review of new book on quantum physics
bpuharic
physics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/books/review/Farmelo-t.html?ref=books
In his lively new book, “Quantum,” the science writer Manjit Kumar
cites a poll about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, taken
among physicists at a conference in 1999. Of the 90 respondents, only
four said they accepted the standard interpretation taught in every
undergraduate physics course in the world. Thirty favored a modern
interpretation, laid out in 1957 by the Princeton theoretician Hugh
Everett III, while 50 ticked the box labeled “none of the above or
undecided.” Almost a century after a few physicists first set out the
basic theory, quantum mechanics is still a work in progress.
In resisting the photon concept, Planck was in good company. Another
influential skeptic was the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, a remarkably
profound thinker and inveterate mumbler who continually struggled to
find coherent expressions of his ideas. (“You should never express
more clearly than you can think,” he would whisper to often-baffled
colleagues.) Bohr at first refused to believe in the reality of
photons, even after the American experimenter Arthur Compton first
found compelling evidence for them in 1922. For a short time, Einstein
was in the vanguard of quantum theory, while Bohr lagged behind.
For Bohr, physics was not about finding out what nature is, but about
what can be said about it. Quantum mechanics was a complete theory of
the behavior of matter and light, and we just have to come to terms
with the limitations it places on what can be known, for example as
illustrated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Einstein was
having none of it. He believed that there is an objective world out
there and that it is the job of scientists to describe it. The
appearance of probabilities in the theory was, for him, evidence of
its incompleteness.
In the late 1970s, I had the pleasure of talking with John Bell about
the Bohr-Einstein debates during a train journey from Oxford to
London. Every seat was taken, so we had to stand. Pressed against me
by sullen commuters, Bell summarized his apparently reluctant
conclusion as we pulled into Paddington station: “Bohr was
inconsistent, unclear, willfully obscure and right. Einstein was
consistent, clear, down-to-earth and wrong.”
Kumar ends his fascinating book with the verdicts of some of today’s
leading physicists on Bohr’s and Einstein’s contrasting views on
quantum mechanics. It is clear from this that quite a few of
Einstein’s most distinguished successors believe he was right to say
that the theory is fundamentally unsatisfactory and that we need a
deeper account of reality. The sage of Princeton may yet have the last
chuckle.
Perplexed in Peoria
> interesting review in the NY times of a new popular history of quantum
> physics:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/books/review/Farmelo-t.html?ref=books
>
> cites a poll about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, taken
> among physicists at a conference in 1999. Of the 90 respondents, only
> four said they accepted the standard interpretation taught in every
> undergraduate physics course in the world. Thirty favored a modern
> interpretation, laid out in 1957 by the Princeton theoretician Hugh
> undecided.�
[snip]
Cool! "Many-worlds" is favored over "Copenhagen". Physicists are
finally coming to their senses. Or maybe it is just that the earlier
generations are dying off, and new versions of physics textbooks are
being written. Can we look forward to new generations of popular
works to explain Everett to the masses without making it seem weird?
I've never really understood the opposition to "Many-worlds". For
some of the vocal opponents, the issue seems to be a religious or
moral one. They think that a physics in which everything that can
happen does happen somehow destroys the concepts of individual
responsibility and free will. Such objections make as little sense
to me as Nando's ramblings here. In "many-worlds", as in the more
traditional narratives, we each have to live in a world which is
(in part) a consequence of our own past actions. I don't see how you
can expect your physics to provide any more support for conventional
morality than that. Imagine that the soul splits along with the
physical universe when an ensouled agent makes a free-will choice,
and the Deity need have no qualms about sending one of those souls
to Heaven and one to Hell.
Other objections seem to apply a warped version of Occam's razor.
But my take is that Occam favors Everett. Perhaps there is an
ambiguity in Occam at play here. We are instructed to avoid
multiplying "entities". Well, Everett seems to be somewhat
wasteful of entity instances, but economical regarding entity
types. Whereas Copenhagen avoids multiplying entity instances,
but adds new kinds of entities ("observers", etc.) and complicates
each entity instance with new interactions.
Burkhard
wrote:
> On 6/14/10 6:34 AM, bpuharic wrote:
>
> > interesting review in the NY times of a new popular history of quantum
> > physics:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/books/review/Farmelo-t.html?ref=books
>
> > cites a poll about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, taken
> > among physicists at a conference in 1999. Of the 90 respondents, only
> > four said they accepted the standard interpretation taught in every
> > undergraduate physics course in the world. Thirty favored a modern
> > interpretation, laid out in 1957 by the Princeton theoretician Hugh
> > undecided.
>
> [snip]
>
> Cool! "Many-worlds" is favored over "Copenhagen". Physicists are
> finally coming to their senses. Or maybe it is just that the earlier
> generations are dying off, and new versions of physics textbooks are
> being written. Can we look forward to new generations of popular
> works to explain Everett to the masses without making it seem weird?
>
> I've never really understood the opposition to "Many-worlds". For
> some of the vocal opponents, the issue seems to be a religious or
> moral one. They think that a physics in which everything that can
> happen does happen somehow destroys the concepts of individual
> responsibility and free will. Such objections make as little sense
> to me as Nando's ramblings here. In "many-worlds", as in the more
> traditional narratives, we each have to live in a world which is
> (in part) a consequence of our own past actions. I don't see how you
> can expect your physics to provide any more support for conventional
> morality than that. Imagine that the soul splits along with the
> physical universe when an ensouled agent makes a free-will choice,
> and the Deity need have no qualms about sending one of those souls
> to Heaven and one to Hell.
It can even result in murder :o) There is a crime novel by Juli Zeh
about it ("Schilf") where the classical physicist is doing quite
terrible things to his colleague because he thinks possible world
interpretations are immoral "double think"
Vend
wrote:
> On 6/14/10 6:34 AM, bpuharic wrote:
>
> > interesting review in the NY times of a new popular history of quantum
> > physics:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/books/review/Farmelo-t.html?ref=books
>
> > cites a poll about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, taken
> > among physicists at a conference in 1999. Of the 90 respondents, only
> > four said they accepted the standard interpretation taught in every
> > undergraduate physics course in the world. Thirty favored a modern
> > interpretation, laid out in 1957 by the Princeton theoretician Hugh
> > undecided.
>
> [snip]
>
> Cool! "Many-worlds" is favored over "Copenhagen". Physicists are
> finally coming to their senses. Or maybe it is just that the earlier
> generations are dying off, and new versions of physics textbooks are
> being written. Can we look forward to new generations of popular
> works to explain Everett to the masses without making it seem weird?
>
> I've never really understood the opposition to "Many-worlds". For
> some of the vocal opponents, the issue seems to be a religious or
> moral one. They think that a physics in which everything that can
> happen does happen somehow destroys the concepts of individual
> responsibility and free will. Such objections make as little sense
> to me as Nando's ramblings here. In "many-worlds", as in the more
> traditional narratives, we each have to live in a world which is
> (in part) a consequence of our own past actions. I don't see how you
> can expect your physics to provide any more support for conventional
> morality than that. Imagine that the soul splits along with the
> physical universe when an ensouled agent makes a free-will choice,
> and the Deity need have no qualms about sending one of those souls
> to Heaven and one to Hell.
I'm not sure about that kind of objection.
Physicists were perfectly at ease with classical mechanics, which,
being fundamentally deterministic, is also inconsistent with the
notion of ontological free will.
Everett interpretation, in fact, is more deterministic than
"traditional" interpretations (with wavefunction collapse as a
fundamental process), but maybe in some sense less deterministic than
classical mechanics.
> Other objections seem to apply a warped version of Occam's razor.
> But my take is that Occam favors Everett. Perhaps there is an
> ambiguity in Occam at play here. We are instructed to avoid
> multiplying "entities". Well, Everett seems to be somewhat
> wasteful of entity instances, but economical regarding entity
> types. Whereas Copenhagen avoids multiplying entity instances,
> but adds new kinds of entities ("observers", etc.) and complicates
> each entity instance with new interactions.
Everett's interpretation is not really wasteful of entity instances.
It has a single universal wavefunction that never collapses. Due to
decoherence, different components of the wavefunction typically don't
interfere significantly above certain scales of time and size, making
it appear that the wavefunction has collapsed (or, for an external
classical observer, that it has split), but this is an emergent
process rather than a fundamental phenomenon.
Nick Keighley
wrote:
> On 6/14/10 6:34 AM, bpuharic wrote:
> > interesting review in the NY times of a new popular history of quantum
> > physics:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/books/review/Farmelo-t.html?ref=books
>
> > In his lively new book, Quantum, the science writer Manjit Kumar
> > cites a poll about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, taken
> > among physicists at a conference in 1999. Of the 90 respondents, only
> > four said they accepted the standard interpretation taught in every
> > undergraduate physics course in the world. Thirty favored a modern
> > interpretation, laid out in 1957 by the Princeton theoretician Hugh
> > Everett III, while 50 ticked the box labeled none of the above or
> > undecided.
aren't there more than two choices?
> Cool! "Many-worlds" is favored over "Copenhagen". Physicists are
> finally coming to their senses. Or maybe it is just that the earlier
> generations are dying off, and new versions of physics textbooks are
> being written. Can we look forward to new generations of popular
> works to explain Everett to the masses without making it seem weird?
can anything in QM be explained without seeming weird?
> I've never really understood the opposition to "Many-worlds". For
> some of the vocal opponents, the issue seems to be a religious or
> moral one.
I'm not happy with Many Worlds but I don't see a moral problem
> They think that a physics in which everything that can
> happen does happen somehow destroys the concepts of individual
> responsibility and free will. Such objections make as little sense
> to me as Nando's ramblings here.
surely not that bad...
> In "many-worlds", as in the more
> traditional narratives, we each have to live in a world which is
> (in part) a consequence of our own past actions. I don't see how you
> can expect your physics to provide any more support for conventional
> morality than that. Imagine that the soul splits along with the
> physical universe when an ensouled agent makes a free-will choice,
> and the Deity need have no qualms about sending one of those souls
> to Heaven and one to Hell.
is there one heaven/hell per universe? Perhaps hell is a place filled
with copies of yourself...
> Other objections seem to apply a warped version of Occam's razor.
I prefer to think of it as serated
> But my take is that Occam favors Everett. Perhaps there is an
> ambiguity in Occam at play here. We are instructed to avoid
> multiplying "entities". Well, Everett seems to be somewhat
> wasteful of entity instances, but economical regarding entity
> types.
neat. Whatr bothers me isn't just the multiple entities (or entity
instances) but also the unobservability of the other entities. If I
can't see it how can it be there? Seems most unparsimonious to me.
Whta no one has mentioned is these are interpretations of QM. QM
doesn't give a fig how we interpret it.
I don't like "magical observers"
> Whereas Copenhagen avoids multiplying entity instances,
> but adds new kinds of entities ("observers", etc.) and complicates
> each entity instance with new interactions.
--
Quantum Boggum Sort:
Q1. use a source of quantum noise (eg. radioactive decay) to
randomly permutate an array.
Q2. if the array is not ordered, destroy the universe (*)
Q3. if you reached this step your universe has sorted the array
in O(n) time.
(*) [100] this is left as an exercise
tg
wrote:
> On 6/14/10 6:34 AM, bpuharic wrote:
>
> > interesting review in the NY times of a new popular history of quantum
> > physics:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/books/review/Farmelo-t.html?ref=books
>
> > cites a poll about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, taken
> > among physicists at a conference in 1999. Of the 90 respondents, only
> > four said they accepted the standard interpretation taught in every
> > undergraduate physics course in the world. Thirty favored a modern
> > interpretation, laid out in 1957 by the Princeton theoretician Hugh
> > undecided.
>
> [snip]
>
> Cool! "Many-worlds" is favored over "Copenhagen".
Oh please. How is "none of the above or undecided" not an endorsement
of CI?
-tg
Jerry Freedman
reads but to make any real sense out of Quantum Theory or GR or the
neat stuff you read about in Scientific American or Discovery you have
to take the time and understand the math. Otherwise its like looking
at a picture of a beautiful steak and thinking about how good it would
taste.
I can just barely handle it and, though I know what the may worlds
stuff is and what the Copenhagen approach means, I just don't feel
competent to comment on them
Matchstick
@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, jerry.fr...@gmail.com says...
> These books, the good ones like Gleick's book on Feynman, are good
> reads but to make any real sense out of Quantum Theory or GR or the
> neat stuff you read about in Scientific American or Discovery you have
> to take the time and understand the math. Otherwise its like looking
> at a picture of a beautiful steak and thinking about how good it would
> taste.
I'd suggest that Feynmans QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
shows that you can explain at least some parts of quantum physics
without needing to get into the maths.
--
The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
fantastic
Perplexed in Peoria
> On Jun 14, 10:31 am, Perplexed in Peoria<jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> On 6/14/10 6:34 AM, bpuharic wrote:
>>
>>> interesting review in the NY times of a new popular history of quantum
>>> physics:
>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/books/review/Farmelo-t.html?ref=books
>>
>>> In his lively new book, Quantum, the science writer Manjit Kumar
>>> cites a poll about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, taken
>>> among physicists at a conference in 1999. Of the 90 respondents, only
>>> four said they accepted the standard interpretation taught in every
>>> undergraduate physics course in the world. Thirty favored a modern
>>> interpretation, laid out in 1957 by the Princeton theoretician Hugh
>>> Everett III, while 50 ticked the box labeled none of the above or
>>> undecided.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Cool! "Many-worlds" is favored over "Copenhagen".
>
> Oh please. How is "none of the above or undecided" not an endorsement
> of CI?
Nice point.
tg
Thanks. The five of us are glad at least someone got it......
-tg
Mike Painter
"You should never express more clearly than you can think,"
I love that and it excuses my leaving out words and phrases when I write.
It might also explain my inability to spell even though I usually know the
word is misspelled.
BURT
Quantum mechanics uses wrong wave forms. Stephen Hawking noted that
they sould be one wavelength not more. The real QM is Sin wave simple.
Mitch Raemsch
bpuharic
wrote:
since QM has been verified to 11 decimal places by predicting the
value of the lamb shift, i think you've screwed up your view of QM.
>
>Mitch Raemsch
Desertphile
<macro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You silly goose! QM correctly predicts electromagnetic behavior to
double precision, right down to the uncertainty principle. How can
QM be wrong, and all the phycists wrong, when QM makes correct
predictions?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
nando_r...@yahoo.com
party in the Netherlands, which after the elections is imminent to
take part in coalition government
Among it's proposals are:
- make women pay a tax for wearing a headscarf
- forbid publication of the Quran
- give police the power to stop and search people throughout the
country
- record the ethnicity of the entire population in a database to base
policy on
So yes it is completely conceivable that because of Darwinists
destroying knowledge about freedom, that there would be political
parties in government named "political party for freedom" who
understand absolutely nothing whatsoever about freedom, and act
accordingly. It is just to be expected that when you destroy knowledge
about freedom, that people will start to point toward muslim nations,
or nations dominated by blacks, and talk about the low standards of
achievement there.
Meanwhile that Darwinists have all their bulllshit theories, the logic
people use in the supermarkets when doing grocery shopping, is of
things turning out one way or another, have alternatives in the
future, and what does the job of deciding is likes and dislikes, hate
and love, which are spiritual.
On 14 jun, 16:31, Perplexed in Peoria <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> On 6/14/10 6:34 AM, bpuharic wrote:
>
> > interesting review in the NY times of a new popular history of quantum
> > physics:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/books/review/Farmelo-t.html?ref=books
>
> > In his lively new book, Quantum, the science writer Manjit Kumar
> > cites a poll about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, taken
> > among physicists at a conference in 1999. Of the 90 respondents, only
> > four said they accepted the standard interpretation taught in every
> > undergraduate physics course in the world. Thirty favored a modern
> > interpretation, laid out in 1957 by the Princeton theoretician Hugh
> > Everett III, while 50 ticked the box labeled none of the above or
> > undecided.
>
bpuharic
>I will give some information about the "Party for Freedom" political
>party in the Netherlands, which after the elections is imminent to
>take part in coalition government
>Among it's proposals are:
>- make women pay a tax for wearing a headscarf
>- forbid publication of the Quran
>- give police the power to stop and search people throughout the
>country
>- record the ethnicity of the entire population in a database to base
>policy on
>
>So yes it is completely conceivable that because of Darwinists
>destroying knowledge about freedom, that there would be political
>parties in government named "political party for freedom" who
>understand absolutely nothing whatsoever about freedom,
says the islamist fanatic who thinks mohammed atta was a great human
being and wants to send scientists to the gas chamber.
and act
>accordingly. It is just to be expected that when you destroy knowledge
>about freedom, that people will start to point toward muslim nations,
gee. cant imagine why. all they do is foment hatred against women,
jews, gays, christians, atheists, etc.
>or nations dominated by blacks, and talk about the low standards of
>achievement there.
now let's see...ever hear of a place called 'darfur'? blacks...muslims
.....were massacred by muslims. somalia? blacks starved to death by
muslims.
there are no free muslim countries.
BURT
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:52:56 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wrong theories work like blank slate. Anything can be accomadated.
This is the nonsense of string theory.
Einstein was right about quantum mechanics. In what experiment is 11
decimal places verified? Do you even know?
Mitch Raemsch
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Jun 16, 6:22�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:52:56 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jun 16, 5:13�pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> bpuharic wrote:
>>
>> >Quantum mechanics uses wrong wave forms. Stephen Hawking noted that
>> >they sould be one wavelength not more. The real QM is Sin wave simple.
>>
>> since QM has been verified to 11 decimal places by predicting the
>> value of the lamb shift, i think you've screwed up your view of QM.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Wrong theories work like blank slate. Anything can be accomadated.
>This is the nonsense of string theory.
well let's see. so far you've said weinberg and feynman were both
wrong.
and your proof of that? well...you said it so it must be true.
having a bit of quantum physics under my belt, let me say that you
could fertilize all of subsaharan africa with the crap you're putting
out.
>
>Einstein was right about quantum mechanics. In what experiment is 11
>decimal places verified? Do you even know?
yes.
do you?
>
>Mitch Raemsch
BURT
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:37:27 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please provide it as your proof. Or are you going to opt out?
Mitch Raemsch
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Jun 16, 8:42 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:37:27 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Wrong theories work like blank slate. Anything can be accomadated.
>> >This is the nonsense of string theory.
>>
>> well let's see. so far you've said weinberg and feynman were both
>> wrong.
>>
>> and your proof of that? well...you said it so it must be true.
>>
>> having a bit of quantum physics under my belt, let me say that you
>> could fertilize all of subsaharan africa with the crap you're putting
>> out.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Einstein was right about quantum mechanics. In what experiment is 11
>> >decimal places verified? Do you even know?
>>
>> yes.
>>
>> do you?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Please provide it as your proof. Or are you going to opt out?
>
>Mitch Raemsch
i'll type this slowly to be at the level of your intellect:
i have already told you what experiment has, to 11 decimal places,
tested a prediction of QM>
i can't help it that you can't read.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
accuracy, because it is inherent in the results of qm that it can turn
out one way or another.
On 17 jun, 11:59, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 22:07:02 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> i can't help it that you can't read.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Desertphile
<macro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 6:22�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:52:56 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Jun 16, 5:13�pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >> bpuharic wrote:
> >
> > >> �"You should never express �more clearly than you can think,"
> >
> > >> I love that and it excuses my leaving out words and phrases when I write.
> > >> It might also explain my inability to spell even though I usually know the
> > >> word is misspelled.
> >
> > >Quantum mechanics uses wrong wave forms. Stephen Hawking noted that
> > >they sould be one wavelength not more. The real QM is Sin wave simple.
> >
> > since QM has been verified to 11 decimal places by predicting the
> > value of the lamb shift, i think you've screwed up your view of QM.
> Wrong theories work like blank slate. Anything can be accomadated.
That's nice. QM has proven itself correct.
> This is the nonsense of string theory.
That's nice. The subject is Quantum Mechanics.
> Einstein was right about quantum mechanics.
Actually, he was horribly wrong. Richard Feynman showed him why.
> In what experiment is 11 decimal places verified?
o) Spectrum analysis of visible light, producing among other
things rainbows: explained in full by quantum mechanics and by
nothing else.
o) Lorenz Force applied to a charged point source being applied at
exactly 90.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
degrees perpendicular to a line of force in a magnetic field. QM
explains why.
See MIT lecture series 8.03
> Do you even know? Mitch Raemsch
Desertphile
> It is ofcourse ridiculous for you to emphasize 11 decimal places of
> accuracy, because it is inherent in the results of qm that it can turn
> out one way or another.
Nut.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:37:27 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macro...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 16, 6:22 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:52:56 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Jun 16, 5:13 pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >> bpuharic wrote:
> >>
> >> >Quantum mechanics uses wrong wave forms. Stephen Hawking noted that
> >> >they sould be one wavelength not more. The real QM is Sin wave simple.
> >>
> >> since QM has been verified to 11 decimal places by predicting the
> >> value of the lamb shift, i think you've screwed up your view of QM.
> >Wrong theories work like blank slate. Anything can be accomadated.
> >This is the nonsense of string theory.
> well let's see. so far you've said weinberg and feynman were both
> wrong.
Yeah, and Feynman, Julian Schwinger, and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga were
awarded a Nobel Prize for their "wrong" theory. LOL!
> and your proof of that? well...you said it so it must be true.
>
> having a bit of quantum physics under my belt, let me say that you
> could fertilize all of subsaharan africa with the crap you're putting
> out.
> >Einstein was right about quantum mechanics. In what experiment is 11
> >decimal places verified? Do you even know?
> yes. do you?
BURT
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 22:07:02 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please provide the name of the experiment.
Mitch Raemsch
bpuharic
>It is ofcourse ridiculous for you to emphasize 11 decimal places of
>accuracy, because it is inherent in the results of qm that it can turn
>out one way or another.
meaningless. the probablity of the values observed experimentally are
confirmed to 11 decimal places
i know in your islamist fundamentalism, you think the moon is made of
green cheese, but in 21st century physics, green cheese is part of a
child's tale
it's why islam is a toilet
>
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Jun 17, 2:59�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
it's called the LAMB SHIFT
it has to do with the effect of virtual particles from the vacuum on
electron orbitals.
read up on it. then c'mon back
>
>Mitch Raemsch
J. J. Lodder
If you had any clue at all
about what you are talking about
you wouldn't have to ask,
Jan
BURT
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 22:07:02 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you are going to forget that you couldn't even come through with
the name of the experiment?
Please that is rediculous.
Mitch Raemsch
Desertphile
> Please provide the name of the experiment.
He did already.
> Mitch Raemsch
Desertphile
> So you are going to forget that you couldn't even come through with
> the name of the experiment?
He told you the name already. Do try to keep up.
> Please that is rediculous.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
BURT
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:28:43 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No. If you cannot even show me you can't argue against me. But I can
argue against you.
Mitch Raemsch
nando_r...@yahoo.com
information which way it turns out. That's the meaning relevant to
origins.
On 17 jun, 22:13, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:23:24 -0700 (PDT), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >It is ofcourse ridiculous for you to emphasize 11 decimal places of
> >accuracy, because it is inherent in the results of qm that it can turn
> >out one way or another.
>
> meaningless. the probablity of the values observed experimentally are
> confirmed to 11 decimal places
>
> i know in your islamist fundamentalism, you think the moon is made of
> green cheese, but in 21st century physics, green cheese is part of a
> child's tale
>
> it's why islam is a toilet
>
>
>
Desertphile
> No. If you cannot even show me you can't argue against me.
He isn't arguing against you: all the physicists in the world are.
> But I can argue against you.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Mike Painter
<snip>
>
>
> Please provide it as your proof. Or are you going to opt out?
>
Dear Burp,
As soon as someone asks for proof in such matters they immediately ahow
themselves as someone who does not have a good grasp of what science is.
If you want proof go to alt.some.math.group.
haiku jones
Measurement of the fine structure constant. Agrees
with QED calculations to eleven decimal places,
fourteen significant figures in all.
HJ
>
> Mitch Raemsch
haiku jones
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is ofcourse ridiculous for you to emphasize 11 decimal places of
> accuracy, because it is inherent in the results of qm that it can turn
> out one way or another.
There was one chance in a hundred trillion that
it would turn out to agree with the calculations,
and not "another way".
Hardly "ridiculous" at all.
Padmar Mushkin
I agree. When choosing between theories that can be described
mathematically, I believe the one with the simplest/most elegant math
should be preferred.
BURT
wrote:
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
>
> - Show quoted text -
No he hasn't.
Show it then! Its as simple as that.
Mitch Raemsch
J. J. Lodder
Philosophical nonsense.
'Many worlds' and 'Copenhagen' are observationally equivalent,
so there can be no -physical- reason to prefer one or the other.
Jan
Padmar Mushkin
Only if Occam's razor is too.
>'Many worlds' and 'Copenhagen' are observationally equivalent,
>so there can be no -physical- reason to prefer one or the other.
Such situations is where OR comes in to play. What I suggest is no
more than a slight variation.
Vend
Isn't 'many worlds' simpler than 'Copenhagen' ?
Desertphile
> No he hasn't.
*TWICE!*
> Show it then! Its as simple as that.
Pay me and I will. You have been given several examples, but you
are too stupid or too lazy to spend the ten minutes required to
read about the subject. So pay me and I'll do it for you. I accept
payp@l
> Mitch Raemsch
>
--
bpuharic
>It can turn out one way or another, the decision creates the
>information which way it turns out. That's the meaning relevant to
>origins.
that 'things can turn out one way or another' has nothing to do with
freedom
and islam is a poor example of any freedoms at all. there are few, if
any, truly free islamic countries. they all repress religious
minorities
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Jun 17, 1:14 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:28:43 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >Einstein was right about quantum mechanics. In what experiment is 11
>> >> >> >decimal places verified? Do you even know?
>>
>> >> >> yes.
>>
>> >> >> do you?
>>
>> >> >Please provide it as your proof. Or are you going to opt out?
>>
>> >> >Mitch Raemsch
>>
>> >> i'll type this slowly to be at the level of your intellect:
>>
>> >> i have already told you what experiment has, to 11 decimal places,
>> >> tested a prediction of QM>
>>
>> >> i can't help it that you can't read.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >Please provide the name of the experiment.
>>
>> it's called the LAMB SHIFT
>>
>> it has to do with the effect of virtual particles from the vacuum on
>> electron orbitals.
>>
>
>No. If you cannot even show me you can't argue against me. But I can
>argue against you.
you can't argue against me no matter what you say. unfortunately you
don't even know about the lamb shift, so it's kind of pointless to
discuss QM with you when you're so ignorant of its basic findings
>
>Mitch Raemsch
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Jun 17, 4:35 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:32:23 -0700 (PDT), BURT
>>
>>
>>
>No he hasn't.
>
>Show it then! Its as simple as that.
>
i already did. it's the lamb shift
read it and weep
>Mitch Raemsch
>
J. J. Lodder
BURT
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:04:50 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Einstein knew Quantum Mechanics was not objective.
Mitch Reamsch
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Jun 20, 10:34 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
even einstein can be wrong.
i'm a scientist. i dont worship personalities. that's why you
religious folks dont understand science. your view is authority based.
>
>Mitch Reamsch
BURT
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:02:32 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
How do you know that your the better scientist?
Einstein wasn't an atheist. And I can demonstrate it.
Mitch Raemsch
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Jun 20, 12:36 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
where did i say i was the better scientist?
will you try to stay on topic? what the hell's wrong with you? if
there was a charge of posting while intoxicated you'd lose your
license
the topic was the lamb shift and how it confirms QM to 11 decimal
places
now, then, have a few cups of black coffee, take whatever meds you
need and c'mon back
>Einstein wasn't an atheist. And I can demonstrate it.
then by all means demonstrate it. be my guest
>
>Mitch Raemsch
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
No, you cannot.
BURT
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:21:47 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 20, 12:36 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:02:32 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> i'm a scientist. i dont worship personalities. that's why you
> >> religious folks dont understand science. your view is authority based.
>
> >> >Mitch Reamsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >How do you know that your the better scientist
>
> where did i say i was the better scientist?
I am glad you see I to eye. But you said I was religious and that I
(they) couldn't be better. You were implying such.
Best wishes.
>
> will you try to stay on topic? what the hell's wrong with you? if
> there was a charge of posting while intoxicated you'd lose your
> license
>
> the topic was the lamb shift and how it confirms QM to 11 decimal
> places
>
> now, then, have a few cups of black coffee, take whatever meds you
> need and c'mon back
>
> >Einstein wasn't an atheist. And I can demonstrate it.
>
> then by all means demonstrate it. be my guest
When he talked about God to science everyone knew it. But as an
atheist you can't say Einstein was like you because he was not.
Mitch Raemsch
>
>
>
>
>
> >Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Jun 20, 6:41 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:21:47 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 20, 12:36 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:02:32 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> i'm a scientist. i dont worship personalities. that's why you
>> >> religious folks dont understand science. your view is authority based.
>>
>> >> >Mitch Reamsch- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >How do you know that your the better scientist
>>
>> where did i say i was the better scientist?
>
>I am glad you see I to eye. But you said I was religious and that I
>(they) couldn't be better. You were implying such.
what i said was that god is useless for explaining nature. your
invocation of god as an explanation of nature is
a. religious
b. useless
c. wrong
>> >Einstein wasn't an atheist. And I can demonstrate it.
>>
>> then by all means demonstrate it. be my guest
>
>When he talked about God to science everyone knew it. But as an
>atheist you can't say Einstein was like you because he was not.
babbling. what i asked you to do is provide proof that he was not an
atheist. because here:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm
we find this quote from einstein:
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but
have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it.
so if you say einstein believed in god, it seems einstein disagrees
with you about his own views
BURT
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:49:40 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 17, 4:35 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> >wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:32:23 -0700 (PDT), BURT
>
> >No he hasn't.
>
> >Show it then! Its as simple as that.
>
> i already did. it's the lamb shift
>
> read it and weep
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The lamb shift is no such proof. That is for virtual positrons. I am
not even talking about that.
Mitch Raemsch
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Jun 20, 10:35�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
hey genius. virtual positron densities and their effects on electron
orbital energies can be calculated to 11 decimal places
and the prediction agrees with experiments
you dont even know what quantum physics does, do you? you've never
taken a course in it, have you?
>
>Mitch Raemsch
Desertphile
<macro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 12:36 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:02:32 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Jun 20, 10:34 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:04:50 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> > >> wrote:
> >
> > >> >Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > >Einstein knew Quantum Mechanics was not objective.
> >
> > even einstein can be wrong.
> >
> > i'm a scientist. i dont worship personalities. that's why you
> > religious folks dont understand science. your view is authority based.
> How do you know that your the better scientist?
> Einstein wasn't an atheist. And I can demonstrate it.
Why did Einstein say he was an atheist when he wasn't?
Desertphile
> Einstein knew Quantum Mechanics was not objective.
LOL! Funny how you feel free to tell Einstien what to "know" after
he is dead.
> Mitch Reamsch
nando_r...@yahoo.com
scientists use the word freedom to describe the exactsame thing.
On 20 jun, 19:32, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 04:51:27 -0700 (PDT), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> now, then, have a few cups of black coffee, take whatever meds you need
> and c'mon back
You're wasting your time. Mitch is a troll and only a troll. He has
nothing to say, he will never have anything to say, he knows it, and he
likes it that way.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
BURT
wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:21:47 -0700 (PDT), BURT
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 12:36 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:02:32 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >On Jun 20, 10:34 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:04:50 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> > > >> wrote:
>
> > > >> >Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >Einstein knew Quantum Mechanics was not objective.
>
> > > even einstein can be wrong.
But he was not about religion.
Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > i'm a scientist. i dont worship personalities. that's why you
> > > religious folks dont understand science. your view is authority based.
> > How do you know that your the better scientist?
> > Einstein wasn't an atheist. And I can demonstrate it.
>
> Why did Einstein say he was an atheist when he wasn't?
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz- Hide quoted text -
bpuharic
>Things turning out one way or another is freedom,
uh no. freedom requires realization of a choice by an intelligent
being
your view of freedom is nonsense
and many quantum
>scientists use the word freedom to describe the exactsame thing.
you have no idea how we scientists use 'freedom'. you're not a
scientist. you're an islamist thug who knows NOTHING about science
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Jun 21, 5:35 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:21:47 -0700 (PDT), BURT
>>
>>
>>
>> > > even einstein can be wrong.
>
>But he was not about religion.
irrelevant
BURT
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:33:48 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 21, 5:35 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> >wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:21:47 -0700 (PDT), BURT
>
> >> > > even einstein can be wrong.
>
> >But he was not about religion.
>
> irrelevant
He was right about religion.
"God does not play dice with the universe."
"I want to lnow how God created this world. The rest are just
details."
Mitch Raemsch
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Jun 21, 3:48 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:33:48 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jun 21, 5:35 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:21:47 -0700 (PDT), BURT
>>
>> >> > > even einstein can be wrong.
>>
>> >But he was not about religion.
>>
>> irrelevant
>
>He was right about religion.
yeah. he said it was pathetic.
>"God does not play dice with the universe."
>"I want to lnow how God created this world. The rest are just
>details."
he didn't believe in god. he was using aphorisms. learn the word
le
>
>Mitch Raemsch
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:06:03 -0700 (PDT), "nando_r...@yahoo.com"
> <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Things turning out one way or another is freedom,
> uh no. freedom requires realization of a choice by an intelligent
> being
>
> your view of freedom is nonsense
Nando believes his Muslim pals who murdered thousands of people in
New York City on September 11, 2001, had "freedom" to murder the
people. The murdered children, women, and men *CHOSE* to be
murdered. The maimed and crippled survivers *CHOSE* to be crippled
and maimed.
All I needed to learn about Islam I learned Steptember 11th.,
2001.
--
BURT
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:54:07 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The lamb shift would come from a pair.
Mitch Raemsch
bpuharic
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:47:51 -0400, bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:06:03 -0700 (PDT), "nando_r...@yahoo.com"
>> <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >Things turning out one way or another is freedom,
>
>> uh no. freedom requires realization of a choice by an intelligent
>> being
>>
>> your view of freedom is nonsense
>
>Nando believes his Muslim pals who murdered thousands of people in
>New York City on September 11, 2001, had "freedom" to murder the
>people. The murdered children, women, and men *CHOSE* to be
>murdered. The maimed and crippled survivers *CHOSE* to be crippled
>and maimed.
correct. there were women who were doing sexy things so they deserved
to die.
>
>All I needed to learn about Islam I learned Steptember 11th.,
>2001.
you bet.