receiver box which will have the double slit experiment in it:

    http://webbycloud.com/science/20140706_231642.a.jpg

    Pix2: This is inside the receiver where the double slit experiment will go and the potentiometers are to enhance the signal from the interference pattern, photons that seem to diminish as they spread from what I see in pictures... if its needed:

    http://webbycloud.com/science/20140706_231728.a.jpg

    Pix3: white lines shows double slit experiment heading towards the IR phototransistors I used heading to transformer/outputs for processing:

    http://webbycloud.com/science/20140706_231832.s.jpg

    Thanks.

    July 10, 2014

    • Vanessa

      Very cool! As our meetings are limited to 2 hours, and we have a guest speaker, the next meeting is not a good time to share your experiment. If you would like to make a presentation to the group, please email me a proposal. See you on the 27th!

      1 · July 10, 2014

    • A former member
      A former member

      thanks and no worries of course, it still needs the double slit experiment in it but I will post my progress and anyone feel free to msg me about it. This is all for fun and whatever else comes from it! :) I look forward to some exciting meetings.

      July 11, 2014

  • A former member
    A former member

    Hi guys, I'm happy to say I spent a whole month with my 3 awesome kids. They fly back home to mom July 14th so I will make it to this meeting and am excited about the guest speaker! I also wanted to share this paper with all of you in regards to the delayed choice experiment I just came across and how supposedly it doesn't imply retrocausality, please anyone with comments please post away! By David Ellerman of UC riverside. http://webbycloud.com/science/EllermanDavid2012Man_QuantumEraser2.pdf

    For fun, this is also the "idea" I came up with and I'm trying to do: http://webbycloud.com/science/1t1.jpg

    something I thought was cool:
    ⟨|ψ,ϕ|ψ,ϕ⟩ = ⟨1|1⟩⟨+|+⟩ + ⟨2|2⟩⟨−|−⟩ + ei(k′ + k)x⟨1|2⟩⟨+|−⟩ + e−i(k′ + k)x⟨2|1⟩⟨−|+⟩.

    Please excuse my noobsNESS! I'm still trying to understand it all!

    (in the style of dorthy from the wizard of OZ):
    Quantum, Superposition & entanglement oh MY!

    July 10, 2014

  • Vanessa

    EVERYONE, PLEASE NOTE THIS EVENT HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO JULY 27

    2 · July 9, 2014

    • A former member
      A former member

      Wow Vanessa, thank you so much for the guest speaker!!! It sounds exciting! I can't wait to come and being my 1st visit! :)

      1 · July 10, 2014

  • Campbell

    Just read the topic list/schedule excel file and have no idea how to interpret the way it's numbered. Sorry, it's a mystery to me where we're supposed to be in this list. Perhaps some dates would be helpful in any future entries?

    June 24, 2014

  • Julian K.

    Sorry. I just located your email Vanessa. And as you indicated I found the list of possible discussion topics, starting at the top of most of our pages immediately under the heading "Quantum Physics Discussion Group" that appears on a red background : More/Files/Physics Topic List/

    June 23, 2014

  • A former member
    A former member

    I would like to hear someone talk about retrocausality or anything ever heard of like: using Superfluidity in conjunction to slow down or stop an entangled photon while doing the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment.

    May 13, 2014

42 went

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy