Global warming update: Coldest April in 113 years ...
ultr...@gmail.com
Neil Rieck
<ultr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176245660....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?pageid=135336&src=gennews
>
Your link takes us to an article titled "Weather Trends International
Forecast Highlights" but the page only contains localized weather reports
for the USA.
When you watch weather reports for Europe for the past 4 months you'll
notice that it has been very warm all winter with virtually no snow (and
very little ski business). Shifting weather patterns are one prediction of
global warming but that doesn't mean that every place on Earth will be
warmer all the time.
NSR
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
David J Dachtera
>
> http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?pageid=135336&src=gennews
Um, Bob?
- P L E A S E -
...find something constructive to do with your time...
...pretty please with sugar on it?
--
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/
Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/
Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/
Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/
Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/
Dave Froble
Europe? What you talking about? boob don't do urpe or any of those
places. what continent is urpe on? you trying to confuse boob?
youse can't confuse boob, he knows gOD created the US of A and the rest
is just anti-christ fiction.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: da...@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Bill Todd
...
> youse can't confuse boob, he knows gOD created the US of A and the rest
> is just anti-christ fiction.
Abso-friggin'-lutely! And if God had meant for boob to think for
himself, He'd have given him a brain.
All part of the Master Plan, you see. People who *do* think for
themselves were cobbled up merely as a kind of Old-Testament-style trial
for boob, but he's proven himself more than up to it (as have so many
others like him, though one must admit that he's perhaps just a bit more
'out there' than most).
Yes, somewhat unfortunately he's 'in here' as well. But just think
about it: if he weren't, how many here would comfortably assume that
people like him must exist only as caricatures foisted upon them by the
So-Called Liberal Media? So even boob has his place, as an Instructive
Example to the rest of us.
- bill
Andrew
Good point, I had always thought that the creationist, religious right
had been invented to persuade naughty children to eat up their greens
and brush their teeth before bed time. Frightening but not real. Bob
has proved this theory to be wrong, my only hope is that he is really
an extra from Deliverance who has got a bit too into the part.
Regards
Andrew Harrison
> - bill
JF Mezei
> Good point, I had always thought that the creationist, religious right
> had been invented to persuade naughty children to eat up their greens
> and brush their teeth before bed time. Frightening but not real. Bob
> has proved this theory to be wrong, my only hope is that he is really
> an extra from Deliverance who has got a bit too into the part.
I have come to be scared of very religious people. However, in the
creation vs evolution thing there is room for debate.
Consider genetically engineered crops that resist better to insects.
These were human induced genetic mutations. However, since those crops
are stronger/better resistant, millenia from now, it would seem logical
to conclude that this variant of wheat evolved naturally/by chance and
since it was superior, it survived and thrived.
Today, we look at human genetic makeup and can pretty categorically say
that we share something like 97% of our DNA with squirrels. (except
those allergic to peanuts :-). So there is strong evidence that we
evevolved from the same root in the mammal branch of evolution.
However, what is not clear is what caused the various mutations that
resulted in homo sapiens. They could have been purely random, or they
could have been introduced artificially by other beings visiting our
planet. Just like that insect resistant wheat could have occured
randomly, or modified by humans.
So creation and evolution can co-exist.
We know about the changes to our DNA over time. We don't (and probably
cannot) know how/why those changes occured.
Consider also that simple mating may create gene combinations never seen
before. It is theoretically possible that 2 persons with an extremely
rare recessive gene who mate may end up having an offspring with a never
before seen genetic makeup (naturally blue hair for instance)
n.r...@sympatico.ca
news:1176369680.5...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...[...snip...]
>
> Good point, I had always thought that the creationist, religious right
> had been invented to persuade naughty children to eat up their greens
> and brush their teeth before bed time. Frightening but not real. Bob
> has proved this theory to be wrong, my only hope is that he is really
> an extra from Deliverance who has got a bit too into the part.
>
All joking aside, on the Discovery Channel last week I saw some pre-
Easter
bible documentaries stating that:
1) 100 Million Americans believed in the Rapture (this number is
highly
suspect to me unless "believed" is replaced with "heard of")
2) many Americans believed that this would be the last generation of
people
before the second coming
3) many Americans believed that the anti-Christ will destroy much of
the
world in the years following the rapture
Now we all know that TV documentaries are not peer-reviewed
publications,
but if any reasonable percentage of these numbers are true, then it is
no
wonder why many people don't think the world is worth saving.
Most people I bump into, including people in this newsgroup, are
middle of
the road when it comes to religion, politics, science, economy, war,
etc.
When presented with contentious issues like man-made global warming,
most
people want to read the published facts then debate the consequences
and
alternatives.
Now if any of Bob's friends are getting ready to send me another
torrent of
responses telling me how I'm lost, please first click on this
following
link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
NSR
n.r...@sympatico.ca
news:7e405$461e04d8$cef8887a$27...@TEKSAVVY.COM...
> Andrew wrote:
[...snip...]
>
> I have come to be scared of very religious people. However, in the
> creation vs evolution thing there is room for debate.
>
> Consider genetically engineered crops that resist better to insects. These
> were human induced genetic mutations. However, since those crops are
> stronger/better resistant, millenia from now, it would seem logical to
> conclude that this variant of wheat evolved naturally/by chance and since
> it was superior, it survived and thrived.
>
What a coincidence. I just discovered this American who won the Nobel
Peace
prize in 1970 for saving over one billion human lives and yet hardly
anyone
knows his name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
Check out the article then let me know if you still think that organic
foods
good are better than GM (franken) foods.
Now to your point, these genes existed in nature before man started
tampering. I am unaware of anyone designing a new gene from scratch
(but it
could happen one day). BTW, Norman Borlaug was only involved with
crossing,
not genetically engineering.
>
> Today, we look at human genetic makeup and can pretty categorically say
> that we share something like 97% of our DNA with squirrels. (except those
> allergic to peanuts :-). So there is strong evidence that we evevolved
> from the same root in the mammal branch of evolution.
>
Yep. 50% of human DNA is similar to yeast. I don't think this is a
"proof
for creationism" but the door is now open a crack where the
inquisitive mind
is wondering.
>
> However, what is not clear is what caused the various mutations that
> resulted in homo sapiens. They could have been purely random, or they
> could have been introduced artificially by other beings visiting our
> planet. Just like that insect resistant wheat could have occured randomly,
> or modified by humans.
>
Natural selection is the main driving force behind evolution but
sometimes
man will intervene with unnatural selection. Now here is the big
question:
is there a self organizing force built into the universe which runs in
the
opposite direction of entropy?
NSR
n.r...@sympatico.ca
"Andrew" <andrew_...@symantec.com> wrote in message
news:1176369680.5...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On 12 Apr, 04:17, Bill Todd <billt...@metrocast.net> wrote:
>> Dave Froble wrote:
>
[...snip...]
>
> Good point, I had always thought that the creationist, religious right
> had been invented to persuade naughty children to eat up their greens
> and brush their teeth before bed time. Frightening but not real. Bob
> has proved this theory to be wrong, my only hope is that he is really
> an extra from Deliverance who has got a bit too into the part.
>
All joking aside, on the Discovery Channel last week I saw some pre-
Easter bible documentaries stating that:
1) 100 Million Americans believed in the Rapture (this number is
highly suspect to me unless "believed" is replaced with "heard of")
2) many Americans believed that this would be the last generation of
people before the second coming
3) many Americans believed that the anti-Christ will destroy much of
the world in the years following the rapture
Now we all know that TV documentaries are not peer-reviewed
publications, but if any reasonable percentage of these numbers are
true, then it is no wonder why many people don't think the world is
worth saving.
Most people I bump into, including people in this newsgroup, are
middle of the road when it comes to religion, politics, science,
economy, war, etc.When presented with contentious issues like man-made
n.r...@sympatico.ca
gen...@marblecliff.com
> Andrew wrote:
> > Good point, I had always thought that the creationist, religious right
> > had been invented to persuade naughty children to eat up their greens
> > and brush their teeth before bed time. Frightening but not real. Bob
> > has proved this theory to be wrong, my only hope is that he is really
> > an extra from Deliverance who has got a bit too into the part.
>
> I have come to be scared of very religious people.
why? Maybe it is because they are right and you are living wrong
and hell is real? That is called your conscious ... it is the Holy
Spirit convicting you of your sins ... I cannot force you to change,
only warn you ... only you can admit you are living in sin and
ask God to forgive and change you ...
> However, what is not clear is what caused the various mutations that
> resulted in homo sapiens. They could have been purely random, or they
> could have been introduced artificially by other beings visiting our
> planet.
or by a God that the bible describes ...
R.A.Omond
> On Apr 12, 6:06 am, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> [...snip...]
> >
>>I have come to be scared of very religious people.
>
> why? Maybe it is because they are right and you are living wrong
> and hell is real?
(I know I shouldn't ...)
Or maybe it's because there's much evidence that such very religious
people have a great track record of causing *lots* of real problems
for their fellow humans (like wars and large numbers of deaths) ?
I am equally scared of very violent people armed with guns/knives.
Maybe they, too, are right, and I am "living wrong".
> That is called your conscious
You probably mean "conscience" (but given your normal spelling and
grammar, I'm guessing that English is not your native language).
Every time I hear my conscience, I just "give a little whistle"
(thanks to Jimminy Cricket).
> ... it is the Holy
> Spirit convicting you of your sins ... I cannot force you to change,
> only warn you ... only you can admit you are living in sin and
> ask God to forgive and change you ...
Guilty as charged, m'lud. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is, however,
very forgiving. I have been touched by His Noodly Appendage.
>>However, what is not clear is what caused the various mutations that
>>resulted in homo sapiens. They could have been purely random, or they
>>could have been introduced artificially by other beings visiting our
>>planet.
>
> or by a God that the bible describes ...
You mean like the Flying Spaghetti Monster ? Or any other particular
god ?
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote in message
>news:7e405$461e04d8$cef8887a$27...@TEKSAVVY.COM...
>> Andrew wrote:
>[...snip...]
>>
>> creation vs evolution thing there is room for debate.
>>
>> Consider genetically engineered crops that resist better to insects. These
>> were human induced genetic mutations. However, since those crops are
>> stronger/better resistant, millenia from now, it would seem logical to
>> conclude that this variant of wheat evolved naturally/by chance and since
>> it was superior, it survived and thrived.
>>
and livestock have been bred for attributes which we want not for attributes
which would benefit those species in the wild.
Resistence to weedkillers which the crop would never encounter if it wasn't for
the farmer spraying them with it to keep down other competing plants would not
benefit the plant if it was competing in a natural environment. The weedkiller
resistent variant would probably die out since it's resistence probably diverts
resources which it would otherwise use for it's own growth and reproduction
and hence it would not compete so effectivly against variants which did not
have that resistence.
Grains and other plants have been bred to increase their yield for our
consumption not for the reproductive benefit of those plants. In the absense of
Man they would either become extinct or gradually change to a lower yielding
but more reproductively fit form.
Similar considerations apply to our livestock.
>
>What a coincidence. I just discovered this American who won the Nobel
>Peace
>prize in 1970 for saving over one billion human lives and yet hardly
>anyone
>knows his name.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
>Check out the article then let me know if you still think that organic
>foods
>good are better than GM (franken) foods.
>
>Now to your point, these genes existed in nature before man started
>tampering. I am unaware of anyone designing a new gene from scratch
>(but it
>could happen one day). BTW, Norman Borlaug was only involved with
>crossing,
>not genetically engineering.
>
Although Genetic engineering uses existing genes it often transfers them
between species which are very far apart on the evolutionary tree.
(and of course for obvious reasons the genes transfered are not those naturally
shared between the organisms).
>>
>> Today, we look at human genetic makeup and can pretty categorically say
>> that we share something like 97% of our DNA with squirrels. (except those
>> allergic to peanuts :-). So there is strong evidence that we evevolved
>> from the same root in the mammal branch of evolution.
>>
>
>Yep. 50% of human DNA is similar to yeast. I don't think this is a
>"proof
>for creationism" but the door is now open a crack where the
>inquisitive mind
>is wondering.
>
>>
>> However, what is not clear is what caused the various mutations that
>> resulted in homo sapiens. They could have been purely random, or they
>> could have been introduced artificially by other beings visiting our
>> planet. Just like that insect resistant wheat could have occured randomly,
>> or modified by humans.
>>
We know at least some of the causes of random mutations (and have used them to
create mutated versions of fruit flies, mice etc to aid in improving our
understanding of genetics).
Although it is possible that some superhuman outside agency created the
specific mutations necessary for the evolution of homo sapiens Occams razor
would suggest that random mutation is a more likely explanation.
>
>Natural selection is the main driving force behind evolution but
>sometimes
>man will intervene with unnatural selection. Now here is the big
>question:
>is there a self organizing force built into the universe which runs in
>the
>opposite direction of entropy?
>
Probably not what you meant but if you trace back the history of the Universe
then according to the law of entropy the earliest universe must be in a low
entropy state (since entropy always increases).
However the very early universe is generally pictured as highly energetic and
highly uniform which on the face of it would appear to be a high entropy state.
The only explanation of this I've ever heard attempting to explain this is to
state that Gravity means that the high entropy state is actually particles
clumped together rather than the uniform state and hence that the uniform state
of the early universe is actually a low entropy state.
Hence if you think of the direction of entropy as the destruction of structure
then gravity can be seen as a self organising force built into the universe
which runs in the opposite direction and creates structure ie galaxies, planets
etc
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>NSR
>
>
Andrew
> On Apr 12, 6:06 am, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> > Andrew wrote:
> > > Good point, I had always thought that the creationist, religious right
> > > had been invented to persuade naughty children to eat up their greens
> > > and brush their teeth before bed time. Frightening but not real. Bob
> > > has proved this theory to be wrong, my only hope is that he is really
> > > an extra from Deliverance who has got a bit too into the part.
>
> > I have come to be scared of very religious people.
>
> why? Maybe it is because they are right and you are living wrong
> and hell is real? That is called your conscious ... it is the Holy
> Spirit convicting you of your sins ... I cannot force you to change,
> only warn you ... only you can admit you are living in sin and
> ask God to forgive and change you ...
>
I am trying to memorize this, it could be the basis of a really scary
threat for my 4 year old.
On second thoughts lets not.
Regards
Andrew
Neil Rieck
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote in message
news:7e405$461e04d8$cef8887a$27...@TEKSAVVY.COM...
> Andrew wrote:
[...snip...]
>
> creation vs evolution thing there is room for debate.
>
> Consider genetically engineered crops that resist better to insects. These
> were human induced genetic mutations. However, since those crops are
> stronger/better resistant, millenia from now, it would seem logical to
> conclude that this variant of wheat evolved naturally/by chance and since
> it was superior, it survived and thrived.
>
What a coincidence. I just discovered this American who won the Nobel Peace
prize in 1970 for saving over one billion human lives and yet hardly anyone
knows his name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
Check out the article then let me know if you still think that organic foods
good are better than GM (franken) foods.
Now to your point, these genes existed in nature before man started
tampering. I am unaware of anyone designing a new gene from scratch (but it
could happen one day). BTW, Norman Borlaug was only involved with crossing,
not genetically engineering.
>
> Today, we look at human genetic makeup and can pretty categorically say
> that we share something like 97% of our DNA with squirrels. (except those
> allergic to peanuts :-). So there is strong evidence that we evevolved
> from the same root in the mammal branch of evolution.
>
Yep. 50% of human DNA is similar to yeast. I don't think this is a "proof
for creationism" but the door is now open a crack where the inquisitive mind
is wondering.
>
> However, what is not clear is what caused the various mutations that
> resulted in homo sapiens. They could have been purely random, or they
> could have been introduced artificially by other beings visiting our
> planet. Just like that insect resistant wheat could have occured randomly,
> or modified by humans.
>
Natural selection is the main driving force behind evolution but sometimes
man will intervene with unnatural selection. Now here is the big question:
is there a self organizing force built into the universe which runs in the
opposite direction of entropy?
NSR
Neil Rieck
"Andrew" <andrew_...@symantec.com> wrote in message
news:1176369680.5...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Good point, I had always thought that the creationist, religious right
> had been invented to persuade naughty children to eat up their greens
> and brush their teeth before bed time. Frightening but not real. Bob
> has proved this theory to be wrong, my only hope is that he is really
> an extra from Deliverance who has got a bit too into the part.
>
All joking aside, on the Discovery Channel last week I saw some pre-Easter
bible documentaries stating that:
1) 100 Million Americans believed in the Rapture (this number is highly
suspect to me unless "believed" is replaced with "heard of")
2) many Americans believed that this would be the last generation of people
before the second coming
3) many Americans believed that the anti-Christ will destroy much of the
world in the years following the rapture
Now we all know that TV documentaries are not peer-reviewed publications,
but if any reasonable percentage of these numbers are true, then it is no
wonder why many people don't think the world is worth saving.
Most people I bump into, including people in this newsgroup, are middle of
the road when it comes to religion, politics, science, economy, war, etc.
When presented with contentious issues like man-made global warming, most
people want to read the published facts then debate the consequences and
alternatives.
Now if any of Bob's friends are getting ready to send me another torrent of
responses telling me how I'm lost, please first click on this following
link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
NSR
Doug Phillips
> gen...@marblecliff.com wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 6:06 am, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> > [...snip...]
>
> >>I have come to be scared of very religious people.
>
> > why? Maybe it is because they are right and you are living wrong
> > and hell is real?
>
> (I know I shouldn't ...)
>
> Or maybe it's because there's much evidence that such very religious
> people have a great track record of causing *lots* of real problems
"> for their fellow humans (like wars and large numbers of deaths) ?
>
> I am equally scared of very violent people armed with guns/knives.
> Maybe they, too, are right, and I am "living wrong".
>
> > That is called your conscious
>
> You probably mean "conscience" (but given your normal spelling and
> grammar, I'm guessing that English is not your native language).
>
> Every time I hear my conscience, I just "give a little whistle"
> (thanks to Jimminy Cricket).
>
> > ... it is the Holy
> > Spirit convicting you of your sins ... I cannot force you to change,
> > only warn you ... only you can admit you are living in sin and
> > ask God to forgive and change you ...
>
> Guilty as charged, m'lud. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is, however,
> very forgiving. I have been touched by His Noodly Appendage.
>
Amen, Brother. May the blessed sauce of the Great Noodly Pasta nourish
your soul forever.
> >>However, what is not clear is what caused the various mutations that
> >>resulted in homo sapiens. They could have been purely random, or they
> >>could have been introduced artificially by other beings visiting our
> >>planet.
>
> > or by a God that the bible describes ...
>
> You mean like the Flying Spaghetti Monster ? Or any other particular
> god ?
A fanatic's belief, like that expressed by our marblecliff-genius,
leaves no room for doubt or question. The ironic teachings of the FSM
are lost upon such minds.
Only they can hear GODs TRUE word, and all others hear the voice of
Satan. This belief is and has always been the justification for
selfish acts.
If most people who profess belief in their Holy Book actually took
time to try and understand what it says --- not just memorize a few
selective scriptures that support their twisted belief --- they
wouldn't go about attacking others.
Doug Phillips
Consider this well known verse, Ecclesiastes 3:1:
"For everything there is a reason, a time for every matter under
heaven."
Now, Mr. marblecliff-genius, go study the various translations or that
scripture from the original script. Oh, yes, there are many different
translations of "God's Word" --- or did your think He spoke to the
authors in the King's English? Or did you think He actually took quill
to parchment and wrote the Book Himself? Or do you not know the
history of your Holy Book.
Now, how does that scripture conflict with the belief in free-will?
How about cause-and-effect? How about the Big-Bang? Can you name one
thing that exists that has no past and no reason for it's current
state? Have you considered that the force which binds energy together
to form a quark is the same force that binds together all things in
the universe, and if the Big Bang did happen (whether God-made or
not), that bit of energy is now in the only place that it could be
because of where it was then the BB happened?
Go ahead; try to find a random event. You can't. There is no random.
There is chaos, but not random. Divine intervention? Supernatural?
Quantum coupling & entanglement? Those are some terms we use to
describe forces we can't (yet) measure. If we accept Divine
intervention as the cause of an event, then we must back-trace the
causes for that Divine being's actions, don't you see? No act is
random. Why are you wearing those shoes? (whether you're wearing shoes
or not, please don't answer that here!)
Consider the Book of Genesis, if you must. How long is one of God's
days? How can anyone who believes in an All-Powerful, All-Knowing
Creator think that man's puny mind could even imagine God's timescale.
A day? What was a day when there was no earth to rotate and revolve
around a non existent sun? Or, does your God have blue eyes and a
white beard and sit on a cloud? By saying He created us "in his own
image" doesn't that include "mental"? So, by that statement, it seems
He gave us a mind to question and search and try to understand the
universe. Or don't you believe the scriptures?
Go read your book again, Mr. marblecliff-genius. Then spend time
reading some of the books written by great thinkers and people who
actually earned the title of genius; people who actually took the time
to try and understand the scriptures. If you hear a voice telling you
to resist understanding, it's not God's.
JF Mezei
> Now to your point, these genes existed in nature before man started
> tampering. I am unaware of anyone designing a new gene from scratch
> (but it could happen one day). BTW, Norman Borlaug was only involved
> with crossing,
> not genetically engineering.
If you take code snippets from a dozen programs and merge them into a
single program, does this not form a new program ?
If you take genes from an organ that produces insulin and merge it into
a plant's genetic makeup, (resulting in a plant that produces insulin),
does this not form a new "program" ? (and yes, researchers think they
may have succeeded in creating an insulin producing plant).
Our DNA knowledge and experience is very crude right now.
JF Mezei
> Although it is possible that some superhuman outside agency created the
> specific mutations necessary for the evolution of homo sapiens Occams razor
> would suggest that random mutation is a more likely explanation.
This is the part where faith comes in (in the good way). Because this is
something science cannot (yet) prove, the door remains open for that
outside agency having artificially meddled with genetic changes. But we
can only "beleive" this (faith), we cannot prove this.
We know it is possible that random mutations ended up creating the
current crop of lifeforms on this planet without anyone else meddling.
But again, we cannot prove this. When you look at the odds of those
random mutations, it is quite easy to *believe* that perhaps it was not
all random.
gen...@marblecliff.com
>
> A fanatic's belief, like that expressed by our marblecliff-genius,
> leaves no room for doubt or question. The ironic teachings of the FSM
> are lost upon such minds.
oh you can doubt all you want, unfortunately the bible continues
to be proven true as an accurate version of history and as is now
pointing also an accurate version of future events ...
> Only they can hear GODs TRUE word, and all others hear the voice of
> Satan. This belief is and has always been the justification for
> selfish acts.
no one has to hear God ... you can read everything he has said for
yourself in the bible ... weither you can read and comprehend is
another matter ...
gen...@marblecliff.com
>
> Now, Mr. marblecliff-genius, go study the various translations or that
> scripture from the original script. Oh, yes, there are many different
> translations of "God's Word" --- or did your think He spoke to the
> authors in the King's English? Or did you think He actually took quill
> to parchment and wrote the Book Himself? Or do you not know the
> history of your Holy Book.
the King James version is an accurate translation ... greek is still
greek ... there are only translation problems for those who do not
want to accept the translation ...
> Consider the Book of Genesis, if you must. How long is one of God's
> days?
second Peter 3:8
"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with
the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. "
AEF
Say what? Energy that binds together to form a quark? We are not at
that level of understanding yet, I don't think.
> not), that bit of energy is now in the only place that it could be
> because of where it was then the BB happened?
>
> Go ahead; try to find a random event. You can't. There is no
Sure you can. Quantum mechanics is full of random events. Take a
radioactive substance like uranium. It will emit alpha particles
(which are really Helium nuclei). There is no way to tell which atom
will be the next to emit an alpha particle. It is random, but the
randomness obeys the statisctics forced upon it by its wave function.
Another example: Light going through glass. Maybe 4 percent of the
light is reflected -- 96% is transmitted. But light is made of
photons. So if, say, 1000 photons travel towards a piece of glass,
approx. 40 will be refelcted. Sometimes it may be 36 reflected. Other
times it may be 42, but the long term average will be 40. Then the
question becomes: Which photons will be reflected?
Suppose one photon travles toward the glass. Will it go through or be
reflected. There is no way to tell. It is random. Even Nature hereself
doesn't know until it happens. See the Feynman video part I for more
details. (www.feynman.com)
Oh, and quantum mechanics has this problem of not being strictly
causal. This is what bothered Einstein so much about QM (which he
himself made major contributions to in its early days!). As a result
he said, "God does not play dice." Well, "He" does, and sometimes "He"
throws them where you can't see them.
And amazingly enough, due to Ehrenfest's theroem, quantum mechanics
predicts good old classical mechanics (Newtonian mechanics if you
prefer, or our regular familiar world) at the macroscopic level.
As Feynman says, the rules of quantum mechanics are so screwy, you
can't believe them. But quantum mechanics is the most amazingly
successful theory of which I am aware.
Not that any of this gives any credence to Bob's posts!
random.
> There is chaos, but not random. Divine intervention? Supernatural?
> Quantum coupling & entanglement? Those are some terms we use to
> describe forces we can't (yet) measure. If we accept Divine
> intervention as the cause of an event, then we must back-trace the
> causes for that Divine being's actions, don't you see? No act is
> random. Why are you wearing those shoes? (whether you're wearing shoes
> or not, please don't answer that here!)
>
> Consider the Book of Genesis, if you must. How long is one of God's
> days? How can anyone who believes in an All-Powerful, All-Knowing
> Creator think that man's puny mind could even imagine God's timescale.
> A day? What was a day when there was no earth to rotate and revolve
> around a non existent sun? Or, does your God have blue eyes and a
> white beard and sit on a cloud? By saying He created us "in his own
> image" doesn't that include "mental"? So, by that statement, it seems
> He gave us a mind to question and search and try to understand the
> universe. Or don't you believe the scriptures?
>
> Go read your book again, Mr. marblecliff-genius. Then spend time
> reading some of the books written by great thinkers and people who
> actually earned the title of genius; people who actually took the time
> to try and understand the scriptures. If you hear a voice telling you
> to resist understanding, it's not God's.
AEF
JF Mezei
mutations done by engineers who changed code until it compiled cleanly ?
In Red Drawrf, did "Cat" really evolve from the ship's cat ? Or did the
producers create him ?
If I leave some moss in a jar and water it regularly, how long before if
evolves into boop ? :-) Once done, will I be considered its creator, or
just a witness to his evolution ?
gen...@marblecliff.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bill Todd
> On Apr 12, 8:02 am, "R.A.Omond" <Roy.Om...@BlueBubble.UK.Com> wrote:
...
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is, however,
>> very forgiving. I have been touched by His Noodly Appendage.
>>
>
> Amen, Brother. May the blessed sauce of the Great Noodly Pasta nourish
> your soul forever.
And, unlike the case with so many religious beliefs, this one has real
basis in scientific fact (at least if one connects the health of the
soul with the health of the body): look up the virtues of lycopene
(unless you were talking about a white sauce...).
- bill
Neil Rieck
>
> Was VMS created, or did it evolve from Unix through random code mutations
> done by engineers who changed code until it compiled cleanly ?
>
That would be an example of unnatural selection :-)
But if those engineers created VMS from scratch, then analogy would be
closer to the Genesis story (if a fundamentalist) or the Big Bang (if a
modernist)
:-)
Neil Rieck
<gen...@marblecliff.com> wrote in message
news:1176433527.6...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 12, 2:22 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 7:37 am, gen...@marblecliff.com wrote:
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
>
I'm familiar with this Christian Fundamentalist web site (many cousins have
been sending me links for a couple of years now). One big problem I have
with these articles is that they start with the position that "the Bible is
literally true, word-for-word", then go off on a tangent attempting to prove
their position.
Scientific proof of "bible publishing" would involve the archaeological
record. And yet all peer-reviewed scholars tell us that the bible was
written between 2 and 5 BCE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament
For example: There is no record of Jews "remembering the Sabbath" until they
were taken into captivity in Babylon (where not working "one day a week" was
observed). So did this "commandment" come from Moses or Babylon? (Answer: No
body knows but only the fundamentalists care)
In the early 1600s the Roman Papacy used literal quotes from the bible to
prosecute Galileo. At that time, most of the Christian world was convinced
that the church was right while Galileo was wrong. Today we know that the
reverse is true and yet no one I know is saying let's throw away the Bible.
Most people I know believe there is a god but people seem split between a
genesis story in 4004 BC and the big bang 14 Billion years ago. What version
is correct? (Answer: No body knows but only the fundamentalists care)
AEF
> <gen...@marblecliff.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176433527.6...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 12, 2:22 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> On Apr 12, 7:37 am, gen...@marblecliff.com wrote:
>
> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
>
> I'm familiar with this Christian Fundamentalist web site (many cousins have
> been sending me links for a couple of years now). One big problem I have
> with these articles is that they start with the position that "the Bible is
> literally true, word-for-word", then go off on a tangent attempting to prove
> their position.
>
> Scientific proof of "bible publishing" would involve the archaeological
> record. And yet all peer-reviewed scholars tell us that the bible was
> written between 2 and 5
That's between 5the century BCE and 2nd century BCE. I just looked it
up as I couldn't believe the whole thing was written in 3 yeaers or
less.
BCE.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament
> For example: There is no record of Jews "remembering the Sabbath" until they
> were taken into captivity in Babylon (where not working "one day a week" was
> observed). So did this "commandment" come from Moses or Babylon? (Answer: No
> body knows but only the fundamentalists care)
Historians care.
>
> In the early 1600s the Roman Papacy used literal quotes from the bible to
> prosecute Galileo. At that time, most of the Christian world was convinced
> that the church was right while Galileo was wrong. Today we know that the
> reverse is true and yet no one I know is saying let's throw away the Bible.
> Most people I know believe there is a god but people seem split between a
> genesis story in 4004 BC and the big bang 14 Billion years ago. What version
> is correct? (Answer: No body knows but only the fundamentalists care)
Astrophysicists and cosmologists care.
>
> NSR
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
AEF
Doug Phillips
see it yet.
On Apr 12, 8:21 pm, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I figured I'd hear from you:-)
I presume you mean we haven't yet dissected a quark in the lab? Ok.
Most accept that M = E / C**2
Most accept that at some level, whether quark (or sub-quark?), there
is pure energy. Or, at least some accept that as highly probable.
There are some who believe that the force binding that energy is the
universal force. The effects of distance, density and relative motion
we observe as EMFand gravity.
Many search for exotic answers and conjure strings and membranes and
folded dimensions and then something else to explain why those don't
quite explain reality.
> > not), that bit of energy is now in the only place that it could be
> > because of where it was then the BB happened?
>
> > Go ahead; try to find a random event. You can't. There is no
>
> Sure you can. Quantum mechanics is full of random events. Take a
> radioactive substance like uranium. It will emit alpha particles
> (which are really Helium nuclei). There is no way to tell which atom
> will be the next to emit an alpha particle. It is random, but the
> randomness obeys the statisctics forced upon it by its wave function.
>
Let's establish what I mean by random. A random event cannot be
predicted or reproduced. It has no cause. Events can appear to be
random because we can't detect the cause, but that does not mean there
is no cause. If we view a micro-event at a macro-scale (or vice versa)
it can appear random. If we can identify every variable --- repeat:
*every* variable --- that can influence the event, we can reliably
predict every outcome. If we could control those variables, we could
control the outcome. A small change in one variable can often cause a
large change in the result. If we aren't aware of that variable, we
see random. This defines a "chaotic" system.
To accept an event as "random", one must believe that *all* event
variables have been accounted for, yet the result has occurred counter
to their influence.
.
Understanding that, one can adjust the focus of observation and use
chaotic results as random data. Like we write & use a random number
generator program knowing that the results are not truly random; just
close enough for our purposes.
> Another example: Light going through glass. Maybe 4 percent of the
> light is reflected -- 96% is transmitted. But light is made of
> photons. So if, say, 1000 photons travel towards a piece of glass,
> approx. 40 will be refelcted. Sometimes it may be 36 reflected. Other
> times it may be 42, but the long term average will be 40. Then the
> question becomes: Which photons will be reflected?
>
> Suppose one photon travles toward the glass. Will it go through or be
> reflected. There is no way to tell. It is random.
Observe at the scale of the photon and particles in the glass and see
that each photon strikes differently. See the motion of atomic /
subatomic particles in the glass. Follow a particle and watch as a
photo strikes it. The reactions are not random. We just can't follow
all of the variables. Again, it's our inability to completely observe
the event that causes it to seem random.
> Even Nature hereself
> doesn't know until it happens. See the Feynman video part I for more
> details. (www.feynman.com)
>
Well, I don't think nature has an ego or a conscious mind, but it does
have a near infinite number of variables.
Feynman is just one of the great thinkers I enjoy. You mean the QED
lectures from '79? I'll try to set aside some time to watch them, but
I don't know when that'll be. I'm sure I must have read some excerpts.
I wonder how his ideas might have grown since 1988.
The thing about dead scientists (well, aside from the obvious;-) is
they aren't around anymore to argue a point or to adjust their point
of view. We can stand on their shoulders, but they can't climb up on
ours.
> Oh, and quantum mechanics has this problem of not being strictly
> causal. This is what bothered Einstein so much about QM (which he
> himself made major contributions to in its early days!). As a result
> he said, "God does not play dice." Well, "He" does, and sometimes "He"
> throws them where you can't see them.
>
Einstein didn't believe in random, either.
> And amazingly enough, due to Ehrenfest's theroem, quantum mechanics
> predicts good old classical mechanics (Newtonian mechanics if you
> prefer, or our regular familiar world) at the macroscopic level.
>
> As Feynman says, the rules of quantum mechanics are so screwy, you
> can't believe them. But quantum mechanics is the most amazingly
> successful theory of which I am aware.
>
Ok, but it's the QM thinking that accepts some events as magic
(random) and without cause that I have a problem with.
> Not that any of this gives any credence to Bob's posts!
>
> random.
>
>
You say random, I say chaotic ;-)
Bill Todd
...
A random event cannot be
> predicted or reproduced. It has no cause.
Don't be so fuzzy: it need not have *no* cause, just no cause that
affects it with absolute (rather than statistical) predictability.
Events can appear to be
> random because we can't detect the cause, but that does not mean there
> is no cause. If we view a micro-event at a macro-scale (or vice versa)
> it can appear random. If we can identify every variable --- repeat:
> *every* variable --- that can influence the event, we can reliably
> predict every outcome.
Unless you're a practicing theoretical physicist (in which case you
might actually have a clue about such matters), I call bullshit on that.
The fact that *you* happen to believe in such absolute
cause-and-effect says nothing about the underlying nature of reality,
any more than the fact that people used to believe (based on their
rather limited personal observation) that the Earth was flat did.
- bill
Doug Phillips
> Doug Phillips wrote:
>
>> A random event cannot be
> > predicted or reproduced. It has no cause.
>
> Don't be so fuzzy: it need not have *no* cause, just no cause that
> affects it with absolute (rather than statistical) predictability.
>
My statement was clear in the context of my post. You either didn't
read it all or you didn't understand it. In any case, you didn't quote
it.
Are you trying to make a case *for* random and *against* chaos? You've
apparently missed the fact than any event can only occur once (because
of this "time" thing) and subsequent similar events will occur with
different variable values. Some variables have a greater effect on the
event than others, and some might have little effect at all.
Predictability depends on our understanding of the variables that can
effect a type of event. Where's the flaw in that logic? What is your
point?
> Events can appear to be
>
> > random because we can't detect the cause, but that does not mean there
> > is no cause. If we view a micro-event at a macro-scale (or vice versa)
> > it can appear random. If we can identify every variable --- repeat:
> > *every* variable --- that can influence the event, we can reliably
> > predict every outcome.
>
> Unless you're a practicing theoretical physicist (in which case you
> might actually have a clue about such matters), I call bullshit on that.
It's your right to call anything you like whatever you like. It would
be refreshing if you came up with a logical argument rather than
resorting to juvenile name calling.
What's your contradicting theory, and what right do you have that
exceeds mine to hold any theory at all?
> The fact that *you* happen to believe in such absolute
> cause-and-effect says nothing about the underlying nature of reality,
I'd love to hear your explanation of the "underlying nature of
reality" that excludes chaos and embraces random.
> any more than the fact that people used to believe (based on their
> rather limited personal observation) that the Earth was flat did.
>
You compare the chaos theory to flat-Earthers? Wow!! I'll see your
flat-Earthers and raise you two Wizards!
You seem to be saying that it makes more sense to believe in magic
than to believe that we don't understand certain cause/effect
relationships because we can't identify all of the variables? Okay,
you can believe that if you want.
Doug Phillips
On Apr 13, 2:41 pm, Bill Todd <billt...@metrocast.net> wrote:
> Doug Phillips wrote:
>
>> A random event cannot be
> > predicted or reproduced. It has no cause.
>
> Don't be so fuzzy: it need not have *no* cause, just no cause that
> affects it with absolute (rather than statistical) predictability.
>
My statement was clear in the context of my post. You either didn't
read it all or you didn't understand it. In any case, you didn't quote
it.
Are you trying to make a case *for* random and *against* chaos? You've
apparently missed the fact than any event can only occur once (because
of this "time" thing) and subsequent similar events will occur with
different variable values. Some variables have a greater effect on the
event than others, and some might have little effect at all.
Predictability depends on our understanding of the variables that can
effect a type of event. Where's the flaw in that logic? What is your
point?
> Events can appear to be
>
> > random because we can't detect the cause, but that does not mean there
> > is no cause. If we view a micro-event at a macro-scale (or vice versa)
> > it can appear random. If we can identify every variable --- repeat:
> > *every* variable --- that can influence the event, we can reliably
> > predict every outcome.
>
> Unless you're a practicing theoretical physicist (in which case you
> might actually have a clue about such matters), I call bullshit on that.
It's your right to call anything you like whatever you like. It would
be refreshing if you came up with a logical argument rather than
resorting to juvenile name calling.
What's your contradicting theory, and what right do you have that
exceeds mine to hold any opinion at all?
> The fact that *you* happen to believe in such absolute
> cause-and-effect says nothing about the underlying nature of reality,
I'd love to hear your explanation of the "underlying nature of
reality" that excludes chaos and embraces random.
> any more than the fact that people used to believe (based on their
> rather limited personal observation) that the Earth was flat did.
>
You compare the chaos theory to flat-Earthers? Wow!! I'll see your
Bill Todd
> On Apr 13, 2:41 pm, Bill Todd <billt...@metrocast.net> wrote:
>> Doug Phillips wrote:
>>
>>> A random event cannot be
>>> predicted or reproduced. It has no cause.
>> Don't be so fuzzy: it need not have *no* cause, just no cause that
>> affects it with absolute (rather than statistical) predictability.
>>
>
> My statement was clear in the context of my post.
Yes, it was: the context (especially your comments later in your post)
made it clear that you believe in a clockwork universe in which
everything would be absolutely predictable if only we were able to
evaluate the preceding states at sufficiently fine levels of detail.
You either didn't
> read it all or you didn't understand it.
I understood it quite well, thank you. But clearly you didn't
understand my response to it.
In any case, you didn't quote
> it.
You moron: it's still sitting right up there where I *did* quote it:
"A random event cannot be predicted or reproduced. It has no cause."
And my answer addressed that explicitly (in the context of your later
drivel, which - conveniently and not simply by chance - I also quoted
and which is still sitting right down below).
...
>> Events can appear to be
>>
>>> random because we can't detect the cause, but that does not mean there
>>> is no cause. If we view a micro-event at a macro-scale (or vice versa)
>>> it can appear random. If we can identify every variable --- repeat:
>>> *every* variable --- that can influence the event, we can reliably
>>> predict every outcome.
>> Unless you're a practicing theoretical physicist (in which case you
>> might actually have a clue about such matters), I call bullshit on that.
...
>> The fact that *you* happen to believe in such absolute
>> cause-and-effect says nothing about the underlying nature of reality,
>
> I'd love to hear your explanation of the "underlying nature of
> reality" that excludes chaos and embraces random.
Since I was working from your own perhaps muddled but clearly-implied
definitions of 'randomness' and 'causality', you're really in no
position to complain about the outcome. My point was that as best I
understand the situation (and I freely admit that I haven't followed it
at all closely) most *real* physicists do *not* believe in the kind of
clockwork universe that you described.
If you misspoke and did not intend to describe such a universe, by all
means feel free to correct your statements now.
- bill
Doc
@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
To quote from Ghandi...
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are
so unlike your Christ."
Words from someone who actually read the Bible instead of trying to
browbeat people with it.
Doc.
Doug Phillips
> Doug Phillips wrote:
> > On Apr 13, 2:41 pm, Bill Todd <billt...@metrocast.net> wrote:
> >> Doug Phillips wrote:
>
> >>> A random event cannot be
> >>> predicted or reproduced. It has no cause.
> >> Don't be so fuzzy: it need not have *no* cause, just no cause that
> >> affects it with absolute (rather than statistical) predictability.
>
> > My statement was clear in the context of my post.
>
> Yes, it was: the context (especially your comments later in your post)
> made it clear that you believe in a clockwork universe in which
> everything would be absolutely predictable if only we were able to
> evaluate the preceding states at sufficiently fine levels of detail.
>
Yes. What makes you think otherwise?
> You either didn't
>
> > read it all or you didn't understand it.
>
> I understood it quite well, thank you. But clearly you didn't
> understand my response to it.
>
> In any case, you didn't quote
>
> > it.
>
> You moron: it's still sitting right up there where I *did* quote it:
>
> "A random event cannot be predicted or reproduced. It has no cause."
>
You said "[an event] need not have *no* cause, just no cause that
affects it with absolute (rather than statistical) predictability."
and by context I presume your are talking about a "random event".
How do you define a random event if not as an event with no cause? If
it has a cause it isn't random. Whether or not we can "see" the cause
is irrelevant to the event.
> And my answer addressed that explicitly (in the context of your later
> drivel, which - conveniently and not simply by chance - I also quoted
> and which is still sitting right down below).
>
Calling an opinion "drivel" and someone a "moron" is a valid rebuttal,
you think?
> ...
>
> >> Events can appear to be
>
> >>> random because we can't detect the cause, but that does not mean there
> >>> is no cause. If we view a micro-event at a macro-scale (or vice versa)
> >>> it can appear random. If we can identify every variable --- repeat:
> >>> *every* variable --- that can influence the event, we can reliably
> >>> predict every outcome.
> >> Unless you're a practicing theoretical physicist (in which case you
> >> might actually have a clue about such matters), I call bullshit on that.
>
> ...
>
> >> The fact that *you* happen to believe in such absolute
> >> cause-and-effect says nothing about the underlying nature of reality,
>
> > I'd love to hear your explanation of the "underlying nature of
> > reality" that excludes chaos and embraces random.
>
> Since I was working from your own perhaps muddled but clearly-implied
> definitions of 'randomness' and 'causality', you're really in no
> position to complain about the outcome.
What outcome is that? You calling me a moron? That was actually quite
predictable. And, "muddled" is your idea of a concise counter?
> My point was that as best I
> understand the situation (and I freely admit that I haven't followed it
> at all closely) most *real* physicists do *not* believe in the kind of
> clockwork universe that you described.
>
But some do. What do you believe? Some *real* physicists believe in
the Big-Bang and some don't. Some believe in dark matter and dark
energy and some don't. Some believe in folded extra-dimensions; some
don't. You can decide for yourself which theories best fit your views.
I've chosen mine, and stated a bit of my case. You have yet to present
a logical argument.
> If you misspoke and did not intend to describe such a universe, by all
> means feel free to correct your statements now.
>
I do believe in chaos. I believe that all events are the result of
their past. I believe that the universe is complex yet logical. To
consider whether or not we will ever have resources to model the chaos
could take this on topic. VMS was once used in weather modeling. but I
don't know if it still is.
If you believe that some events occur without direct cause, then you
have yet state a case or present reasonable examples. Otherwise,
that's it from me to you here.
AEF
> Sorry if this shows up twice. Over 12 hours ago I posted, but I don't
> see it yet.
>
> On Apr 12, 8:21 pm, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I figured I'd hear from you:-)
>
> > On Apr 12, 2:22 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 12, 7:37 am, gen...@marblecliff.com wrote:
> > > > On Apr 12, 6:06 am, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > > > > However, what is not clear is what caused the various mutations that
> > > > > resulted in homo sapiens. They could have been purely random, or they
> > > > > could have been introduced artificially by other beings visiting our
> > > > > planet.
I'm not aware of any evidence supporting external influences of this
type. Can you provide references?
>
> > > > or by a God that the bible describes ...
>
> > > Consider this well known verse, Ecclesiastes 3:1:
>
> > > "For everything there is a reason, a time for every matter under
> > > heaven."
>
> > > Now, Mr. marblecliff-genius, go study the various translations or that
> > > scripture from the original script. Oh, yes, there are many different
> > > translations of "God's Word" --- or did your think He spoke to the
> > > authors in the King's English? Or did you think He actually took quill
> > > to parchment and wrote the Book Himself? Or do you not know the
> > > history of your Holy Book.
>
> > > Now, how does that scripture conflict with the belief in free-will?
> > > How about cause-and-effect? How about the Big-Bang? Can you name one
> > > thing that exists that has no past and no reason for it's current
> > > state? Have you considered that the force which binds energy together
> > > to form a quark is the same force that binds together all things in
> > > the universe, and if the Big Bang did happen (whether God-made or
>
> > Say what? Energy that binds together to form a quark? We are not at
> > that level of understanding yet, I don't think.
>
> I presume you mean we haven't yet dissected a quark in the lab? Ok.
Correct. Currently they are considered to be fundamental particles.
There is no evidence to the contrary that I am aware of.
> Most accept that M = E / C**2
Most of whom? This has been proven beyond doubt. Certainly no credible
physicist doubts this anymore.
> Most accept that at some level, whether quark (or sub-quark?), there
> is pure energy. Or, at least some accept that as highly probable.
I don't know what you mean by "pure energy".
> There are some who believe that the force binding that energy is the
> universal force. The effects of distance, density and relative motion
> we observe as EMFand gravity.
I am unfamiliar with any such theories. AFAIK, there are 4 fundamental
forces: gravitation, electromagentism, the strong nuclear force, and
the weak nuclear force. The 2nd and 4th have been sort of unified into
electroweak theory, but unlike the Maxwell equations uniting electric
and magentic forces, you can "see the glue". (I was right about the
Fifth Force!)
> Many search for exotic answers and conjure strings and membranes and
> folded dimensions and then something else to explain why those don't
> quite explain reality.
String theory still has no use. There are no testable predictions.
It's still just speculation. It may prove true. It may prove to be
total nonsense.
> > > not), that bit of energy is now in the only place that it could be
> > > because of where it was then the BB happened?
>
> > > Go ahead; try to find a random event. You can't. There is no
>
> > Sure you can. Quantum mechanics is full of random events. Take a
> > radioactive substance like uranium. It will emit alpha particles
> > (which are really Helium nuclei). There is no way to tell which atom
> > will be the next to emit an alpha particle. It is random, but the
> > randomness obeys the statisctics forced upon it by its wave function.
>
> Let's establish what I mean by random. A random event cannot be
> predicted or reproduced. It has no cause. Events can appear to be
This is exactly what happens with radioactive decay, for example.
There is nothing you can do to predict which atom will decay next.
NOTHING. All you can do is measure the half-life of the decay process.
For example, a free neutron decays with a half-life of about 10
minutes. This means, if you somehow had a bunch of free neutrons
sitting around, about half of them will have decayed after 10 minutes
have passed. All the neutrons are exactly identical. And there is no
way at all to determine WHICH neutrons will decay during that 10
minutes. That's just how it is. Well, no one knows the ultimate, but
trust me, it looks real, real certain. (You can also say a free
neutron has a mean lifetime of about 15 minutes. This means if you
measure how long a large number of neutrons live, the average lifetime
will be found to be 15 minutes.)
> random because we can't detect the cause, but that does not mean there
> is no cause. If we view a micro-event at a macro-scale (or vice versa)
> it can appear random. If we can identify every variable --- repeat:
> *every* variable --- that can influence the event, we can reliably
> predict every outcome. If we could control those variables, we could
> control the outcome. A small change in one variable can often cause a
> large change in the result. If we aren't aware of that variable, we
> see random. This defines a "chaotic" system.
I am not that familiar with chaos theory, but quantum mechanics
asserts that there are no hidden variables. There is nothing you can
observe to tell whether any given photon will be reflected or not from
a glass surface. It is pure chance. BUT, there are well-determined
probabilities for all the possible outcomes of any given well-defined
experiment. The probabilities can be calculated from the wave function
and the wave function is a solution of the Schroedinger equation. The
wave function follows deterministic rules, but any given event is, in
general, random, but subject to well-defined probabilities and
physical laws.
I know this is very difficult to believe. It took me years to fully
accept it. But what finally convinced me was an argument against
"hidden variables" by Feynman and recent GHZ results. (The GHZ paradox
is quite fascinating and is the most direct evidence in favor of
quantum mechanics winning over hidden variable theories for "entangled
particles". See
http://www.physicsnerd.com/misc002.htm
for a fun explanation of it.)
So it's quantum mechanics with all its strange predictions, including
the assertion that individual subatomic events happen by pure change
but subject to well-defined probabilities and physical laws (such as
conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, and conservation of
angular momentum). There is also the uncertainty priniciple which, as
Feynman once put it, "protects" QM.
> To accept an event as "random", one must believe that *all* event
> variables have been accounted for, yet the result has occurred counter
> to their influence.
Well, not counter to their influnce. There are no variables that
directly determine the outcome of any single event. The variables only
affect the averages, the probabilities. That's QM. And many
experiments have been done to determine the winner of QM vs. local
hidden variables and QM ALWAYS WINS. Many people claim the experiments
aren't really good enough and that there are various loopholes and
such, but I'm not convinced. Most physicists go with the "Copenhagen
interpretation" of QM, which is what I've described above, more or
less. (See the Wikipedia article called Copenhagen interpretation.)
(Also see the GHZ Web reference above.)
OTOH, there are a few like Einstein who refused to accept QM's
destruction of strict causality. If he were around today to see the
latest experimental results he'd be very, very depressed, I assure
you.
> Understanding that, one can adjust the focus of observation and use
> chaotic results as random data. Like we write & use a random number
> generator program knowing that the results are not truly random; just
> close enough for our purposes.
Individual quantum events are random and can indeed be used to
generate truly random numbers (within experimental error, of course).
> > Another example: Light going through glass. Maybe 4 percent of the
> > light is reflected -- 96% is transmitted. But light is made of
> > photons. So if, say, 1000 photons travel towards a piece of glass,
> > approx. 40 will be refelcted. Sometimes it may be 36 reflected. Other
> > times it may be 42, but the long term average will be 40. Then the
> > question becomes: Which photons will be reflected?
>
> > Suppose one photon travles toward the glass. Will it go through or be
> > reflected. There is no way to tell. It is random.
>
> Observe at the scale of the photon and particles in the glass and see
> that each photon strikes differently. See the motion of atomic /
> subatomic particles in the glass. Follow a particle and watch as a
> photo strikes it. The reactions are not random. We just can't follow
> all of the variables. Again, it's our inability to completely observe
> the event that causes it to seem random.
Nope. There are two theories: There are spots on the glass. This can't
be because of certain interference effects. See the video. Maybe the
photons have to be oriented "just right" to get through the glass.
Again, no, because light that passes through glass is still reflected
randomly at the 4% level by a second piece of glass. See part 1 of the
video at
Despite the fact that this video is from 1979, I see nothing in it
that has been refuted by any experiment since. I strongly recommend
watching it. Try to watch at least the first 35 minutes. If after that
you've lost interest, then logout. (Feynman takes 35 minutes to
"prepare the audience" because this stuff is so strange it is very
hard to believe. If defies "common sense". But common sense is just
what we experience in the ordinary world of large objects and slow
(compared to the speed of light) velocities. Things at the microsopic
level are simply different. Even in the ordinary world size matters.
Larger animals can't fly because their weight grows faster the their
area with their size. Nature doesn't scale.
> > Even Nature hereself
> > doesn't know until it happens. See the Feynman video part I for more
> > details. (www.feynman.com)
>
> Well, I don't think nature has an ego or a conscious mind, but it does
> have a near infinite number of variables.
>
> Feynman is just one of the great thinkers I enjoy. You mean the QED
> lectures from '79? I'll try to set aside some time to watch them, but
> I don't know when that'll be. I'm sure I must have read some excerpts.
> I wonder how his ideas might have grown since 1988.
> The thing about dead scientists (well, aside from the obvious;-) is
> they aren't around anymore to argue a point or to adjust their point
> of view. We can stand on their shoulders, but they can't climb up on
> ours.
See above. Nothing has really changed the situation. In fact,
experiments done since 1988 have only strengthened Feynman's
arguments.
> > Oh, and quantum mechanics has this problem of not being strictly
> > causal. This is what bothered Einstein so much about QM (which he
> > himself made major contributions to in its early days!). As a result
> > he said, "God does not play dice." Well, "He" does, and sometimes "He"
> > throws them where you can't see them.
>
> Einstein didn't believe in random, either.
You're in good company, then. But the experimental evidence is very,
very strong. Remember, Einstein was once so convninced that we live in
a static universe (on philosophical grounds) that he added the
cosmological constant to his General Relativity because the theory
predicted either an expanding or contracting universe. Well, Hubble
showed him that the universe is expanding and he threw away the
constant claiming it was the biggest blunder he ever made. Even
Einstein makes mistakes!
> > And amazingly enough, due to Ehrenfest's theroem, quantum mechanics
> > predicts good old classical mechanics (Newtonian mechanics if you
> > prefer, or our regular familiar world) at the macroscopic level.
>
> > As Feynman says, the rules of quantum mechanics are so screwy, you
> > can't believe them. But quantum mechanics is the most amazingly
> > successful theory of which I am aware.
>
> Ok, but it's the QM thinking that accepts some events as magic
> (random) and without cause that I have a problem with.
You're not the only one! But you can't argue with experiment. Watch
the video.
Also, you can read chapter 6 of "The Character of Physical Law" by
Feynman. It is truly excellent and is written for the layman. He makes
a very compelling argument against "hidden variables".
If you're more ambitious, read his "Six Easy Pieces" book. Or go full
blast with his 3-volume "The Feynman Lectures".
When I was taking Quantum Mechanics I (1st semester QM in graduate
school) the professor said something like this to us: Some of you may
be smart. Some of you may be smarter than me. But none of you is
smarter than Feynman. And he held up a copy of his Lectures series and
said we should all read the 3-volume series. I have never regretted
reading anything by Feynman. I also strongly recommend his "Surely
You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" which is not about physics but is highly
entertaining.
> > Not that any of this gives any credence to Bob's posts!
>
> > random.
>
> You say random, I say chaotic ;-)
AEF
Neil Rieck
"AEF" <spamsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176466157....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 7:49 am, "Neil Rieck" <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> <gen...@marblecliff.com> wrote in message
>>
>
> That's between 5the century BCE and 2nd century BCE. I just looked it
> up as I couldn't believe the whole thing was written in 3 years or
> less.
>
Thanks for catching my typo. Yes I meant to say the second to fifth century
BCE. (It would have had to have been that long ago for the Jews to have been
exposed to new ideas like "not working on the Sabath", the "Noah Flood
Story", the "Snake in the Garden Story", etc. while in captivity in
Babylon). But when you consider that it was all oral traditions before that,
it really makes you wonder...
p.s. It may not have been all one sided; the Babylonians may have borrowed a
few things from the Jewish culture. One thing I've always wondered about was
the "Tower of Babylon" story; if God was pissed off at men and then caused
them to speak different languages, then is it a sin to become multi-lingual?
(I think the whole story is a pile of crap so no one really needs to post an
answer)
JF Mezei
> I'm not aware of any evidence supporting external influences of this
> type. Can you provide references?
No, and that was my point. You cannot prove either way, whether
evolution occured fully naturally or if there might have been some
intervention by some 3rd party which introduced helpful mutations.
In that sense, statements that we evolved fully naturally/randomly are
just as much "faith" as statements that claim that some entity tweaked
evolution by introducing helpful mutations.
And if humans ever master time travel, it would introduce most
interesting conundrums.
"Planet of the Apes" has a good portrayal of this. Chimps with
"speaking" genes travel back in time, mate with our primitive chimps,
introducing the more advanced genes which eventually lead to majority of
chimps having speech capability and eventually giving birth to the
actual chimps that would travel back in time.
In such a scenario, noboby ever actually designed those more advanced
genes.
(A bit like transparent aluminium which was "discovered" in 1984 when
Scotty (from the future) gave the formula to some San Franscico
plexiglass company.)
Or you can take it one more step and claim Jim Carey grew a beard,
traveled back in time to year 0 and pretended to be Jesus and did
everything the bible said Jesus did.
AEF
> AEF wrote:
> > I'm not aware of any evidence supporting external influences of this
> > type. Can you provide references?
>
> No, and that was my point. You cannot prove either way, whether
> evolution occured fully naturally or if there might have been some
> intervention by some 3rd party which introduced helpful mutations.
But you should use Occam's razor.
You cannot prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun between Mars
and Jupiter, either.
There's plenty of reason to believe that there's been lots of natural
selection and no mystery that could be solved by such intervention.
Your attempting to solve a non-problem, IOW.
> In that sense, statements that we evolved fully naturally/randomly are
> just as much "faith" as statements that claim that some entity tweaked
> evolution by introducing helpful mutations.
No.
[...]
AEF
Bill Todd
[considerable additional drivel snipped]
>> My point was that as best I
>> understand the situation (and I freely admit that I haven't followed it
>> at all closely) most *real* physicists do *not* believe in the kind of
>> clockwork universe that you described.
>>
>
> But some do.
Indeed - whatever their reasons may be ('faith' of one kind or another
often seems to play a large role, desire for attention is often
another), you can find some dissenters in *every* profession. Once in a
blue moon they may actually be right, but anyone remotely acquainted
with the laws of chance would be an utter fool to bet on that.
...
> You can decide for yourself which theories best fit your views.
But you should not delude yourself that this decision has any relevance
outside the limited dimensions of your own brain: it's the opinions of
people who actually *know* something about the subject that are
important, and if you choose to ignore them (as other 'flat-Earthers'
and their philosophical compatriots do) don't expect your views to get
much respect.
> I've chosen mine, and stated a bit of my case. You have yet to present
> a logical argument.
As is the case with many people incompetent in the use of logic, you've
got the cart before the horse here. Existing *evidence* points to many
events at the sub-atomic level as being random in occurrence (which is
*not* the same as being 'without cause', by the way - as I've already
pointed out twice now): if you believe otherwise, it's *your* job to
justify that belief with something other than the touchingly-simple
faith that the world makes more sense to you that way.
- bill
JF Mezei
> But you should use Occam's razor.
This leads you to some answer. It doesn't provide proof.
> There's plenty of reason to believe that there's been lots of natural
> selection and no mystery that could be solved by such intervention.
> Your attempting to solve a non-problem, IOW.
Just because we have proof that there has been some natural/random
mutations/evolution happening does not preclude the possibility of some
artificially induced mutations also having happened.
Until we can prove there was no artificial mutation/evolution, we have
to leave the door opened to the possibility (no matter how remote) of
some artificial meddling in our evolution having happened.
The implications of a artificial "nudge" into our evolution would
greatly affect the timeline of evolution. If some form of intelligence
gave us a jumpstart that streered us into the right direction, perhaps
cutting billions of years in random evolution, it changes calculations
in how quickly we evolve "randomly".
Bill Todd
> AEF wrote:
>> But you should use Occam's razor.
>
> This leads you to some answer. It doesn't provide proof.
In this case it comes sufficiently close for all practical purposes.
>> There's plenty of reason to believe that there's been lots of natural
>> selection and no mystery that could be solved by such intervention.
>> Your attempting to solve a non-problem, IOW.
>
> Just because we have proof that there has been some natural/random
> mutations/evolution happening does not preclude the possibility of some
> artificially induced mutations also having happened.
The above is, at least on its face, incompetent logic.
First, exactly how could one 'prove' that *any* mutation/evolution was
*not* the result of some artificial interference? Or, to put it another
way, if you accept (as you certainly appear to above) that one *can*
prove this for any given instance, then why couldn't this same 'proof'
be applied to *all* instances?
Second (and of more practical significance) is the fact that the
inability to 'prove' a negative is effectively useless as an argument:
*most* such negatives cannot be proven, but it is not incumbent upon
anyone to do so - rather, it is incumbent upon anyone who asserts
something to provide actual *evidence* of its existence before that
assertion need be treated with any respect (at least beyond that which
admits that people should be free - inadvisable as it may often be to
*exercise* this freedom - to believe any drivel that they wish to believe).
- bill
JF Mezei
> First, exactly how could one 'prove' that *any* mutation/evolution was
> *not* the result of some artificial interference?
For the past , you are correct. You can't prove either way. (hence the
use of "faith" in how a person chooses to interpret how we evolved)
since we can't prove it either way. (although the odds are that it was
random/natural mutations).
For the present, there are cases with genetic mutations have been seen
(generally birth defects etc) where it is pretty well known to be an
accident and not some space aliens having landed in the mother's
backyard to make genetic modifications to the eggs.
Bill Todd
And exactly how does one 'know' that this was not caused by aliens
acting from a distance, using their infamous (and utterly undetectable,
just as their postulated earlier interventions seem to have been)
mutation rays?
You clearly missed my point: it is *never* possible to 'know' such a
negative - one has to use one's brain, assuming that one has one.
- bill
AEF
> AEF wrote:
> > But you should use Occam's razor.
>
> This leads you to some answer. It doesn't provide proof.
>
> > There's plenty of reason to believe that there's been lots of natural
> > selection and no mystery that could be solved by such intervention.
> > Your attempting to solve a non-problem, IOW.
>
> Just because we have proof that there has been some natural/random
> mutations/evolution happening does not preclude the possibility of some
> artificially induced mutations also having happened.
Have you recently re-watched 2001: a space odyssey?
The problem with this is that there are endless such things that are
not "precluded".
>
> Until we can prove there was no artificial mutation/evolution, we have
> to leave the door opened to the possibility (no matter how remote) of
> some artificial meddling in our evolution having happened.
Fine, but until there's some actual reason to believe such a thing
happen, it's just pointless speculation. But it made for a fun movie
(see above).
> The implications of a artificial "nudge" into our evolution would
> greatly affect the timeline of evolution. If some form of intelligence
> gave us a jumpstart that streered us into the right direction, perhaps
> cutting billions of years in random evolution, it changes calculations
> in how quickly we evolve "randomly".
Until there's some reason to pursue this, it's just speculation. I
don't see any big mystery that requires such.
AEF
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>Doug Phillips wrote:
>
>....
>
> A random event cannot be
>> predicted or reproduced. It has no cause.
>
>affects it with absolute (rather than statistical) predictability.
>
>> random because we can't detect the cause, but that does not mean there
>> is no cause. If we view a micro-event at a macro-scale (or vice versa)
>> it can appear random. If we can identify every variable --- repeat:
>> *every* variable --- that can influence the event, we can reliably
>> predict every outcome.
>
>might actually have a clue about such matters), I call bullshit on that.
>cause-and-effect says nothing about the underlying nature of reality,
>rather limited personal observation) that the Earth was flat did.
>
Hidden variable theories have a long history. Bell's theorem and the Aspect
experiments ruled out local hidden variable theories. However non-local
theories such as David Bohm's pilot wave theory are not ruled out.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>- bill
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>On Apr 13, 2:20 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Sorry if this shows up twice. Over 12 hours ago I posted, but I don't
>> see it yet.
>>
>> On Apr 12, 8:21 pm, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I figured I'd hear from you:-)
>>
>> > On Apr 12, 2:22 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> > > On Apr 12, 7:37 am, gen...@marblecliff.com wrote:
>> > > > On Apr 12, 6:06 am, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> > > > > However, what is not clear is what caused the various mutations that
>> > > > > resulted in homo sapiens. They could have been purely random, or they
>> > > > > could have been introduced artificially by other beings visiting our
>> > > > > planet.
>
>type. Can you provide references?
>
>>
>>
>> > > Consider this well known verse, Ecclesiastes 3:1:
>>
>> > > "For everything there is a reason, a time for every matter under
>> > > heaven."
>>
>> > > Now, Mr. marblecliff-genius, go study the various translations or that
>> > > scripture from the original script. Oh, yes, there are many different
>> > > translations of "God's Word" --- or did your think He spoke to the
>> > > authors in the King's English? Or did you think He actually took quill
>> > > to parchment and wrote the Book Himself? Or do you not know the
>> > > history of your Holy Book.
>>
>> > > Now, how does that scripture conflict with the belief in free-will?
>> > > How about cause-and-effect? How about the Big-Bang? Can you name one
>> > > thing that exists that has no past and no reason for it's current
>> > > state? Have you considered that the force which binds energy together
>> > > to form a quark is the same force that binds together all things in
>> > > the universe, and if the Big Bang did happen (whether God-made or
>>
>> > Say what? Energy that binds together to form a quark? We are not at
>> > that level of understanding yet, I don't think.
>>
>> I presume you mean we haven't yet dissected a quark in the lab? Ok.
>
>There is no evidence to the contrary that I am aware of.
>
>
>physicist doubts this anymore.
>
>> is pure energy. Or, at least some accept that as highly probable.
>
>
>> universal force. The effects of distance, density and relative motion
>> we observe as EMFand gravity.
>
>forces: gravitation, electromagentism, the strong nuclear force, and
>the weak nuclear force. The 2nd and 4th have been sort of unified into
>electroweak theory, but unlike the Maxwell equations uniting electric
>and magentic forces, you can "see the glue". (I was right about the
>Fifth Force!)
>
>> folded dimensions and then something else to explain why those don't
>> quite explain reality.
>
>It's still just speculation. It may prove true. It may prove to be
>total nonsense.
>
>> > > because of where it was then the BB happened?
>>
>> > > Go ahead; try to find a random event. You can't. There is no
>>
>> > Sure you can. Quantum mechanics is full of random events. Take a
>> > radioactive substance like uranium. It will emit alpha particles
>> > (which are really Helium nuclei). There is no way to tell which atom
>> > will be the next to emit an alpha particle. It is random, but the
>> > randomness obeys the statisctics forced upon it by its wave function.
>>
>> Let's establish what I mean by random. A random event cannot be
>> predicted or reproduced. It has no cause. Events can appear to be
>
>There is nothing you can do to predict which atom will decay next.
>NOTHING. All you can do is measure the half-life of the decay process.
>For example, a free neutron decays with a half-life of about 10
>minutes. This means, if you somehow had a bunch of free neutrons
>sitting around, about half of them will have decayed after 10 minutes
>have passed. All the neutrons are exactly identical. And there is no
>way at all to determine WHICH neutrons will decay during that 10
>minutes. That's just how it is. Well, no one knows the ultimate, but
>trust me, it looks real, real certain. (You can also say a free
>neutron has a mean lifetime of about 15 minutes. This means if you
>measure how long a large number of neutrons live, the average lifetime
>will be found to be 15 minutes.)
>
>> is no cause. If we view a micro-event at a macro-scale (or vice versa)
>> it can appear random. If we can identify every variable --- repeat:
>> *every* variable --- that can influence the event, we can reliably
>> predict every outcome. If we could control those variables, we could
>> control the outcome. A small change in one variable can often cause a
>> large change in the result. If we aren't aware of that variable, we
>> see random. This defines a "chaotic" system.
>
>asserts that there are no hidden variables.
Sorry that has yet to be proved. Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variable
theories it does not rule out non-local theories such as Bohm's theory.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>There is nothing you can
>observe to tell whether any given photon will be reflected or not from
>a glass surface. It is pure chance. BUT, there are well-determined
>probabilities for all the possible outcomes of any given well-defined
>experiment. The probabilities can be calculated from the wave function
>and the wave function is a solution of the Schroedinger equation. The
>wave function follows deterministic rules, but any given event is, in
>general, random, but subject to well-defined probabilities and
>physical laws.
>
>I know this is very difficult to believe. It took me years to fully
>accept it. But what finally convinced me was an argument against
>"hidden variables" by Feynman and recent GHZ results. (The GHZ paradox
>is quite fascinating and is the most direct evidence in favor of
>quantum mechanics winning over hidden variable theories for "entangled
>particles". See
>
> http://www.physicsnerd.com/misc002.htm
>
>for a fun explanation of it.)
>
>So it's quantum mechanics with all its strange predictions, including
>the assertion that individual subatomic events happen by pure change
>but subject to well-defined probabilities and physical laws (such as
>conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, and conservation of
>angular momentum). There is also the uncertainty priniciple which, as
>Feynman once put it, "protects" QM.
>
>> To accept an event as "random", one must believe that *all* event
>> variables have been accounted for, yet the result has occurred counter
>> to their influence.
>
>Well, not counter to their influnce. There are no variables that
>directly determine the outcome of any single event. The variables only
>affect the averages, the probabilities. That's QM. And many
>experiments have been done to determine the winner of QM vs. local
>hidden variables and QM ALWAYS WINS. Many people claim the experiments
>aren't really good enough and that there are various loopholes and
>such, but I'm not convinced. Most physicists go with the "Copenhagen
>interpretation" of QM, which is what I've described above, more or
>less. (See the Wikipedia article called Copenhagen interpretation.)
>(Also see the GHZ Web reference above.)
>
>OTOH, there are a few like Einstein who refused to accept QM's
>destruction of strict causality. If he were around today to see the
>latest experimental results he'd be very, very depressed, I assure
>you.
>
>> Understanding that, one can adjust the focus of observation and use
>> chaotic results as random data. Like we write & use a random number
>> generator program knowing that the results are not truly random; just
>> close enough for our purposes.
>
>Individual quantum events are random and can indeed be used to
>generate truly random numbers (within experimental error, of course).
>
>> > Another example: Light going through glass. Maybe 4 percent of the
>> > light is reflected -- 96% is transmitted. But light is made of
>> > photons. So if, say, 1000 photons travel towards a piece of glass,
>> > approx. 40 will be refelcted. Sometimes it may be 36 reflected. Other
>> > times it may be 42, but the long term average will be 40. Then the
>> > question becomes: Which photons will be reflected?
>>
>> > Suppose one photon travles toward the glass. Will it go through or be
>> > reflected. There is no way to tell. It is random.
>>
>> Observe at the scale of the photon and particles in the glass and see
>> that each photon strikes differently. See the motion of atomic /
>> subatomic particles in the glass. Follow a particle and watch as a
>> photo strikes it. The reactions are not random. We just can't follow
>> all of the variables. Again, it's our inability to completely observe
>> the event that causes it to seem random.
>
>Nope. There are two theories: There are spots on the glass. This can't
>be because of certain interference effects. See the video. Maybe the
>photons have to be oriented "just right" to get through the glass.
>Again, no, because light that passes through glass is still reflected
>randomly at the 4% level by a second piece of glass. See part 1 of the
>video at
>
> www.feynman.com
>
>Despite the fact that this video is from 1979, I see nothing in it
>that has been refuted by any experiment since. I strongly recommend
>watching it. Try to watch at least the first 35 minutes. If after that
>you've lost interest, then logout. (Feynman takes 35 minutes to
>"prepare the audience" because this stuff is so strange it is very
>hard to believe. If defies "common sense". But common sense is just
>what we experience in the ordinary world of large objects and slow
>(compared to the speed of light) velocities. Things at the microsopic
>level are simply different. Even in the ordinary world size matters.
>Larger animals can't fly because their weight grows faster the their
>area with their size. Nature doesn't scale.
>
>> > Even Nature hereself
>> > doesn't know until it happens. See the Feynman video part I for more
>> > details. (www.feynman.com)
>>
>> Well, I don't think nature has an ego or a conscious mind, but it does
>> have a near infinite number of variables.
>>
>> Feynman is just one of the great thinkers I enjoy. You mean the QED
>> lectures from '79? I'll try to set aside some time to watch them, but
>> I don't know when that'll be. I'm sure I must have read some excerpts.
>> I wonder how his ideas might have grown since 1988.
>
>> The thing about dead scientists (well, aside from the obvious;-) is
>> they aren't around anymore to argue a point or to adjust their point
>> of view. We can stand on their shoulders, but they can't climb up on
>> ours.
>
>See above. Nothing has really changed the situation. In fact,
>experiments done since 1988 have only strengthened Feynman's
>arguments.
>
>> > Oh, and quantum mechanics has this problem of not being strictly
>> > causal. This is what bothered Einstein so much about QM (which he
>> > himself made major contributions to in its early days!). As a result
>> > he said, "God does not play dice." Well, "He" does, and sometimes "He"
>> > throws them where you can't see them.
>>
>> Einstein didn't believe in random, either.
>
>You're in good company, then. But the experimental evidence is very,
>very strong. Remember, Einstein was once so convninced that we live in
>a static universe (on philosophical grounds) that he added the
>cosmological constant to his General Relativity because the theory
>predicted either an expanding or contracting universe. Well, Hubble
>showed him that the universe is expanding and he threw away the
>constant claiming it was the biggest blunder he ever made. Even
>Einstein makes mistakes!
>
>> > And amazingly enough, due to Ehrenfest's theroem, quantum mechanics
>> > predicts good old classical mechanics (Newtonian mechanics if you
>> > prefer, or our regular familiar world) at the macroscopic level.
>>
>> > As Feynman says, the rules of quantum mechanics are so screwy, you
>> > can't believe them. But quantum mechanics is the most amazingly
>> > successful theory of which I am aware.
>>
>> Ok, but it's the QM thinking that accepts some events as magic
>> (random) and without cause that I have a problem with.
>
>You're not the only one! But you can't argue with experiment. Watch
>the video.
>
>Also, you can read chapter 6 of "The Character of Physical Law" by
>Feynman. It is truly excellent and is written for the layman. He makes
>a very compelling argument against "hidden variables".
>
>If you're more ambitious, read his "Six Easy Pieces" book. Or go full
>blast with his 3-volume "The Feynman Lectures".
>
>When I was taking Quantum Mechanics I (1st semester QM in graduate
>school) the professor said something like this to us: Some of you may
>be smart. Some of you may be smarter than me. But none of you is
>smarter than Feynman. And he held up a copy of his Lectures series and
>said we should all read the 3-volume series. I have never regretted
>reading anything by Feynman. I also strongly recommend his "Surely
>You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" which is not about physics but is highly
>entertaining.
>
>> > Not that any of this gives any credence to Bob's posts!
>>
>> > random.
>>
>> You say random, I say chaotic ;-)
>
>AEF
>
Tom Linden
de Broglie had a similar theory. I point out the obvious, viz., theories
are models constructed to make predictions possible. However, most people
believe that this _is_ reality. Gravitational theory based on General
Relativity
uses Riemannian geometry to explain a few observations, so we end up with
curved space-time. But that is mathematics, not reality. The
probablistic nature
of QM is the way it was constructed. The Schrödiger equation is the
familiar
diffusion equation but for a probabilty distribution. It is a construct.
The
various theories have their regions in which they work. Newtonian
mechanics is
fine for computing orbits, but has its obvious limitations. Theoretical
physicist don't discover reality, they invent models, and very elegant
ones at
that. Kant should be required reading for all budding scientists.
>
>
> David Webb
> Security team leader
> CCSS
> Middlesex University
>
>> - bill
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Dr. Dweeb
... and the inability to predict, makes a model what ?
Tom Linden
Intellectual indulgence.
>
>> However, most people believe that this _is_ reality. Gravitational
>> theory based on General Relativity
>> uses Riemannian geometry to explain a few observations, so we end up
>> with curved space-time. But that is mathematics, not reality. The
>> probablistic nature
>> of QM is the way it was constructed. The Schrödiger equation is the
>> familiar
>> diffusion equation but for a probabilty distribution. It is a
>> construct. The
>> various theories have their regions in which they work. Newtonian
>> mechanics is
>> fine for computing orbits, but has its obvious limitations. Theoretical
>> physicist don't discover reality, they invent models, and
>> very elegant ones at
>> that. Kant should be required reading for all budding scientists.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David Webb
>>> Security team leader
>>> CCSS
>>> Middlesex University
>>>
>>>> - bill
>
>
--
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 05:38:42 -0700, <dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote:
>
Bohm's interpretation published in 1952 is an extension of Louis De Broglie's
pilot-wave theory of 1927 hence is sometimes called de Broglie-Bohm theory
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation
> I point out the obvious, viz., theories
>are models constructed to make predictions possible. However, most people
>believe that this _is_ reality. Gravitational theory based on General
>Relativity
>uses Riemannian geometry to explain a few observations, so we end up with
>curved space-time. But that is mathematics, not reality.
Of course all scientific theories are provisional models of reality.
If we knew what reality was then there would be no need for scientific
theories. As it is we don't have any better path to follow in order to try to
understand what reality is than to construct models and to conduct
experiments. In Newtonian Mechanics space and time were separate and formed a
fixed backdrop to the motion of particles. In General Relativity they are
linked and can be distorted by matter/energy. In the future new observations
and theories will almost certainly alter our picture of space and time again.
However as in the changes between General Relativity and Newtonian Mechanics
the newer theories will need to incorporate all those results which have been
experimentally confirmed for GR.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>The
>probablistic nature
>of QM is the way it was constructed. The Schrödiger equation is the
>familiar
>diffusion equation but for a probabilty distribution. It is a construct.
>The
>various theories have their regions in which they work. Newtonian
>mechanics is
>fine for computing orbits, but has its obvious limitations. Theoretical
>physicist don't discover reality, they invent models, and very elegant
>ones at
>that. Kant should be required reading for all budding scientists.
>
>>
>>
>> David Webb
>> Security team leader
>> CCSS
>> Middlesex University
>>
>>> - bill
>
>
>
David J Dachtera
>
> On Apr 12, 6:06 am, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > > Good point, I had always thought that the creationist, religious right
> > > had been invented to persuade naughty children to eat up their greens
> > > and brush their teeth before bed time. Frightening but not real. Bob
> > > has proved this theory to be wrong, my only hope is that he is really
> > > an extra from Deliverance who has got a bit too into the part.
> >
> > I have come to be scared of very religious people.
>
> why?
Ever heard of:
o the scourage of Europe centuries ago known as the Holy Roman Empire?
o The Spanish Inquisition?
o The Salem Witch hunts?
o Radical Islam?
Are there any other questions?
--
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/
Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/
Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/
Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/
Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/
David J Dachtera
> [snip]
> no one has to hear God ...[snip]
Current events in history would seem indicate otherwise. How else does one
explain the horrible sins of mass murder that appear on the news everyday?
Were they to hear for themselves, they might be inclined to repent. MIGHT. Big
"if" there...
David J Dachtera
>
> On Apr 12, 2:22 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> > Now, Mr. marblecliff-genius, go study the various translations or that
> > scripture from the original script. Oh, yes, there are many different
> > translations of "God's Word" --- or did your think He spoke to the
> > authors in the King's English? Or did you think He actually took quill
> > to parchment and wrote the Book Himself? Or do you not know the
> > history of your Holy Book.
>
> greek ... there are only translation problems for those who do not
> want to accept the translation ...
On what do you base such blind faith in the translators (humans)?
Tom Linden
GR is an interesting theory, because it only explains three things that
could
not be done with Newtonian mechanics. Interestingly if you use a speed of
light
in the Lorentzian metric which is a function of the gravitational field as
in
the Schwarzschild metric you can reproduce all the results. So on the one
hand you have a constant speed of light on a Riemannian manifold or you
have
variable speed of light in a Euclidean space. They are equivalent, take
your
pick.
Doug Phillips
> On Apr 13, 2:20 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > Say what? Energy that binds together to form a quark? We are not at
> > > that level of understanding yet, I don't think.
>
> > I presume you mean we haven't yet dissected a quark in the lab? Ok.
>
> Correct. Currently they are considered to be fundamental particles.
> There is no evidence to the contrary that I am aware of.
>
But what are they made of?
> > Most accept that M = E / C**2
>
> Most of whom? This has been proven beyond doubt. Certainly no credible
> physicist doubts this anymore.
>
I'm sure there some doubters someplace;-)
> > Most accept that at some level, whether quark (or sub-quark?), there
> > is pure energy. Or, at least some accept that as highly probable.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "pure energy".
>
It means "energy" in the state of energy. Energy in the form of matter
is called matter.
> > There are some who believe that the force binding that energy is the
> > universal force. The effects of distance, density and relative motion
> > we observe as EMFand gravity.
>
> I am unfamiliar with any such theories. AFAIK, there are 4 fundamental
> forces: gravitation, electromagentism, the strong nuclear force, and
> the weak nuclear force. The 2nd and 4th have been sort of unified into
> electroweak theory, but unlike the Maxwell equations uniting electric
> and magentic forces, you can "see the glue". (I was right about the
> Fifth Force!)
>
You mean this one?
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/color.html#c1>
I'm sure the chart on the "Fundamentals" page looks familiar to you.
If you accept it as complete, then why keep smashing all those
particles together?
> I am not that familiar with chaos theory,
Good place to start: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory>
> but quantum mechanics
> asserts that there are no hidden variables.
You can't find them because they're hidden;-)
> There is nothing you can
> observe to tell whether any given photon will be reflected or not from
> a glass surface. It is pure chance. BUT, there are well-determined
> probabilities for all the possible outcomes of any given well-defined
> experiment. The probabilities can be calculated from the wave function
> and the wave function is a solution of the Schroedinger equation. The
> wave function follows deterministic rules, but any given event is, in
> general, random, but subject to well-defined probabilities and
> physical laws.
>
> I know this is very difficult to believe. It took me years to fully
> accept it. But what finally convinced me was an argument against
> "hidden variables" by Feynman and recent GHZ results. (The GHZ paradox
> is quite fascinating and is the most direct evidence in favor of
> quantum mechanics winning over hidden variable theories for "entangled
> particles". See
>
> http://www.physicsnerd.com/misc002.htm
>
> for a fun explanation of it.)
>
I remember reading this before.
> > To accept an event as "random", one must believe that *all* event
> > variables have been accounted for, yet the result has occurred counter
> > to their influence.
>
> Well, not counter to their influnce. There are no variables that
> directly determine the outcome of any single event.
Umm. An equation with no variables? I think the experiments prove that
we don't yet understand everything that happens in sub-atomic the
universe, so we should keep looking. Mere statistically correct
results shouldn't be good enough to satisfy a curious scientist.
> The variables only
> affect the averages, the probabilities. That's QM. And many
> experiments have been done to determine the winner of QM vs. local
> hidden variables and QM ALWAYS WINS. Many people claim the experiments
> aren't really good enough and that there are various loopholes and
> such, but I'm not convinced. Most physicists go with the "Copenhagen
> interpretation" of QM, which is what I've described above, more or
> less. (See the Wikipedia article called Copenhagen interpretation.)
> (Also see the GHZ Web reference above.)
>
Yep. Ok. I've been there before. I see nothing new. Experiments do
indeed produce results consistent with theory --- within statistical
probability. As we pump more energy into particles and slam them into
others and create more exotic matter do we just dismiss the anomalies?
QM embraces them and says "see, I told you we couldn't predict that!
Let's do it again and prove that it happens differently!" Seems like a
really curious person would easier accept that there actually are some
things that exist that we can't yet measure and keep trying to find
them --- the "hidden variables" that QM so arrogantly dismisses. The
"proofs" against hidden variables are less than complete. Funny, each
time we look closer at something, we see something there --- we
quantify another variable.
No, I don't claim to fully understand QM, and I don't personally know
anyone who completely understands it, or Chaos Theory for that matter,
or can completely debunk either. If you think Feynman had all of the
answers, then I can't disagree because he was most certainly smarter
than anyone I know. I'll still choose to side with the people who
think we don't have all of the answers.
>
> Nope. There are two theories:
But only one reality. You can not know the state of the photon as it
strikes the glass, and you can not know the state of the glass
particle that the photon strikes. (Heisenberg). Based upon the
reaction of the particles, however, you can make some assumptions
about both. Again, this is not random, it is chaotic. QM attempts to
separate itself from "classic" physics (CP). Really, there is only one
physics. My arguments have been classical (cause & effect) where you
argue quantum uncertainty. QM says we can't predict some things
because we can't know their state. CP says if we know the state of the
all of the actors we can predict the outcome the event.Then QM says
"but you can't know" and so on. Chaos embraces both.
You can chose to dismiss chaos, but you really shouldn't.
> There are spots on the glass. This can't
> be because of certain interference effects. See the video. Maybe the
> photons have to be oriented "just right" to get through the glass.
> Again, no, because light that passes through glass is still reflected
> randomly at the 4% level by a second piece of glass. See part 1 of the
> video at
>
> www.feynman.com
>
> Despite the fact that this video is from 1979, I see nothing in it
> that has been refuted by any experiment since. I strongly recommend
> watching it. Try to watch at least the first 35 minutes. If after that
> you've lost interest, then logout. (Feynman takes 35 minutes to
> "prepare the audience" because this stuff is so strange it is very
> hard to believe. If defies "common sense". But common sense is just
> what we experience in the ordinary world of large objects and slow
> (compared to the speed of light) velocities. Things at the microsopic
> level are simply different. Even in the ordinary world size matters.
> Larger animals can't fly because their weight grows faster the their
> area with their size. Nature doesn't scale.
>
Well, so far what I've watched of the video is pretty basic stuff.
Maybe you could give a time mark for the point you wanted to stress?
<...>
To keep this shorter, I've snipped the rest of your fine thoughts. I
enjoy your discussion. You've encouraged me to catch up on some
current material (and re-read some old).
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>gen...@marblecliff.com wrote:
>>
>> > Andrew wrote:
>> > > Good point, I had always thought that the creationist, religious right
>> > > had been invented to persuade naughty children to eat up their greens
>> > > and brush their teeth before bed time. Frightening but not real. Bob
>> > > has proved this theory to be wrong, my only hope is that he is really
>> > > an extra from Deliverance who has got a bit too into the part.
>> >
>> > I have come to be scared of very religious people.
>>
>> why?
>
>Ever heard of:
>
>o the scourage of Europe centuries ago known as the Holy Roman Empire?
>
>o The Spanish Inquisition?
>
>o The Salem Witch hunts?
>
>o Radical Islam?
>
>Are there any other questions?
>
Not quite sure why the Holy Roman Empire belongs in the same group as
the Spanish inquisition, Salem witch hunts and Radical Islam.
The Holy Roman Empire was a political institution see
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ho/HolyRoma.html
The emperor was confirmed in his position by the Pope
"
From the time of Otto's reign the imperial office was based on the German
kingship. The German king, elected by the German princes, automatically sought
imperial coronation by the pope. After 1045 a king who was not yet crowned
emperor was known as king of the Romans, a title that asserted his right to the
imperial throne and implied that he was emperor-designate. Not every German
king became emperor, however, because the popes, especially when elections to
the kingships were disputed, often claimed that the selection of the emperor
was their prerogative. Despite the fact that the German kingship and the
imperial office were technically elective, they tended to become hereditary.
"
Although the emperor claimed to be God's temporal vicar and hence the supreme
temporal ruler of Christendom his power never equalled his pretensions.
"
The empire was justified by the claim that, just as the pope was the vicar of
God on earth in spiritual matters, so the emperor was God's temporal vicar;
hence he claimed to be the supreme temporal ruler of Christendom. Actually, the
power of the emperor never equaled his pretensions. Although the emperors were
accorded diplomatic precedence over other rulers, their suzerainty early ceased
over France, S Italy, Denmark, Poland, and Hungary; and their control over
England, Sweden, and Spain was never more than nominal. The authority of the
emperors in Italy and Germany was sometimes nonexistent, sometimes real.
The territorial limits of the empire varied, but it generally included Germany,
Austria, Bohemia and Moravia, parts of N Italy, present-day Belgium, and, until
1648, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Some countries (e.g., Hungary) were
ruled by the emperor or imperial prince but were outside the empire, while
others (e.g., Flanders, Pomerania, Schleswig, and Holstein) were part of the
empire but were ruled by foreign princes who held their lands in fief from the
emperor and took part in the imperial diet.
"
I assume by "the scourage of Europe" you mean "the scourge of europe".
The only reference I can find to that relating to the Holy Roman Empire is a
book on Frederick Barbarossa of that title
http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:Frederick%20Barbarossa:3003143537:isbn=1853140066:page=compare?used=1
Which presumably is referring to Frederick I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_I_Barbarossa
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>--
AEF
> David Webb
I went over to Wikipeida and looked up Bohm's pilot wave theory. I
don't see anything that great about it. It appears to let you pretend
that particles actually travel with definite trajectories somehow
"guided" the pilot wave and that this somehow reproduces all the
familiar results of QM. I don't find it satisfactory. In the 2-slit
experiment, if the particle is being tugged sideways through the
probability regions of the interference pattern of the waves, that
adds an unnatural and "random" sideways component to its velocity.
Maybe that's somehow taken care of in the theory, I don't know -- I
just gave it a quick read. I'm also curious as to how it gives
"reality" to particles that are tunneling, that is, traveling through
barriers they don't have enough energy to break through. Wouldn't
these tunneling particles have negative kinetic energy? I don't see
anything "real" about that! I may well be wrong, but I suspect it is
just smoke and mirrors, or a sugar coating, though well intentioned.
The Wikipedia article discusses other criticisms, including the
problem the Bohm theory has with (a particle's) spin. And there
appears to be no mention of the GHZ paradox, though I might have
missed it and it may or may not be a problem for the Bohm theory (or
interpretation).
Anyway, there is an important thing the Bohm theory definitely cannot
do, and that is to predict where the next electron will show up on the
screen. It cannot predict which photons will be reflected from the
glass. It cannot predict which neutron will decay next. Hence, the
randomness remains, which was my original point.
I'm beginning to favor the "Shut up and calculate!" intrepretation
more and more. If you can't observe it, what does it matter? If your
model successfully predicts what you see, great! And QM does that
spectacularly well.
QM, I think, is the most amazing theory we have today. It is just
astonishing how well it works for so many things. Another fun quantum
effect is the Aharonov-Bohm effect, in which the relative phases of
electrons are altered by a magnetic field through which the electrons
never pass! This can produce a shift in an interference pattern, for
example. And in this effect, the particles do travel through the
"vector potential" that corresponds to the magnetic field. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov-Bohm for more info.
Maybe some day someone will find a more "sensible" way, but I doubt
it. For now and the forseeable future, at least, QM rules.
As Feynman says in his "Six Easy Pieces" chapter on QM re the mystery
of the 2-slit experiment (actually he is speaking quite generally
about QM): "And no one has figured a way out of this puzzle. So at the
present time we must limit ourselves to computing probabilities. We
say "at the present time," but we suspect very strongly that it is
something that will be with us forever -- that it is impossible to
beat that puzzle -- that this is the way nature really *is*."
> David Webb
AEF
Doug Phillips
> On Apr 13, 2:20 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Sorry if this shows up twice. Over 12 hours ago I posted, but I don't
> > see it yet.
>
> > On Apr 12, 8:21 pm, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I figured I'd hear from you:-)
>
> > > On Apr 12, 2:22 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 12, 7:37 am, gen...@marblecliff.com wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 12, 6:06 am, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > However, what is not clear is what caused the various mutations that
> > > > > > resulted in homo sapiens. They could have been purely random, or they
> > > > > > could have been introduced artificially by other beings visiting our
> > > > > > planet.
>
> I'm not aware of any evidence supporting external influences of this
> type. Can you provide references?
>
Not factual reference or evidence by any means, but David Brin's
"Uplift" novels are certainly thought provoking and entertaining. I
wonder where we'd be today without people like Jules Verne, Gene
Roddenberry and people who "dream the impossible dreams"?
AEF
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 05:38:42 -0700, <davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote:
> > In article <KcedneIpiPdAQYLbnZ2dnUVZ_qmpn...@metrocastcablevision.com>,
The difference being that the wave functions in the Schroedinger
equation are complex numbers, thus allowing for wave solutions (which
correspond to free particles). There are no wave solutions to the
(heat) diffusion equation.
> The
> various theories have their regions in which they work. Newtonian
> mechanics is
> fine for computing orbits, but has its obvious limitations. Theoretical
> physicist don't discover reality, they invent models, and very elegant
> ones at
> that. Kant should be required reading for all budding scientists.
[...]
AEF
AEF
> On Apr 13, 7:09 pm, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 13, 2:20 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Say what? Energy that binds together to form a quark? We are not at
> > > > that level of understanding yet, I don't think.
>
> > > I presume you mean we haven't yet dissected a quark in the lab? Ok.
>
> > Correct. Currently they are considered to be fundamental particles.
> > There is no evidence to the contrary that I am aware of.
>
> But what are they made of?
Does it matter? If anyone knew, you'd ask what *that* was made of.
They are made of "quark material". That's the best anyone can do.
>
> > > Most accept that M = E / C**2
>
> > Most of whom? This has been proven beyond doubt. Certainly no credible
> > physicist doubts this anymore.
>
> I'm sure there some doubters someplace;-)
>
> > > Most accept that at some level, whether quark (or sub-quark?), there
> > > is pure energy. Or, at least some accept that as highly probable.
>
> > I don't know what you mean by "pure energy".
>
> It means "energy" in the state of energy. Energy in the form of matter
> is called matter.
Hmmm. Quarks are a consitunet of matter. Matter is made of atoms, of
which more than 99.9% of the mass is in the form of nuclei, which are
composed of protons and neutrons, which are composed of quarks (and
gluons).
Pure energy? I would guess you mean particles with zero rest mass?
I've never heard this term used in physics, only in science fiction.
>
> > > There are some who believe that the force binding that energy is the
> > > universal force. The effects of distance, density and relative motion
> > > we observe as EMFand gravity.
>
> > I am unfamiliar with any such theories. AFAIK, there are 4 fundamental
> > forces: gravitation, electromagentism, the strong nuclear force, and
> > the weak nuclear force. The 2nd and 4th have been sort of unified into
> > electroweak theory, but unlike the Maxwell equations uniting electric
> > and magentic forces, you can "see the glue". (I was right about the
> > Fifth Force!)
>
> You mean this one?
>
> <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/color.html#c1>
>
> I'm sure the chart on the "Fundamentals" page looks familiar to you.
Yes.
> If you accept it as complete, then why keep smashing all those
> particles together?
Because only the electromagnetic force is know extremely well. It is
ultimately described by QED which is a fantastically successful theory
that explains everything except gravity and nuclear physics and (other
esoteric subatomic stuff). Gravity is very well known at the classical
level. No one has succeeded in making a quantum theory of gravity. The
strong and weak forces are not that well known, especially the strong.
There are other issues. Is CPT symmetry a valid symmetry? Does mass
really arise from the Higgs field (we may soon know when LHC comes
back on line at super high energies!). There are very high energy
cosmic rays that have some mysterious behavior. There is much that
isn't known. A lot of nuclear physics isn't known.
>
> > I am not that familiar with chaos theory,
>
> Good place to start: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory>
>
> > but quantum mechanics
> > asserts that there are no hidden variables.
>
> You can't find them because they're hidden;-)
So that's the answer! ;-O
Good luck. Current experimental results are STRONGLY incompatible with
such a view.
>
> > The variables only
> > affect the averages, the probabilities. That's QM. And many
> > experiments have been done to determine the winner of QM vs. local
> > hidden variables and QM ALWAYS WINS. Many people claim the experiments
> > aren't really good enough and that there are various loopholes and
> > such, but I'm not convinced. Most physicists go with the "Copenhagen
> > interpretation" of QM, which is what I've described above, more or
> > less. (See the Wikipedia article called Copenhagen interpretation.)
> > (Also see the GHZ Web reference above.)
>
> Yep. Ok. I've been there before. I see nothing new. Experiments do
> indeed produce results consistent with theory --- within statistical
> probability. As we pump more energy into particles and slam them into
> others and create more exotic matter do we just dismiss the anomalies?
> QM embraces them and says "see, I told you we couldn't predict that!
> Let's do it again and prove that it happens differently!" Seems like a
You really need to be more specific here!
> really curious person would easier accept that there actually are some
> things that exist that we can't yet measure and keep trying to find
> them --- the "hidden variables" that QM so arrogantly dismisses. The
> "proofs" against hidden variables are less than complete. Funny, each
> time we look closer at something, we see something there --- we
> quantify another variable.
Current experiments have pretty much ruled out what you seek.
>
> No, I don't claim to fully understand QM, and I don't personally know
> anyone who completely understands it, or Chaos Theory for that matter,
> or can completely debunk either. If you think Feynman had all of the
> answers, then I can't disagree because he was most certainly smarter
> than anyone I know. I'll still choose to side with the people who
> think we don't have all of the answers.
Of course we don't have all the answers. But the case for QM without
the "hidden variables" is extremely strong. Check out the GHZ paradox.
Check out chapter 6 of "The Character of Physical Law".
>
>
>
> > Nope. There are two theories:
>
> But only one reality. You can not know the state of the photon as it
> strikes the glass, and you can not know the state of the glass
> particle that the photon strikes. (Heisenberg). Based upon the
> reaction of the particles, however, you can make some assumptions
> about both. Again, this is not random, it is chaotic. QM attempts to
> separate itself from "classic" physics (CP). Really, there is only one
> physics. My arguments have been classical (cause & effect) where you
> argue quantum uncertainty. QM says we can't predict some things
> because we can't know their state. CP says if we know the state of the
No, QM says you can know the state, and QM says all you can determine
from the state is the probabilities of various outcomes.
> all of the actors we can predict the outcome the event.Then QM says
> "but you can't know" and so on. Chaos embraces both.
>
> You can chose to dismiss chaos, but you really shouldn't.
I'm not an expert on chaos, but I really think it has nothing to do
with this.
>
> > There are spots on the glass. This can't
> > be because of certain interference effects. See the video. Maybe the
> > photons have to be oriented "just right" to get through the glass.
> > Again, no, because light that passes through glass is still reflected
> > randomly at the 4% level by a second piece of glass. See part 1 of the
> > video at
>
> > www.feynman.com
>
> > Despite the fact that this video is from 1979, I see nothing in it
> > that has been refuted by any experiment since. I strongly recommend
> > watching it. Try to watch at least the first 35 minutes. If after that
> > you've lost interest, then logout. (Feynman takes 35 minutes to
> > "prepare the audience" because this stuff is so strange it is very
> > hard to believe. If defies "common sense". But common sense is just
> > what we experience in the ordinary world of large objects and slow
> > (compared to the speed of light) velocities. Things at the microsopic
> > level are simply different. Even in the ordinary world size matters.
> > Larger animals can't fly because their weight grows faster the their
> > area with their size. Nature doesn't scale.
>
> Well, so far what I've watched of the video is pretty basic stuff.
> Maybe you could give a time mark for the point you wanted to stress?
How far have you wathced? It takes him 35 minutes to get through the
preliminaries.
>
> <...>
>
> To keep this shorter, I've snipped the rest of your fine thoughts. I
> enjoy your discussion. You've encouraged me to catch up on some
> current material (and re-read some old).
It's a fascinating subject. I'm glad you're into it.
AEF
AEF
> On Apr 13, 7:09 pm, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 13, 2:20 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> To keep this shorter, I've snipped the rest of your fine thoughts. I
> enjoy your discussion. You've encouraged me to catch up on some
> current material (and re-read some old).
Thanks! I appreciate your interest.
One more thing. In "The Character of Physical Law", Feynman says the
following:
"... nobody understands quantum mechanics". He concludes this
paragraph with "Nobody knows how it can be like that". See the book
for the full story. It's very good.
So if you find QM difficult, unbelievable, etc., you're not alone.
"Nobody knows how it can be like that." --RPF
AEF
Doug Phillips
> On Apr 13, 2:20 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > is pure energy. Or, at least some accept that as highly probable.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "pure energy".
>
My reply to this was pretty lame. Let me try again. "Pure energy" was
probably a bad term to use. What I mean, is it can't be broken into
components. If a quark is the most elemental of particles, it has no
component other than the "energy" it is made from. I called this
"pure".
I also wanted to cite an article I'd read a couple of months ago in
Science News, but I had to find it and then find a reference on-line.
You, AEF, are likely familiar with it but others might not be. I don't
intend it to prove or support any of my statements. It is a fine (and
fairly current) example of how experimental and theoretical science
push each other ahead and how theories evolve and change to account
for observed phenomena.
<http://focus.aps.org/story/v19/st1>
"According to theory, some particles have a different mass in empty
space than they do in an atomic nucleus. . . ."
JF Mezei
> Have you recently re-watched 2001: a space odyssey?
Sorry, forgot about the monolith. However, wasn't it in 2010 where
"creation of life" was specifically shown ?
> Until there's some reason to pursue this, it's just speculation. I
> don't see any big mystery that requires such.
I personally 100% agree with this. It is harmless to speculate as long
as you know it is speculation. However, there are certain groups who
feel their view is absolutely right and wish to impose their speculation
as FACT and force it to be taught as FACT in schools. And that is wrong.
AEF
I think evolution is enough of a fact to teach it. We don't know all
the details, but it is difficult to refute.
Other things that are fairly certain (this is NOT meant to be an
exhaustive list):
The reality of atoms.
Conservation of energy. (This is the First Law of Thermodynamics. The
Second Law is also well confirmed. If you could violate either, you'd
instantly be world famous and the world would be forever changed. The
laws are sometimes stated thusly: First Law: You can't win. Second
Law: You can't even break even. Third Law: You gotta play the game.
Man, physics is filled with "you can't"'s! You can't go faster than
light. You can't beat QM. Etc.)
Conservation of momentum.
Conservation of angular momentum.
QM rules.
Relativity.
AEF (Yes, I'm pretty certain that my existence is fairly certain!)
AEF
> On Apr 13, 8:09 pm, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 13, 2:20 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > Most accept that at some level, whether quark (or sub-quark?), there
> > > is pure energy. Or, at least some accept that as highly probable.
>
> > I don't know what you mean by "pure energy".
>
> My reply to this was pretty lame. Let me try again. "Pure energy" was
> probably a bad term to use. What I mean, is it can't be broken into
> components. If a quark is the most elemental of particles, it has no
> component other than the "energy" it is made from. I called this
> "pure".
So you might mean kinetic energy. There is kinetic energy and
potential energy. Matter is potential energy. Kinetic energy is the
energy of motion, so heat is kinetic energy (microsopically) in this
sense. Yes, much of the quarks mass comes from kinetic energy and the
"forces" and what not. I'm not really familiar enough with this to
comment further as it involves QCD which I don't know much about. But
I don't like the term "pure energy". It's too vague. What would
"impure energy" be?
> I also wanted to cite an article I'd read a couple of months ago in
> Science News, but I had to find it and then find a reference on-line.
> You, AEF, are likely familiar with it but others might not be. I don't
> intend it to prove or support any of my statements. It is a fine (and
> fairly current) example of how experimental and theoretical science
> push each other ahead and how theories evolve and change to account
> for observed phenomena.
>
> <http://focus.aps.org/story/v19/st1>
>
> "According to theory, some particles have a different mass in empty
> space than they do in an atomic nucleus. . . ."
Yes, that is due to "binding energy". To free a particle from a
nucleus you have to provide energy. So the masses of protons and
neutrons in a nucleus is less than when they are free because the free
particles have that energy you put in to liberate them. The same goes
for the planets orbiting the sun, though there it is a tiny effect.
The amount of energy it takes to liberate something is the "binding
energy".
I probably made an errant post to this with having added a reply.
Sorry.
AEF
JF Mezei
>> My reply to this was pretty lame. Let me try again. "Pure energy" was
>> probably a bad term to use.
But this is to be expected from a Digital customer... One of the few
"cool marketing" Digital made , used the song from the group Information
Society "I want to Know" (not sure of the title) and in it, you hear a
sound byte of Spock repeating "Pure Energy"
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
"AEF" <spamsi...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Other things that are fairly certain (this is NOT meant to be an
> exhaustive list):
>
> The reality of atoms.
>
> Conservation of energy. (This is the First Law of Thermodynamics. The
> Second Law is also well confirmed. If you could violate either, you'd
> instantly be world famous and the world would be forever changed. The
> laws are sometimes stated thusly: First Law: You can't win. Second
> Law: You can't even break even. Third Law: You gotta play the game.
> Man, physics is filled with "you can't"'s! You can't go faster than
> light. You can't beat QM. Etc.)
>
> Conservation of momentum.
>
> Conservation of angular momentum.
>
> QM rules.
>
> Relativity.
>
> AEF (Yes, I'm pretty certain that my existence is fairly certain!)
The famous American philosopher Ted Nugent (who, to get back "on" topic,
certainly doubts the reality of global warming) put forth the following
credo: If I can take a bite out of it, it's real; otherwise it doesn't
exist.
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>On Apr 14, 8:38 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>don't see anything that great about it. It appears to let you pretend
>that particles actually travel with definite trajectories somehow
>"guided" the pilot wave and that this somehow reproduces all the
>familiar results of QM. I don't find it satisfactory. In the 2-slit
>experiment, if the particle is being tugged sideways through the
>probability regions of the interference pattern of the waves, that
>adds an unnatural and "random" sideways component to its velocity.
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_Quantum_Mechanics
"
No experimental evidence exists that would distinguish between the
interpretations listed. To that extent, the physical theory stands, and is
consistent with, itself and with reality; troubles come only when one attempts
to "interpret" it.
"
>Maybe that's somehow taken care of in the theory, I don't know -- I
>just gave it a quick read. I'm also curious as to how it gives
>"reality" to particles that are tunneling, that is, traveling through
>barriers they don't have enough energy to break through. Wouldn't
>these tunneling particles have negative kinetic energy? I don't see
>anything "real" about that! I may well be wrong, but I suspect it is
>just smoke and mirrors, or a sugar coating, though well intentioned.
>The Wikipedia article discusses other criticisms, including the
>problem the Bohm theory has with (a particle's) spin. And there
>appears to be no mention of the GHZ paradox, though I might have
>missed it and it may or may not be a problem for the Bohm theory (or
>interpretation).
>
>Anyway, there is an important thing the Bohm theory definitely cannot
>do, and that is to predict where the next electron will show up on the
>screen. It cannot predict which photons will be reflected from the
>glass. It cannot predict which neutron will decay next. Hence, the
>randomness remains, which was my original point.
>
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation
"
Yet this formalism is empirically indistinguishable from, and entirely
consistent with, the Schrodinger equation, despite the hidden variable
Bohm-particles following chaotic paths. It is this underlying chaotic behaviour
of the hidden variables that allows the deterministic Bohm theory to generate
the apparent indeterminacy associated with each measurement, and hence recover
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
"
Hence in the Bohm interpretation the randomness is the result of chaotic
behaviour of a deterministic system. The randomness does not just appear
out of nothing it is like the randomness of any other chaotic deterministic
system it arises from our ignorance.
>I'm beginning to favor the "Shut up and calculate!" intrepretation
>more and more. If you can't observe it, what does it matter? If your
>model successfully predicts what you see, great! And QM does that
>spectacularly well.
>
Since quantum theory and GR conflict it is obvious that both need replacing by
a new theory. Hence it seems to me, that apart from the interpretations being
a source of ideas which might aid in the search for a new theory, it is
pointless in taking arguments between them too far. Since quantum theory is
undoubtedly going to be replaced the interpretations are pretty certainly all
incorrect.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
gen...@marblecliff.com
and it is just as wrong to teach the exposed lie of evolution to
our kids in school as well ... all ideas need to be presented for
science to expand ... putting these potential scientists down
the wrong path from the start just stalls and hurts science
future ... the lie of evolution has set science back decades
while they are still searching for the missing link, they could
have been finding out relevant things that other scientists
are just starting to find out ...
AEF
Evolution is not a lie. The evidence in favor of it is overwhelming.
There is zero evidence in favor of "creationism".
All ideas? I wouldn't waste time on ridiculous ideas. You could
present ideas proven wrong as proven wrong and explain why, but I
wouldn't waste too much time on it. For example, I don't see much
point in teaching the pholgiston theory of heat, except as part of a
"history of science" course.
Set science back decades? How so?
I don't know what the lastest is on the missing link, but absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence. As an example, what is the energy
source of the sun? It was only in the 1930's (plus or minus a decade)
that it was found out. It turned out to be nuclear fusion. But no one
knew that before then. So before then you could have said that no one
knows what makes the Sun shine and blah blah blah. Well, now we know,
and the fact that we didn't know once doesn't imply that before that
the Sun shone by God's words or that the Sun was a god or whatever.
The Sun always shone by nuclear fusion. The same goes for your missing
link bit. It's really irrelevant nitpicking (is that a redundant
phrase?).
The same biology and medical research that you benefit from is based
on the same biology that produced the theory of evolution.
Tuberculosis has evolved right before our very eyes into highly drug-
resistant strains. How do you explain that?
Bob, I suggest you read "Asimov's New Guide to Science" or whatever
the latest version of it is called. But I know you won't. You appear
to know nothing about what science is. You hurl out these sound bytes
that are just plain wrong. We don't know all the details of every part
of evolution, but we do know that it happened and continues to happen.
I'd also suggest going to www.randi.org and typing "religion" or
"creationism" into the search box, but you're not going to like it.
AEF
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
<spamsi...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Bob, I suggest you read "Asimov's New Guide to Science"
Indeed. And a couple of hundred other Asimov books as well. I would
cite Asimov's essay collections in particular, and his books in general,
as one of the greatest (in both senses of the word) influences on my
life.
Asimov's New Guide to Science was the successor to Asimov's Guide to
Science. This, in turn, was the successor to The New Intelligent Man's
Guide to Science, since calling it The New New Intelligent Man's Guide
to Science was obviously not an option. It started out as The
Intelligent Man's Guide to Science.
By the time Asimov had become famous as a science writer, the women's
lib movement was in full swing (and Asimov had been a supporter from the
start). He was once asked by a journalist whether the name The New
Intelligent Man's Guide to Science wasn't sexist, and whether it
shouldn't be called The Intelligent Person's Guide to Science. Without
missing a beat, and perhaps with a bit of faux surprise, Asimov
explained that the "Intelligent Man" referred to the author. :-) This
was probably a bit of creative rewriting of history on his part, but
calling the successor volume Asimov's Guide to Science, i.e. replacing
"The Intelligent Man" with "Asimov", was (this just occurred to me; the
book itself I read 30 years ago) perhaps an in-joke.
Dave Froble
> On Apr 12, 1:55 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> A fanatic's belief, like that expressed by our marblecliff-genius,
>> leaves no room for doubt or question. The ironic teachings of the FSM
>> are lost upon such minds.
>
> oh you can doubt all you want, unfortunately the bible continues
> to be proven true as an accurate version of history and as is now
> pointing also an accurate version of future events ...
>
>> Only they can hear GODs TRUE word, and all others hear the voice of
>> Satan. This belief is and has always been the justification for
>> selfish acts.
>
> no one has to hear God ... you can read everything he has said for
> yourself in the bible ... weither you can read and comprehend is
> another matter ...
>
>
quite humorous, coming from one who seems able to do neither
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: da...@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
AEF
[Well, I already responded to this using Google Groups, but it seems
to have been lost in the Google Goop. So, I'm replying again.
Apologies if the lost one eventually shows up. Hey, this one's better
anyway!]
> From
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_Quantum_Mechanics
>
> "
> No experimental evidence exists that would distinguish between the
> interpretations listed. To that extent, the physical theory stands, and is
> consistent with, itself and with reality; troubles come only when one attempts
> to "interpret" it.
> "
Well, this sounds like an ad for the "Shut up and calculate!"
"interpretation".
Well, this appears to set a deterministic path for the particle. I
would guess that this would be the collection of points at which one
would have observed the particle if a measurement would be taken at
that point in its "trajectory". But alas, like death, you can only
make such a measurement once. So I'm not sure you can really give much
meaning to the "deterministic trajectory".
The problem I see with this theory is mostly with tunneling.
(Tunneling occurs when a particle penetrates a barrier that classicaly
it wouldn't have enough energy to. This is a purely quantum mechanical
phenomenon for a particle [it has no classical counterpart except with
waves] and comes from the wave aspect of the particle. Alpha radiation
is an example of tunneling. Tunneling is also responsible for
transfering charge from your hair to a baloon, IIRC.) When the
particle is "moving" in the barrier, it would have negative kinetic
energy. And since kinetic energy = (1/2)*m*v**2, the velocity would be
imaginary (imaginary as in complex numbers). So what "deterministic"
path does such a particle take? The article makes no mention of this.
There is also the problem of spin, which the article mentions. The
spin, apparently, has to be taken up by the wave function, which kind
of goes against the whole idea.
Then there is the case of radioactive decay. How does the Bohm theory
handle that? How does the "pilot wave" guide the decay?
And what about the GHZ paradox? (No, that's not gigahertz!)
Then there is Quantum Field Theory and such, on which I am not
qualified to comment.
Also, the article's neutrality has been disputed.
But from a pracitcal perspective, the things I mentioned are certainly
random. Even with this interpretation, there is no way to measure the
"hidden variables". I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea of the
particle going through only one slit yet its pilot wave goes through
both. I have to think about this some more. If the particle itself
really went through just one slit, it should land on the screen as if
it did, but you get the interference pattern instead. But that's from
the pilot wave, of course. I need more time to think about this.
> >I'm beginning to favor the "Shut up and calculate!" intrepretation
> >more and more. If you can't observe it, what does it matter? If your
> >model successfully predicts what you see, great! And QM does that
> >spectacularly well.
>
> Since quantum theory and GR conflict it is obvious that both need replacing by
> a new theory. Hence it seems to me, that apart from the interpretations being
> a source of ideas which might aid in the search for a new theory, it is
> pointless in taking arguments between them too far. Since quantum theory is
> undoubtedly going to be replaced the interpretations are pretty certainly all
> incorrect.
GR has to be modified as it doesn't take QM into account. QM does not,
at least not for the reason you give. QM doesn't dictate what forces
exist. QM is used for the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear
force, and the strong force. And even though there are still problems
with the two nuclear forces, there is no reason to look beyond QM for
them. I see no reason that QM cannot accommodate gravity one day.
I suppose you could loosely say that QM is the operating system, the
forces are the apps, and the particles are the users!
I appreciate your interest.
On quantum weirdness: "Nobody knows how it can be like that". --RPF
> David Webb
[...]
AEF
Neil Rieck
<gen...@marblecliff.com> wrote in message
news:1176645414....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 14, 4:23 pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> AEF wrote:
>> > Have you recently re-watched 2001: a space odyssey?
>>
>
> and it is just as wrong to teach the exposed lie of evolution to
> our kids in school as well ... all ideas need to be presented for
> science to expand ... putting these potential scientists down
> the wrong path from the start just stalls and hurts science
> future ... the lie of evolution has set science back decades
> while they are still searching for the missing link, they could
> have been finding out relevant things that other scientists
> are just starting to find out ...
>
The bigger question here is "did God snap his fingers 6000 years ago to
create the world with both a geological and fossil record built in to
confuse us" ---OR--- "did God snap his fingers 14 Billion years ago creating
universal laws which resulted in our being here today to contemplate it all?
The former explanation seems like a cheap magician's trick while the latter
is much more like an ultimate example of extreme engineering. So like the
big bang (which comes from an analysis of running the process backwards
after we learned that the universe is expanding) I think it is safe to say
that evolution is not a lie any more than the theory of gravity or the
theory of chemistry are lies.
NSR
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
AEF
> On Apr 13, 7:09 pm, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 13, 2:20 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> No, I don't claim to fully understand QM, and I don't personally know
"... nobody understands quantum mechanics". --RPF (Richard P. Feynman)
> anyone who completely understands it, or Chaos Theory for that matter,
> or can completely debunk either. If you think Feynman had all of the
> answers, then I can't disagree because he was most certainly smarter
> than anyone I know. I'll still choose to side with the people who
> think we don't have all of the answers.
Yeah, I reference Feynman a lot. That's in part because he's such an
excellent teacher. (Try reading Bohr's rebuttal to Einstein's EPR
paper! Talk about dense!!!)
He also has a Nobel Prize for his work on QED. Also, he's refreshingly
honest. He comes right out and says we can't calculate exactly what
would happen in a given situation. Nature only permits us to calculate
odds he says. He is not afraid tell us what we don't know. About this
he says, "Physics has given up." And he's the most fun to read. But
even he makes mistakes. I and other's caught one in his fine three-
volume "The Feynman Letcures". These have supposedly been cleaned up
in the "definitive version" now on sale. This definitive version
claims the making of the books was a little hurried and mistakes were
made. Hey, no one's perfect.
Also, in the book "More Than One Mystery", Makr P. Silverman writes
that Feynman erred when he said that quantum interference is the "only
mystery". Feynman lectured back in 1964 or so that the 2-slit
experiment he was about to discuss was carefully designed to, well, he
says "I will take just this one experiment [the 2-hole experiment],
which has been designed to contain all of the mystery of QM, to put
you up against the paradoxes and mysteries and peculiarities of nature
one hundred per cent. Any other situation in QM, it turns out, can
always be explained by sayhing, 'You remember the case of the
experient withthe two holes? It's the asme thing'." Well, Silverman
takes him to task on this claiming Feynman oversimplified the Aharanov-
Bohm effect and mentions another effect, the bunching of photons or
electrons that come from a random source (which I think is in part 4
of the Feynman video I mentioned earlier). So, even the great Feynman
made mistakes. But you'll need a strong background in physics to read
the Silverman book. Plus Feynman said/wrote this back in 1964. Who
knows what he would have said in his later years.
Hey, who knows what's really real. But for now, QM rules. There is no
question about it!
I appreciate your interest.
Remember this about QM weirdness: "Nobody knows how it can be like
that". --RPF
[...]
AEF
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>On Apr 15, 7:00 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>to have been lost in the Google Goop. So, I'm replying again.
>Apologies if the lost one eventually shows up. Hey, this one's better
>anyway!]
>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_Quantum_Mechanics
>>
>> "
>> No experimental evidence exists that would distinguish between the
>> interpretations listed. To that extent, the physical theory stands, and is
>> consistent with, itself and with reality; troubles come only when one attempts
>> to "interpret" it.
>> "
>
>"interpretation".
>
It is true of all the interpretations since if you could simply run an
experiment to distinguish between them it would already have been done.
I believe the neutrality issue is on the format of the critisism section in
particular on how it provides the critisism and then the bohm supporters
response thus giving the last word to the bohm supporters.
>But from a pracitcal perspective, the things I mentioned are certainly
>random. Even with this interpretation, there is no way to measure the
>"hidden variables". I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea of the
>particle going through only one slit yet its pilot wave goes through
>both. I have to think about this some more. If the particle itself
>really went through just one slit, it should land on the screen as if
>it did, but you get the interference pattern instead. But that's from
>the pilot wave, of course. I need more time to think about this.
>
>> >I'm beginning to favor the "Shut up and calculate!" intrepretation
>> >more and more. If you can't observe it, what does it matter? If your
>> >model successfully predicts what you see, great! And QM does that
>> >spectacularly well.
>>
>> Since quantum theory and GR conflict it is obvious that both need replacing by
>> a new theory. Hence it seems to me, that apart from the interpretations being
>> a source of ideas which might aid in the search for a new theory, it is
>> pointless in taking arguments between them too far. Since quantum theory is
>> undoubtedly going to be replaced the interpretations are pretty certainly all
>> incorrect.
>
>GR has to be modified as it doesn't take QM into account. QM does not,
>at least not for the reason you give. QM doesn't dictate what forces
>exist. QM is used for the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear
>force, and the strong force. And even though there are still problems
>with the two nuclear forces, there is no reason to look beyond QM for
>them. I see no reason that QM cannot accommodate gravity one day.
>
If QM could be simply altered to incorporate gravity in a way which would give
meaningful results consistent with experimentally confirmed predictions of GR
then it would already have been done.
We would have no need to be looking for new theories such as string theory,
loop quantum gravity etc
>I suppose you could loosely say that QM is the operating system, the
>forces are the apps, and the particles are the users!
>
Only if you are prepared to accept that the QM + gravity OS sometimes produced
infinite answers which you can't get rid of.
Also note that the QM operating system runs on a fixed hardware (fixed
spacetime background) whereas the new QM + gravity OS is required to alter it's
hardware as it runs ( dynamic spacetime geometry).
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>I appreciate your interest.
>
>On quantum weirdness: "Nobody knows how it can be like that". --RPF
>
>> David Webb
>[...]
>AEF
>
AEF
> In article <1176512995.962498.49...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 13, 2:20 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> see it yet.
>
> >> On Apr 12, 8:21 pm, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> I figured I'd hear from you:-)
>
>
> >> > Sure you can. Quantum mechanics is full of random events. Take a
> >> > radioactive substance like uranium. It will emit alpha particles
> >> > (which are really Helium nuclei). There is no way to tell which atom
> >> > will be the next to emit an alpha particle. It is random, but the
> >> > randomness obeys the statisctics forced upon it by its wave function.
>
> >> Let's establish what I mean by random. A random event cannot be
> >> predicted or reproduced. It has no cause. Events can appear to be
>
> >This is exactly what happens with radioactive decay, for example.
> >There is nothing you can do to predict which atom will decay next.
> >NOTHING. All you can do is measure the half-life of the decay process.
> >For example, a free neutron decays with a half-life of about 10
> >minutes. This means, if you somehow had a bunch of free neutrons
> >sitting around, about half of them will have decayed after 10 minutes
> >have passed. All the neutrons are exactly identical. And there is no
> >way at all to determine WHICH neutrons will decay during that 10
> >minutes. That's just how it is. Well, no one knows the ultimate, but
> >trust me, it looks real, real certain. (You can also say a free
> >neutron has a mean lifetime of about 15 minutes. This means if you
> >measure how long a large number of neutrons live, the average lifetime
> >will be found to be 15 minutes.)
>
> >> random because we can't detect the cause, but that does not mean there
> >> is no cause. If we view a micro-event at a macro-scale (or vice versa)
> >> it can appear random. If we can identify every variable --- repeat:
> >> *every* variable --- that can influence the event, we can reliably
> >> control the outcome. A small change in one variable can often cause a
> >> large change in the result. If we aren't aware of that variable, we
> >> see random. This defines a "chaotic" system.
>
> >I am not that familiar with chaos theory, but quantum mechanics
> >asserts that there are no hidden variables.
>
> theories it does not rule out non-local theories such as Bohm's theory.
>
> David Webb
[...]
QM still asserts it.
AEF
AEF
> In article <1176675007.783899.67...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:>On Apr 15, 7:00 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> >> In article <1176578388.230495.155...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> >On Apr 14, 8:38 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> >> >> In article <KcedneIpiPdAQYLbnZ2dnUVZ_qmpn...@metrocastcablevision.com>, Bill Todd <billt...@metrocast.net> writes:
>
> >> >> >Doug Phillips wrote:
>
> >> From
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_Quantum_Mechanics
>
> >> "
> >> No experimental evidence exists that would distinguish between the
> >> interpretations listed. To that extent, the physical theory stands, and is
> >> consistent with, itself and with reality; troubles come only when one attempts
> >> to "interpret" it.
> >> "
>
> >Well, this sounds like an ad for the "Shut up and calculate!"
> >"interpretation".
>
> It is true of all the interpretations since if you could simply run an
> experiment to distinguish between them it would already have been done.
Then what's the point of the interpretations?
[I already responded to this post but it appears to have gotten lost
in the Google Goop! Man, I've having really bad luck with Google this
round.]
Well, it'll be probably be a quantum theory. Anyway, it's already been
determined that the graviton must have spin-2, which is a quantum
property.
> >I suppose you could loosely say that QM is the operating system, the
> >forces are the apps, and the particles are the users!
>
> Only if you are prepared to accept that the QM + gravity OS sometimes produced
> infinite answers which you can't get rid of.
QED had exactly this problem until Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga
figured out how to calculate it correctly (Weisskofp may have been
involved). But yes, this is a more difficult problem. Feynman
discusses this in his QED book, the process of "renormalization" which
sweeps the inifinites under the rug. He admits in the book that it is
a "dippy process" and needs to be made more mathematiclly sound.
That's another thing I like about Feynman: he's honest and tells you
the problems with his own work!
> Also note that the QM operating system runs on a fixed hardware (fixed
> spacetime background) whereas the new QM + gravity OS is required to alter it's
> hardware as it runs ( dynamic spacetime geometry).
OK.
>
> David Webb
> Security team leader
> CCSS
> Middlesex University>I appreciate your interest.
>
> >On quantum weirdness: "Nobody knows how it can be like that". --RPF
>
> >> David Webb
> >[...]
> >AEF
AEF
Bob Koehler
> gen...@marblecliff.com wrote:
>>
>> > scripture from the original script. Oh, yes, there are many different
>> > translations of "God's Word" --- or did your think He spoke to the
>> > authors in the King's English? Or did you think He actually took quill
>> > to parchment and wrote the Book Himself? Or do you not know the
>> > history of your Holy Book.
>>
>> the King James version is an accurate translation ... greek is still
>> greek ... there are only translation problems for those who do not
>> want to accept the translation ...
>
> On what do you base such blind faith in the translators (humans)?
>
Since the oldest texts are in Arameic, not Greek, and appear to be
copies of earlier writings, any translation from Greek is at best
third hand.
And if one believes that all translations are protected by God and
only He can account for thier appearant disagreements, I'd like to
know:
1. Where in the Bible is there an example of God writing in ink
on paper? It seems only people do that.
2. Where in the Bible does God promise to protect the literal
meaning of the Bible? It seems that's an idea born of
fundamentalist humans.
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>On Apr 14, 8:54 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>> In article <1176512995.962498.49...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 13, 2:20 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >> Sorry if this shows up twice. Over 12 hours ago I posted, but I don't
>> >> see it yet.
>>
>> >> On Apr 12, 8:21 pm, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I figured I'd hear from you:-)
>>
John von Neumann famously asserted that but he was shown to have made a
mistake in his proof.
Bell's theorem and the Aspect experiments only rule out local hidden variable
theories and as I have pointed out a proof of existence of hidden variable
theories exists in the Bohm interpretation.
You may not like features of the Bohm interpretation just as others do not like
features of the other intepretations (the various Copenhagen interpretations,
many worlds interpretation, etc etc) that is your personal perogative.
However that personal view has nothing to do with what QM asserts about the
matter.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>AEF
>
AEF
Oh, relax. The theory says that, at least that's what my graduate
Quantum Mechanics book says (the book is by Merzbacher). I didn't say
it was proven. You can assert something and be wrong.
AEF
Dave Froble
Ah, but you miss the real point here. There are some who just cannot
stand the concept that they're just another monkey. Thus their horror
at the concept of evolution.
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>On Apr 15, 9:09 pm, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>> >> In article <1176578388.230495.155...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> >> >On Apr 14, 8:38 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>> >> >> In article <KcedneIpiPdAQYLbnZ2dnUVZ_qmpn...@metrocastcablevision.com>, Bill Todd <billt...@metrocast.net> writes:
>>
>> >> >> >Doug Phillips wrote:
>>
>
>> >> From
>>
>> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_Quantum_Mechanics
>>
>> >> "
>> >> No experimental evidence exists that would distinguish between the
>> >> interpretations listed. To that extent, the physical theory stands, and is
>> >> consistent with, itself and with reality; troubles come only when one attempts
>> >> to "interpret" it.
>> >> "
>>
>> >Well, this sounds like an ad for the "Shut up and calculate!"
>> >"interpretation".
>>
>> It is true of all the interpretations since if you could simply run an
>> experiment to distinguish between them it would already have been done.
>
means. Newtonian mechanics gave a pictue of the universe which everyone could
agree on. GR similarly gives a picture everyone could agree on.
There is no agreed picture for QM just mathematical tools which work.
>[I already responded to this post but it appears to have gotten lost
>in the Google Goop! Man, I've having really bad luck with Google this
>round.]
>
>Well, it'll be probably be a quantum theory.
Which means what ?
The change from Newtonian mechanics to GR changed fundamentally the notions of
time and space. A new theory could equally change our notions of what being a
quantum theory means.
>Anyway, it's already been
>determined that the graviton must have spin-2, which is a quantum
>property.
The graviton is nonrenormalizable.
Also as far as I am aware it is just a theoretical prediction no one has ever
detected a graviton let alone checked it's spin.
>
>> >I suppose you could loosely say that QM is the operating system, the
>> >forces are the apps, and the particles are the users!
>>
>> Only if you are prepared to accept that the QM + gravity OS sometimes produced
>> infinite answers which you can't get rid of.
>
>QED had exactly this problem until Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga
>figured out how to calculate it correctly (Weisskofp may have been
>involved). But yes, this is a more difficult problem. Feynman
>discusses this in his QED book, the process of "renormalization" which
>sweeps the inifinites under the rug. He admits in the book that it is
>a "dippy process" and needs to be made more mathematiclly sound.
>That's another thing I like about Feynman: he's honest and tells you
>the problems with his own work!
>
Renormalisation doesn't work with gravity.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>> Also note that the QM operating system runs on a fixed hardware (fixed
>> spacetime background) whereas the new QM + gravity OS is required to alter it's
>> hardware as it runs ( dynamic spacetime geometry).
>
>OK.
>
>>
>> David Webb
>> Security team leader
>> CCSS
>> Middlesex University>I appreciate your interest.
>>
>> >On quantum weirdness: "Nobody knows how it can be like that". --RPF
>>
>> >> David Webb
>> >[...]
>> >AEF
>
>AEF
>
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>On Apr 16, 9:30 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>
>Oh, relax. The theory says that, at least that's what my graduate
>Quantum Mechanics book says (the book is by Merzbacher). I didn't say
>it was proven. You can assert something and be wrong.
>
If the book is fairly old it is probably reporting John von Neumann's mistaken
result.
I'm not sure how a theory can assert anything but it's axioms and
statements proved by the theory.
AEF
That's what I meant. I'll check the date on the book this evening.
It's definitely before 1984 -- I can tell you that much.
> David Webb
[...]
AEF
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>On Apr 16, 10:21 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>It's definitely before 1984 -- I can tell you that much.
>
1932 and it wasn't until 1964 that Bell proved that he had made a mistake.
The Aspect experiments were carried out in 1981/1982.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>> David Webb
>[...]
>AEF
>
Bob Koehler
> The interpretations are just attempts to understand what the hell QM really
> means. Newtonian mechanics gave a pictue of the universe which everyone could
> agree on. GR similarly gives a picture everyone could agree on.
> There is no agreed picture for QM just mathematical tools which work.
That's about as far from reality as I've seen. There are different
opinions about some details. Heck, I know of a man who won the
the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and doesn't agree with Newtonian
mechanics at macroscopic levels.
Doug Phillips
> On Apr 14, 1:45 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 13, 7:09 pm, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 13, 2:20 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > No, I don't claim to fully understand QM, and I don't personally know
>
> "... nobody understands quantum mechanics". --RPF (Richard P. Feynman)
>
> > anyone who completely understands it, or Chaos Theory for that matter,
> > or can completely debunk either. If you think Feynman had all of the
> > answers, then I can't disagree because he was most certainly smarter
> > than anyone I know. I'll still choose to side with the people who
> > think we don't have all of the answers.
>
> Yeah, I reference Feynman a lot. That's in part because he's such an
> excellent teacher. (Try reading Bohr's rebuttal to Einstein's EPR
> paper! Talk about dense!!!)
>
I watched the first video, and sampled the others. I remember Feynman
from years ago when he was one of the "go-to" guys for those TV shows
like Nova (too long ago to remember which shows) and referenced often
in science publications.
I'd forgotten what a charismatic person he was. How fortunate for
anyone who was his pupil.
Bohr's name seems appropriate. (as does Fine-man's:-)
> He also has a Nobel Prize for his work on QED. Also, he's refreshingly
> honest. He comes right out and says we can't calculate exactly what
> would happen in a given situation. Nature only permits us to calculate
> odds he says. He is not afraid tell us what we don't know. About this
> he says, "Physics has given up."
There's where I start having problems with QM *theory*. I've never
heard anyone dispute the reality of the experimental results ---
that's the way things happen. It's the *interpretation* of the results
that are debated.
Let me restate my opinion: There is nothing random in the universe.
Now, to repeat my definition of random, I don't mean "statistically"
random, I mean events that have no cause. "Physically" random.
The difference is important. Some QM events are statistically random
because there is no identifiable cause. The randomness lies not with
the event, but with our interpretation of the event. Having spent a
bit more time reading about various experiments and plans (*help, my
brain hurts!*) I still see nothing that contradicts my belief. I see
statistical randomness present only because of our inability to
monitor and *directly* measure the event with sufficient precision.
Oh, the current precision is impressive, but it's still insufficient.
You gave the example of photons reflecting from glass. Allow me look
at that from the chaotic viewpoint. Don't give up on me too soon. I
also might use a word that means something different & specific in
your field, so be patient. I'm trying to use generic -- not jargon --
language. And, most important, you must use your imagination.
First, we won't say "photons and glass"; I don't put them on the same
scale. Glass interacts with light (which is the "forest" where the
photon is the "tree"). The way light interacts with objects is easily
measured and can be directly linked to the object's properties; glass,
diamond, charcoal & gold have different properties and interact with
light differently. Since we can prove this, and we can control our
light source, we can state that the composition of our target material
is the variable we need to define in our experiment. For our
discussion we'll stick with glass. We'll clean and polish it to
optimum surface condition.
Now, we'll measure our glass' reflectivity from a single frequency
light source at a fixed angle of incidence. Our experiments reveal
about 4 percent reflectivity.
We know that photons interact at the atomic/subatomic level; with the
components of glass: Silicon, Oxygen, Boron, Phosphorous, and whatever
else got mixed in to make our fused silica matrix subject. More
specifically, a photon has the highest probability of interacting with
the electrons of those molecules and atoms if it does interact.
Because we are working in mind and theory, we can increase our test
machine's magnification to the point where we can see and track
individual electrons and photons. Looking though our "gun sight" we
adjust until a bound oxygen atom is dead center. We track the
electrons that pass through dead center of our aim to find a precise
regular interval when one passes through from left to right. We start
a clock spinning so that each time the clock reads 12, an electron is
dead center.
Now, we calculate our distance from the target and determine the
"time" when we must fire our photon in order to hit the electron.
Since our hypothetical gun has zero aiming error, and our measurements
are equally precise, we fire and hit an electron dead center (we
think). We measure and record the results to a nearly infinite degree
of accuracy.
Now we move our sight or target to find another atom that closely
matches our parameters, we make needed adjustments, fire, record, move
adjust and repeat our experiment 1000 times.
What do you think chaos theory predicts as the outcome?
The same as QM, actually. The results should show a statistical degree
of "randomness", and the reflectivity will likely be near 4 percent,
but probably slightly higher. Why? Because there are still factors
that we haven't considered.
Now we must ask, is greater accuracy important to our model? If so,
Chaos followers will try to fine-tune their definitions. The electrons
are spinning differently; the other electrons near our target exert
influence; the electrons are at different distances from the nucleus;
etc.
Unfortunately, even our hypothetical equipment is now inadequate so
we'll keep working on our technology. We can either accept the
statistical variance for now or we can add additional variables to our
model and tweak them until we get results predictive of our
experiments. Each advance in precision measurement we make furthers
our understanding and we can better define our variables.
So for now, we'll wrap this exercise up and add it to our model of
Life, The Universe and Everything (with an alarm that sounds when one
of our variables gets more accurately measured).
Is that *really* different from QM? Don't we model a system to the
point of acceptable accuracy, diminishing returns or the limit of
ability. Chaos theory, however, won't accept "physically random"
events. (and its followers are destined to be forever frustrated;-)
Last time I looked, we aren't up to the capability of our imaginary
test equipment, so we can't reject the hypothesis that some causal
factors in our real experiments remain undefined. (Not "hidden",
because that supposes that we know what they are but just can't find
them. If they are known but just hidden, we can model them. More
likely, we don't know what they are so we can say they are unknown or
undefined.) Experiments prove statistical randomness in the QM theory,
but not physical randomness.
Sorry, I ain't going to do the math;-)
I won't get into entanglement now, either, but I'll keep following the
debates. Besides, that phenomenon's questions are not with randomness,
it's just flat-out weird.
>
> I appreciate your interest.
>
I appreciate your patience with this old chaotic person, and thanks
for the rekindling of some dying embers.
Bill Todd
...
> Is that *really* different from QM?
You mean, apart assuming that electrons and photons resemble billiard
balls rather than *intrinsic* (based upon extensive experiments)
probability distributions?
- bill
AEF
:-)
In the video, Feynman talks about the why's of things and how they are
irrelevant. Like why Venus goes back and forth times in 5 toons and
such. I think this may actually apply to all the various
interpretations of QM.
> Let me restate my opinion: There is nothing random in the universe.
> Now, to repeat my definition of random, I don't mean "statistically"
> random, I mean events that have no cause. "Physically" random.
Feynman's argument in "The Character of Physical Law" uses the 2-slit
experiment. He says that if there is some internal machinery that
determines which slit the electron will travel through, then whether
we measure which slit it goes through has nothing to do with it, but
if the electron has already "decided" to go through a particular slit
then it cannot produce an interference pattern. But it does.
I know that David Webb will say what about the Bohr interpretation? It
seems to me that the particle is still moving randomly because it's
being moved by a probability wave. You can pretned or "infer" a
definite path, but I don't see it being deterministic. But it's late,
and that's not the best time to tackle these issues, so I must wait
for the weekend.
Anyway, local hidden variables have been pretty much ruled out.
It's late. ... Goodnight for now. (My comments below were typed before
I typed this.)
>
> The difference is important. Some QM events are statistically random
> because there is no identifiable cause. The randomness lies not with
> the event, but with our interpretation of the event. Having spent a
> bit more time reading about various experiments and plans (*help, my
> brain hurts!*) I still see nothing that contradicts my belief. I see
> statistical randomness present only because of our inability to
> monitor and *directly* measure the event with sufficient precision.
> Oh, the current precision is impressive, but it's still insufficient.
The point is that infinitely precise measurements are not possible
even in principle.
But the photons and electrons are not localizable to that level. They
are not microsopic billiard balls following the familiar laws of
Newtonian mechanics. And even worse, making such measurements affects
the outcome! That's the point of the 2-hole experiment.
> Now, we calculate our distance from the target and determine the
> "time" when we must fire our photon in order to hit the electron.
> Since our hypothetical gun has zero aiming error, and our measurements
> are equally precise, we fire and hit an electron dead center (we
> think). We measure and record the results to a nearly infinite degree
> of accuracy.
See above. You just can't do that and it would affect what happens
anyway. In the terms of the 2-slit experiment: You cannot determine
the paths of particles that have produced interference patterns.
> Now we move our sight or target to find another atom that closely
> matches our parameters, we make needed adjustments, fire, record, move
> adjust and repeat our experiment 1000 times.
>
> What do you think chaos theory predicts as the outcome?
>
> The same as QM, actually. The results should show a statistical degree
> of "randomness", and the reflectivity will likely be near 4 percent,
> but probably slightly higher. Why? Because there are still factors
> that we haven't considered.
>
> Now we must ask, is greater accuracy important to our model? If so,
> Chaos followers will try to fine-tune their definitions. The electrons
> are spinning differently; the other electrons near our target exert
> influence; the electrons are at different distances from the nucleus;
> etc.
>
> Unfortunately, even our hypothetical equipment is now inadequate so
> we'll keep working on our technology. We can either accept the
> statistical variance for now or we can add additional variables to our
> model and tweak them until we get results predictive of our
> experiments. Each advance in precision measurement we make furthers
> our understanding and we can better define our variables.
You cannot arbitrarily increase the precision. The uncertainty
principle prevents you from achieving any of this. Einstein tried very
hard and came up with many Gedankenexperiments (thought experiments)
to try to show that the uncertainty principle is inconsistent or
invalid and failed every single time. In fact, in one of these thought
the principle of equivalence (originaly formulated by Einstein
himself) was used against him!
Anyway, according to Merzbacher (Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edition):
"QM asserts that for any given state the measurement of a particular
physical quantity results with calculable probability in a numerical
value belonging to an entire range of possible measured values. It
presupposes that no technical or mathematical ingenuity can devise
means of giving a sharper and more accurate account of a physical
state than that permitted by the wave function and the uncertainty
relation. These claims consititute a principle which by its very
nature cannot be proved, but which is supported extraordinarily firmly
by the enourmous number of verified consequences derived from it."
So you cannot make these increasingly precise measurements.
>
> So for now, we'll wrap this exercise up and add it to our model of
> Life, The Universe and Everything (with an alarm that sounds when one
> of our variables gets more accurately measured).
>
> Is that *really* different from QM? Don't we model a system to the
> point of acceptable accuracy, diminishing returns or the limit of
> ability. Chaos theory, however, won't accept "physically random"
> events. (and its followers are destined to be forever frustrated;-)
Yes. QM doesn't permit it, and see above.
>
> Last time I looked, we aren't up to the capability of our imaginary
> test equipment, so we can't reject the hypothesis that some causal
> factors in our real experiments remain undefined. (Not "hidden",
> because that supposes that we know what they are but just can't find
> them. If they are known but just hidden, we can model them. More
> likely, we don't know what they are so we can say they are unknown or
> undefined.) Experiments prove statistical randomness in the QM theory,
> but not physical randomness.
For all practical purposes, there is physical randomness.
>
> Sorry, I ain't going to do the math;-)
>
> I won't get into entanglement now, either, but I'll keep following the
> debates. Besides, that phenomenon's questions are not with randomness,
> it's just flat-out weird.
[...]
AEF
AEF
> In article <1176738128.388053.51...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:>On Apr 16, 10:21 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> >> In article <1176731061.786264.14...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> >On Apr 16, 9:30 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> >> >> In article <1176726111.477515.197...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> >> >On Apr 14, 8:54 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <1176512995.962498.49...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> >> >> >On Apr 13, 2:20 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Sorry if this shows up twice. Over 12 hours ago I posted, but I don't
> >> >> >> >> see it yet.
>
> >> >> >> >> On Apr 12, 8:21 pm, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> I figured I'd hear from you:-)
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Apr 12, 2:22 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >> >[...]
> >> >> >> >> > > Go ahead; try to find a random event. You can't. There is no
>
> >> >> >> >> > Sure you can. Quantum mechanics is full of random events. Take a
The book's copyright dates are 1961, 1970. He does say that a
"variant" of the Copenhagen interpretation mostly due to von Neumann
permeates all sections of the book, but concedes it leaves some
important questions unanswered.
I'll have to check more about this later. Goodnight.
> David Webb
[...]
AEF
David J Dachtera
Please seek some professional help...
--
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/
Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/
Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/
Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/
Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/
Doug Phillips
Probability distribution, AFAIK, refers to the probability of finding
a certain number of electrons within a given volume and I think it's
used at the atomic and molecular level. When an electron is traveling
around at 299792458 m/s in a space that small it is a bit hard to
follow; especially using electron-based instruments. Once it's
released / emitted it is obviously a particle and can be directed and
manipulated as such (quite precisely).
Maybe electrons do have little numbers on them. Who knows? ;-)
Bill Todd
> On Apr 16, 5:12 pm, Bill Todd <billt...@metrocast.net> wrote:
>> Doug Phillips wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Is that *really* different from QM?
>> You mean, apart assuming that electrons and photons resemble billiard
>> balls rather than *intrinsic* (based upon extensive experiments)
>> probability distributions?
>>
>> - bill
>
> Probability distribution, AFAIK, refers to the probability of finding
> a certain number of electrons within a given volume
I think that if you revisit your educational materials you'll find that
it refers to the indeterminacy (the *intrinsic* indeterminacy) in the
physical location of a single, specific electron.
I.e., not just to the fact that you will never, no matter how
sophisticated your instruments, be able to measure that location
precisely, but to the fact that it *has* no precise location in the
macroscopic physical sense.
While I frequently disagree with AEF on political subjects, it looks as
if we're on the same wavelength on this one, and he's likely
considerably more recently acquainted with the specifics than I am
(which is why I've commented only when he hadn't yet). I therefore
recommend that you pay more careful attention to what he's said.
- bill
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>In article <evvvt8$pk$1...@south.jnrs.ja.net>, dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>
>> The interpretations are just attempts to understand what the hell QM really
>> means. Newtonian mechanics gave a pictue of the universe which everyone could
>> agree on. GR similarly gives a picture everyone could agree on.
>> There is no agreed picture for QM just mathematical tools which work.
>
> That's about as far from reality as I've seen. There are different
> opinions about some details.
I probably should have said practically everyone rather than everyone.
Unlike the situation with QM there is not massive debate about radically
different interpretations of the meaning of the theories.
> Heck, I know of a man who won the
> the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and doesn't agree with Newtonian
> mechanics at macroscopic levels.
>
There is a difference between not agreeing with Newtonian Mechanics and
agreeing with the mathematics of Newtonian mechanics but not
agreeing with it's interpretation.
If you have references for a widely held interpretation of Newtonian mechanics
which does not involve a clockwork universe played out on a background of
absolute space and time with no upper bound to velocity I'd appreciate seeing
it.
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>irrelevant. Like why Venus goes back and forth times in 5 toons and
>such. I think this may actually apply to all the various
>interpretations of QM.
>
>> Now, to repeat my definition of random, I don't mean "statistically"
>> random, I mean events that have no cause. "Physically" random.
>
>experiment. He says that if there is some internal machinery that
>determines which slit the electron will travel through, then whether
>we measure which slit it goes through has nothing to do with it, but
>if the electron has already "decided" to go through a particular slit
>then it cannot produce an interference pattern. But it does.
>
>I know that David Webb will say what about the Bohr interpretation?
very different interpretations.
I only raised the Bohm interpretation to refute the idea that all hidden
variable interpretations were ruled out by QM.
Personally I am not happy with any of the interpretations and as I mentioned in
a previous posting hope that future developments in finding an overarching
theory which will supplant both QM and GR will clarify things.
Until then arguing too deeply on such matters just gives me a headache.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>It
>seems to me that the particle is still moving randomly because it's
>being moved by a probability wave. You can pretned or "infer" a
>definite path, but I don't see it being deterministic. But it's late,
>and that's not the best time to tackle these issues, so I must wait
>for the weekend.
>
>Anyway, local hidden variables have been pretty much ruled out.
>
>It's late. ... Goodnight for now. (My comments below were typed before
>I typed this.)
>
>>
>> The difference is important. Some QM events are statistically random
>> because there is no identifiable cause. The randomness lies not with
>> the event, but with our interpretation of the event. Having spent a
>> bit more time reading about various experiments and plans (*help, my
>> brain hurts!*) I still see nothing that contradicts my belief. I see
>> statistical randomness present only because of our inability to
>> monitor and *directly* measure the event with sufficient precision.
>> Oh, the current precision is impressive, but it's still insufficient.
>
>The point is that infinitely precise measurements are not possible
>even in principle.
>
>>
>But the photons and electrons are not localizable to that level. They
>are not microsopic billiard balls following the familiar laws of
>Newtonian mechanics. And even worse, making such measurements affects
>the outcome! That's the point of the 2-hole experiment.
>
>> Now, we calculate our distance from the target and determine the
>> "time" when we must fire our photon in order to hit the electron.
>> Since our hypothetical gun has zero aiming error, and our measurements
>> are equally precise, we fire and hit an electron dead center (we
>> think). We measure and record the results to a nearly infinite degree
>> of accuracy.
>
>See above. You just can't do that and it would affect what happens
>anyway. In the terms of the 2-slit experiment: You cannot determine
>the paths of particles that have produced interference patterns.
>
>> Now we move our sight or target to find another atom that closely
>> matches our parameters, we make needed adjustments, fire, record, move
>> adjust and repeat our experiment 1000 times.
>>
>> What do you think chaos theory predicts as the outcome?
>>
>> The same as QM, actually. The results should show a statistical degree
>> of "randomness", and the reflectivity will likely be near 4 percent,
>> but probably slightly higher. Why? Because there are still factors
>> that we haven't considered.
>>
>> Now we must ask, is greater accuracy important to our model? If so,
>> Chaos followers will try to fine-tune their definitions. The electrons
>> are spinning differently; the other electrons near our target exert
>> influence; the electrons are at different distances from the nucleus;
>> etc.
>>
>> Unfortunately, even our hypothetical equipment is now inadequate so
>> we'll keep working on our technology. We can either accept the
>> statistical variance for now or we can add additional variables to our
>> model and tweak them until we get results predictive of our
>> experiments. Each advance in precision measurement we make furthers
>> our understanding and we can better define our variables.
>
>You cannot arbitrarily increase the precision. The uncertainty
>principle prevents you from achieving any of this. Einstein tried very
>hard and came up with many Gedankenexperiments (thought experiments)
>to try to show that the uncertainty principle is inconsistent or
>invalid and failed every single time. In fact, in one of these thought
>the principle of equivalence (originaly formulated by Einstein
>himself) was used against him!
>
>Anyway, according to Merzbacher (Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edition):
>
>"QM asserts that for any given state the measurement of a particular
>physical quantity results with calculable probability in a numerical
>value belonging to an entire range of possible measured values. It
>presupposes that no technical or mathematical ingenuity can devise
>means of giving a sharper and more accurate account of a physical
>state than that permitted by the wave function and the uncertainty
>relation. These claims consititute a principle which by its very
>nature cannot be proved, but which is supported extraordinarily firmly
>by the enourmous number of verified consequences derived from it."
>
>So you cannot make these increasingly precise measurements.
>>
>> So for now, we'll wrap this exercise up and add it to our model of
>> Life, The Universe and Everything (with an alarm that sounds when one
>> of our variables gets more accurately measured).
>>
>> Is that *really* different from QM? Don't we model a system to the
>> point of acceptable accuracy, diminishing returns or the limit of
>> ability. Chaos theory, however, won't accept "physically random"
>> events. (and its followers are destined to be forever frustrated;-)
>
>Yes. QM doesn't permit it, and see above.
>
>>
>> Last time I looked, we aren't up to the capability of our imaginary
>> test equipment, so we can't reject the hypothesis that some causal
>> factors in our real experiments remain undefined. (Not "hidden",
>> because that supposes that we know what they are but just can't find
>> them. If they are known but just hidden, we can model them. More
>> likely, we don't know what they are so we can say they are unknown or
>> undefined.) Experiments prove statistical randomness in the QM theory,
>> but not physical randomness.
>
>For all practical purposes, there is physical randomness.
>
>>
>> Sorry, I ain't going to do the math;-)
>>
>> I won't get into entanglement now, either, but I'll keep following the
>> debates. Besides, that phenomenon's questions are not with randomness,
>> it's just flat-out weird.
>
>[...]
>
>AEF
>
AEF
> In article <1176774321.178675.132...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:>On Apr 16, 5:23 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> On Apr 15, 5:28 pm, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 14, 1:45 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Apr 13, 7:09 pm, "AEF" <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > On Apr 13, 2:20 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> > [...]
>
> >> > > No, I don't claim to fully understand QM, and I don't personally know
>
> >> > "... nobody understands quantum mechanics". --RPF (Richard P. Feynman)
>
> >> Let me restate my opinion: There is nothing random in the universe.
> >> Now, to repeat my definition of random, I don't mean "statistically"
> >> random, I mean events that have no cause. "Physically" random.
>
> >Feynman's argument in "The Character of Physical Law" uses the 2-slit
> >experiment. He says that if there is some internal machinery that
> >determines which slit the electron will travel through, then whether
> >we measure which slit it goes through has nothing to do with it, but
> >if the electron has already "decided" to go through a particular slit
> >then it cannot produce an interference pattern. But it does.
>
> >I know that David Webb will say what about the Bohr interpretation?
>
> That should be the Bohm interpretation. David Bohm and Niels Bohr had
> very different interpretations.
Yes, I meant Bohm!
> I only raised the Bohm interpretation to refute the idea that all hidden
> variable interpretations were ruled out by QM.
OK. As I recently posted (if it didn't get lost in the Google Goop!),
QM doesn't prove there are no hidden variables. But the experimental
evidence very strongly forbids at least ever being able to measure
any. The Bohm interpretation while interesting, and apparently useful
in that it motivated Bell, is not convincing.
> Personally I am not happy with any of the interpretations and as I mentioned in
> a previous posting hope that future developments in finding an overarching
> theory which will supplant both QM and GR will clarify things.
It would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath!
>
> Until then arguing too deeply on such matters just gives me a headache.
>
> David Webb
> Security team leader
> CCSS
> Middlesex University
[...]
AEF