Was Einstein Wrong ? Article discussion
Nicolaas Vroom
Scientific American March 2009
The article starts at page 26 with:
"Entanglement, like many quantum effects, violates
some of our deepest intuitions about the world."
In the first paragraph we read:
"We term this intuition "locality""
My question: What has intuition to do with
science, physics? IMO nothing.
Generally speaking all what I know about physics
is based on experiments.
At page 28 in section "basics" we read:
"Electrons have a property called spin.
When Alice measures an electron's spin etc"
Next: "Two particles (electrons) may be entangled so that they
have their spins pointing in opposite directions,
even though neither has a definite direction of its own.
Suppose that Alice and Buzz share such a pair
and that Alice finds hers to have spin up.
No matter how far away Buzz and his particle are from Alice,
if he measures his particle along the same axis he will definitely
see that his particle has spin down, the opposite of Alice's"
I have one question: How do you know this.
IMO the only answer is by performing 100 experiments
which different distances between Alice and Buzz
versus the place where the electrons are created.
And the result should be:
When Alice finds Up Buzz should find Down
or Alice Down and Buzz Up.
(Personnaly I have some doubts if you find this
relation in all cases as a function of distance, but that
is of no importance)
When the answer and result is correct then what is so
spooky about this ? experiment ?
IMO part of the the solution lies in describing the
complete setup of the experiment by Alice and Butt
in much more detail including how the entangled electrons
are created.
Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
PD
wrote:
Actually, this HAS been done in a series of several experiments,
starting with one by Aspect et al. Please refer to the article's
Further Reading suggestions.
>
> When the answer and result is correct then what is so
> spooky about this ? experiment ?
What is spooky is that one spin is too far away to communicate that
fast with the other spin by any signal.
Einstein believed that a signal would have to be passed.
Quantum mechanics says, no, no signal has to be passed.
harry
"Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaa...@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:ZHTpl.29257$1N5....@newsfe21.ams2...
> Quantum weirdness defies special relativity.
> Scientific American March 2009
> The article starts at page 26 with:
> "Entanglement, like many quantum effects, violates
> some of our deepest intuitions about the world."
Not according to some very smart people.
> In the first paragraph we read:
> "We term this intuition "locality""
> My question: What has intuition to do with
> science, physics? IMO nothing.
> Generally speaking all what I know about physics
> is based on experiments.
>
> At page 28 in section "basics" we read:
> "Electrons have a property called spin.
> When Alice measures an electron's spin etc"
Our intuitive picture of something spinning like a simple gear can hardly be
right - so that we should not be surpised when things don't work like we
would expect.
> Next: "Two particles (electrons) may be entangled so that they
> have their spins pointing in opposite directions,
> even though neither has a definite direction of its own.
That is formulated in a rather suggestive way - experiments cannot prove
such a claim.
> Suppose that Alice and Buzz share such a pair
> and that Alice finds hers to have spin up.
> No matter how far away Buzz and his particle are from Alice,
> if he measures his particle along the same axis he will definitely
> see that his particle has spin down, the opposite of Alice's"
>
> I have one question: How do you know this.
> IMO the only answer is by performing 100 experiments
> which different distances between Alice and Buzz
> versus the place where the electrons are created.
> And the result should be:
> When Alice finds Up Buzz should find Down
> or Alice Down and Buzz Up.
Yes.
> (Personnaly I have some doubts if you find this
> relation in all cases as a function of distance, but that
> is of no importance)
>
> When the answer and result is correct then what is so
> spooky about this ? experiment ?
Statistics, in combination with some assumptions and the picture (model)
that we have of what we can't see.
Google for "Bell inequality".
> IMO part of the the solution lies in describing the
> complete setup of the experiment by Alice and Butt
> in much more detail including how the entangled electrons
> are created.
Maybe...
Harald
Nicolaas Vroom
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:4568dadf-f397-4a34...@j8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 27, 9:32 am, "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaas.vr...@pandora.be>
wrote:
> Quantum weirdness defies special relativity.
> Scientific American March 2009
> The article starts at page 26 with:
> "Entanglement, like many quantum effects, violates
> some of our deepest intuitions about the world."
SNIP
> I have one question: How do you know this.
> IMO the only answer is by performing 100 experiments
> which different distances between Alice and Buzz
> versus the place where the electrons are created.
> And the result should be:
> When Alice finds Up Buzz should find Down
> or Alice Down and Buzz Up.
> (Personnaly I have some doubts if you find this
> relation in all cases as a function of distance, but that
> is of no importance)
) Actually, this HAS been done in a series of several experiments,
) starting with one by Aspect et al.
That maybe the case but why don't they describe an experiment
which demonstrate the basics in much more detail
otherwise the reader is lost.
For example if you want to make any claim against
Special Relavity than Alice and Buzz should both have
identical clocks synchronised with light signals.
) Please refer to the article's Further Reading suggestions.
In the "More to explore" section they mention books.
They do not mention articles in Scientific American.
Specific no articles by Alain Aspect.
> When the answer and result is correct then what is so
> spooky about this ? experiment ?
) What is spooky is that one spin is too far away to communicate
) that fast with the other spin by any signal.
Maybe that is correct and maybe that is spooky.
But why should there any communication be involved ?
Why should there any communication be involved
about any experiment which happen simultaneous
and which results are correlated ?
Anyway why don't they describe this issue not in more
detail as part of an actual experiment ?
) Einstein believed that a signal would have to be passed.
) Quantum mechanics says, no, no signal has to be passed.
I think any discussion would be much simpler and shorter
who is right and who is wrong if only actual experiments
are discussed.
Of course you can make predictions in advance.
PD
wrote:
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> schreef in berichtnews:4568dadf-f397-4a34...@j8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
That is true. You will find the references to Alain Aspect's
experiments in the books that are referred to in the "More to Explore"
section. Some work on your part is required.
>
> > When the answer and result is correct then what is so
> > spooky about this ? experiment ?
>
> ) What is spooky is that one spin is too far away to communicate
> ) that fast with the other spin by any signal.
>
> Maybe that is correct and maybe that is spooky.
> But why should there any communication be involved ?
> Why should there any communication be involved
> about any experiment which happen simultaneous
> and which results are correlated ?
>
> Anyway why don't they describe this issue not in more
> detail as part of an actual experiment ?
A Scientific American article is not designed to be a complete
exposition for the satisfaction of the lay reader. It is designed to
be a short, capsulized article that will motivate the interested
reader to go to the library and read more, if interested. There are
space restrictions in magazines. Usually, a more complete and
satisfying exposition requires much more material than what can be
presented in a Scientific American article. Do you find that unfair?
K_h
"harry" <harald.NOTT...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1235749...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
I thought the Scientific American article was very poorly written; it seems
to me like the quality of writing in that magazine has decreased in recent
years. Anyway, when I read the article last week I did not recall seeing
anything about recent work suggesting that local realism may be possible in
quantum theory. For instance:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179
k
Nicolaas Vroom
"harry" <harald.NOTT...@epfl.ch> schreef in bericht
news:1235749...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>
> "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaa...@pandora.be> wrote in message
> news:ZHTpl.29257$1N5....@newsfe21.ams2...
>> Quantum weirdness defies special relativity.
>> Scientific American March 2009
>> The article starts at page 26 with:
>> "Entanglement, like many quantum effects, violates
>> some of our deepest intuitions about the world."
See:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=was-einstein-wrong-about-relativity
>> And the result should be:
>> When Alice finds Up Buzz should find Down
>> or Alice Down and Buzz Up.
>
> Yes.
>
>> (Personnaly I have some doubts if you find this
>> relation in all cases as a function of distance, but that
>> is of no importance)
>>
>> When the answer and result is correct then what is so
>> spooky about this ? experiment ?
>
> Statistics, in combination with some assumptions and the picture (model)
> that we have of what we can't see.
> Google for "Bell inequality".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_Theorem
The best article about the Bell Equality is that Bernard d'Espagnat
in S.A. of November 1979.
However the Bell Equality takes into account three axis in the article
called A,B and C which is more complex than what is considered
here namely only one axis.
This raises the question if what in the Basics section is explained
is maybe too simple.
The interesting part of the 1979 article is that what quantum
mechanics predicts is not explained.
Hayek
> Quantum weirdness defies special relativity.
> Scientific American March 2009
> The article starts at page 26 with:
> "Entanglement, like many quantum effects, violates
> some of our deepest intuitions about the world."
>
> In the first paragraph we read:
> "We term this intuition "locality""
> My question: What has intuition to do with
> science, physics? IMO nothing.
Intuition is very important. It is actually the basis of
all scientific progress. A good model and intuition, and
ones goes far.
Look at the world before Newton, when object came
automatically to a halt.
Look at the world before thermodynamics, when people
believed that cold migrated to hot. Apply the correct
model, and you intuitively understand that hot migrates
to cold.
General relativity was completely based on Einsteins
intuition, which led to wonderfull thought experiments.
When something cannot be intuitively understood, that
means that we do not have the correct mechanical model.
> Generally speaking all what I know about physics
> is based on experiments.
Experiments done because someone intuitively understood
what experiment to do.
> At page 28 in section "basics" we read:
> "Electrons have a property called spin.
> When Alice measures an electron's spin etc"
> Next: "Two particles (electrons) may be entangled so that they
> have their spins pointing in opposite directions,
> even though neither has a definite direction of its own.
> Suppose that Alice and Buzz share such a pair
> and that Alice finds hers to have spin up.
> No matter how far away Buzz and his particle are from Alice,
> if he measures his particle along the same axis he will definitely
> see that his particle has spin down, the opposite of Alice's"
>
> I have one question: How do you know this.
> IMO the only answer is by performing 100 experiments
> which different distances between Alice and Buzz
> versus the place where the electrons are created.
> And the result should be:
> When Alice finds Up Buzz should find Down
> or Alice Down and Buzz Up.
> (Personnaly I have some doubts if you find this
> relation in all cases as a function of distance, but that
> is of no importance)
This is your intuition speaking. Very good.
> When the answer and result is correct then what is so
> spooky about this ? experiment ?
Einstein did not like this, and neither do the
relativists, because they need the limitation that
nothing can go faster than light. Relativity is build on
that.
> IMO part of the the solution lies in describing the
> complete setup of the experiment by Alice and Butt
> in much more detail including how the entangled electrons
> are created.
Hidden variables theory is dead. The entangled entities
communicate at speeds greater than light. The
uncertainty principle permits this.
The reason why we have certainty, is because of inertia.
The reason we have a maximum speed c, is because of
inertia. At that speed inertia becomes infinite, and it
is impossible to accelerate further.
The reason we have UNcertainty, is because of LACK of
inertia. The reason uncertainty can go FASTER than light
is because the LACK of inertia.
Inertia makes it intuitive, therefore, it is a good
mechanical model. For relativity AND QM.
Uwe Hayek.
--
Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in Belgi隴
naar een
andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd.
-- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige.
Nicolaas Vroom
"K_h" <KHo...@SX729.com> schreef in bericht
news:vrOdnfyxVszBHzXU...@giganews.com...
>
> "harry" <harald.NOTT...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:1235749...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>>
>> "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaa...@pandora.be> wrote in message
>> news:ZHTpl.29257$1N5....@newsfe21.ams2...
>>> Quantum weirdness defies special relativity.
>>> Scientific American March 2009
>>> The article starts at page 26 with:
>>> "Entanglement, like many quantum effects, violates
>>> some of our deepest intuitions about the world."
>>
>>
>> Harald
>
> I thought the Scientific American article was very poorly written; it
> seems to me like the quality of writing in that magazine has decreased in
> recent years. Anyway, when I read the article last week I did not recall
> seeing anything about recent work suggesting that local realism may be
> possible in quantum theory.
I have also problems with the article.
As I have already explained words like intuition have
nothing to do with science.
The same with words like weirdness and spooky.
Also thought experiments are suspicious.
The title of the article is: Was Einstein wrong ?
The problem is you don't find the answer nor I think
the title covers the subject and or issues involved.
IMO a much better title would be:
Does faster than light communication exists
and or how do we demonstate that.
If the answer is Yes than ofcourse there is an issue
related to SR.
My suggestion for such an experiment would be:
Starting point is a device (a generator) which produces
two entangled electrons.
At equal distances there are two observers Alice
and Buzz, both measure the spin in vertical direction.
Alice measures Up and Buzz down.
They repeat this a hundred time and always you get
the same answer.
So far there is no faster than light communication
involved.
To demonstrate that you have to add two additional
things.
First when the electrons are produced there is also
a light signal produced to indicate to Alice and Buzz
that an electron is comming.
Secondly Alice get an device to influence the behaviour
of her electron.
She turns that on after she receives the light signal.
The question is: If after turning the device on and if she
measures Down does Buzz in those cases measures Up.
i.e. implying that she has performed an act causing
an influence faster than the speed of light ?
which compared with SR is impossible ?
Such type of experiment should be described in the article.
Unfortunate it does not.
> For instance:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179
>
> k
>
Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
Nicolaas Vroom
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> schreef in bericht
news:49a9fe94$0$200$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>> Quantum weirdness defies special relativity.
>> Scientific American March 2009
>> The article starts at page 26 with:
>> "Entanglement, like many quantum effects, violates
>> some of our deepest intuitions about the world."
>>
>> In the first paragraph we read:
>> "We term this intuition "locality""
>> My question: What has intuition to do with
>> science, physics? IMO nothing.
>
> Intuition is very important. It is actually the basis of all scientific
> progress. A good model and intuition, and ones goes far.
If you study any physics, chemistry or astronomy book
nowhere the concept of intuition is mentioned.
That does not mean that no good thinking is required
including to test certain things which finally are wrong
to make scientific progress.
A good model of course is very important, but that is
different from intuition.
Good models are for example very important if you study
economics, chemistry and medicine.
> Look at the world before Newton, when object came automatically to a halt.
Explain what you mean.
> Look at the world before thermodynamics, when people believed that cold
> migrated to hot. Apply the correct model, and you intuitively understand
> that hot migrates to cold.
The word intuitively can be skipped.
Your reasoning for example is correct if you study how
airplanes were designed. You can for example first
see how birds do it. Intuition is also here no issue.
Later people started to think more what lift means
and how the shape can be improved by changing
the wings. Air tunnels were used etc.
> General relativity was completely based on Einsteins intuition, which led
> to wonderfull thought experiments.
General Relativity is based on 5 principles.
Mach, Equivalence, Covariance and two more.
See Chapter 9 of the book Introducing Einstein's Relativity
by Ray d'Inverno.
> When something cannot be intuitively understood, that means that we do not
> have the correct mechanical model.
>
>> Generally speaking all what I know about physics
>> is based on experiments.
>
> Experiments done because someone intuitively understood what experiment to
> do.
IMO people learned by accident and luck from others.
(By try and error)
>> At page 28 in section "basics" we read:
>> "Electrons have a property called spin.
>> When Alice measures an electron's spin etc"
>> Next: "Two particles (electrons) may be entangled so that they
>> have their spins pointing in opposite directions,
>> even though neither has a definite direction of its own.
>> Suppose that Alice and Buzz share such a pair
>> and that Alice finds hers to have spin up.
>> No matter how far away Buzz and his particle are from Alice,
>> if he measures his particle along the same axis he will definitely
>> see that his particle has spin down, the opposite of Alice's"
>>
>> I have one question: How do you know this.
>> IMO the only answer is by performing 100 experiments
>> which different distances between Alice and Buzz
>> versus the place where the electrons are created.
>> And the result should be:
>> When Alice finds Up Buzz should find Down
>> or Alice Down and Buzz Up.
>> (Personnaly I have some doubts if you find this
>> relation in all cases as a function of distance, but that
>> is of no importance)
>
> This is your intuition speaking. Very good.
No its not.
I read and I think
>> When the answer and result is correct then what is so
>> spooky about this ? experiment ?
>
> Einstein did not like this, and neither do the relativists, because they
> need the limitation that nothing can go faster than light. Relativity is
> build on that.
Where comes speed of light in this picture ?
See my previous reply of today where I descibe
an experiment which could (?) demonstrate
faster than light communication.
>> IMO part of the the solution lies in describing the
>> complete setup of the experiment by Alice and Butt
>> in much more detail including how the entangled electrons
>> are created.
>
> Hidden variables theory is dead. The entangled entities communicate at
> speeds greater than light.
The fact that Alice and Buzz always measure the opposite
is no reason to think that faster than light communication
is involved.
You have to add additional "gear" to demonstrate this.
For example light signals or a clock.
See my mailing at 1/3/2009
> The uncertainty principle permits this.
> The reason why we have certainty, is because of inertia.
> The reason we have a maximum speed c, is because of inertia. At that speed
> inertia becomes infinite, and it is impossible to accelerate further.
>
> The reason we have UNcertainty, is because of LACK of inertia. The reason
> uncertainty can go FASTER than light is because the LACK of inertia.
>
> Inertia makes it intuitive, therefore, it is a good mechanical model. For
> relativity AND QM.
>
> Uwe Hayek.
>
Gegroet.
Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
Hayek
> "Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> schreef in bericht
> news:49a9fe94$0$200$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>>> Quantum weirdness defies special relativity.
>>> Scientific American March 2009 The article starts
>>> at page 26 with: "Entanglement, like many quantum
>>> effects, violates some of our deepest intuitions
>>> about the world."
>>>
>>> In the first paragraph we read: "We term this
>>> intuition "locality"" My question: What has
>>> intuition to do with science, physics? IMO
>>> nothing.
>> Intuition is very important. It is actually the
>> basis of all scientific progress. A good model and
>> intuition, and ones goes far.
>
> If you study any physics, chemistry or astronomy book
> nowhere the concept of intuition is mentioned.
Of course. They want you to be a drone.
Einstein said : "It is a miracle that curiosity survives
formal education".
Our current "education" is more indoctrination, witness
given by Dirk Vdm and Eric Gisse here. A tape recorder
of their professor lessons does a better job than them,
being more correct, more nuanced, and more original.
It leads to this :
http://www.xs4all.nl/~notime/Duesberg_On_Science.html
> That does not mean that no good thinking is required
> including to test certain things which finally are
> wrong to make scientific progress.
>
> A good model of course is very important, but that is
> different from intuition.
A good model is intuitive, and intuition leads to a good
model. Einsteins intuition and good modeling led to his
field equations and for the testing of some parts, like
frame dragging, we are still calculating the experiment
today, as in gravity probe b.
>
> Good models are for example very important if you
> study economics, chemistry and medicine.
>
>> Look at the world before Newton, when object came
>> automatically to a halt.
>
> Explain what you mean.
Before Newton, it was thought that an arrow was given
motional energy, which got exhausted at the end of his
flight. People did not experience continuous motion, so
it took real genius to see that objects actually kept
moving in empty space, and that drag was causing them to
slow down. F=ma.
>
>> Look at the world before thermodynamics, when
>> people believed that cold migrated to hot. Apply
>> the correct model, and you intuitively understand
>> that hot migrates to cold.
>
> The word intuitively can be skipped.
Not at all. If you explain to a student what the model
is, he will conclude without further explanation for
himself, that warm will flow to cold. That is the
definition of intuitive. When you have a model, you
understand it and can "work" with it, you can predict
the physical effects. It is so much better than learning
them by heart, parroting what the professors parrot
themselves.
> Your reasoning for example is correct if you study
> how airplanes were designed. You can for example
> first see how birds do it. Intuition is also here no
> issue. Later people started to think more what lift
> means and how the shape can be improved by changing
> the wings. Air tunnels were used etc.
I rest my case.
>> General relativity was completely based on
>> Einsteins intuition, which led to wonderfull
>> thought experiments.
>
> General Relativity is based on 5 principles. Mach,
> Equivalence, Covariance and two more. See Chapter 9
> of the book Introducing Einstein's Relativity by Ray
> d'Inverno.
Current parrots are/were not thaught Mach. They reject
it violently. Also "Einstein was (around 1917)
disappointed by his GR FE (General Relativity Field
Equations) because they did not describe inertia
completely". In other words : inertia went missing,
Einstein lost it. He was convinced he put in it in, but
were was it ?
>> When something cannot be intuitively understood,
>> that means that we do not have the correct
>> mechanical model.
>>
>>> Generally speaking all what I know about physics
>>> is based on experiments.
>> Experiments done because someone intuitively
>> understood what experiment to do.
>
> IMO people learned by accident and luck from others.
> (By try and error)
By using their intuition for extending the current
models, and using the experiments to correct their
models. Look at the atom model, this got constantly
refined, because of the experiments.
Schrodinger built his equation on his intuition, and was
also disappointed when, ten years later, the results
yielded were fully probalistic. He was convinced his
equations would be deterministic.
>>> At page 28 in section "basics" we read:
>>> "Electrons have a property called spin. When
>>> Alice measures an electron's spin etc" Next: "Two
>>> particles (electrons) may be entangled so that
>>> they have their spins pointing in opposite
>>> directions, even though neither has a definite
>>> direction of its own. Suppose that Alice and Buzz
>>> share such a pair and that Alice finds hers to
>>> have spin up. No matter how far away Buzz and his
>>> particle are from Alice, if he measures his
>>> particle along the same axis he will definitely
>>> see that his particle has spin down, the opposite
>>> of Alice's"
>>>
>>> I have one question: How do you know this. IMO
>>> the only answer is by performing 100 experiments
>>> which different distances between Alice and Buzz
>>> versus the place where the electrons are created.
>>> And the result should be: When Alice finds Up
>>> Buzz should find Down or Alice Down and Buzz Up.
>>> (Personnaly I have some doubts if you find this
>>> relation in all cases as a function of distance,
>>> but that is of no importance)
>> This is your intuition speaking. Very good.
>
> No its not. I read and I think
What you learn and parrot, is the result of tuition,
what you conclude by thinking by yourself, thats intuition.
>
>>> When the answer and result is correct then what
>>> is so spooky about this ? experiment ?
>> Einstein did not like this, and neither do the
>> relativists, because they need the limitation that
>> nothing can go faster than light. Relativity is
>> build on that.
>
> Where comes speed of light in this picture ? See my
> previous reply of today where I descibe an experiment
> which could (?) demonstrate faster than light
> communication.
Look up EPR and Aspect, you are too late.
>
>>> IMO part of the the solution lies in describing
>>> the complete setup of the experiment by Alice and
>>> Butt in much more detail including how the
>>> entangled electrons are created.
>> Hidden variables theory is dead. The entangled
>> entities communicate at speeds greater than light.
>
> The fact that Alice and Buzz always measure the
> opposite is no reason to think that faster than light
> communication is involved.
That is hidden variable theory. It is DEAD.
EPR, Bell inequalities, Alain Aspect.
> You have to add additional "gear" to demonstrate
> this. For example light signals or a clock. See my
> mailing at 1/3/2009
>
>> The uncertainty principle permits this.
>
>> The reason why we have certainty, is because of
>> inertia. The reason we have a maximum speed c, is
>> because of inertia. At that speed inertia becomes
>> infinite, and it is impossible to accelerate
>> further.
>>
>> The reason we have UNcertainty, is because of LACK
>> of inertia. The reason uncertainty can go FASTER
>> than light is because the LACK of inertia.
>>
>> Inertia makes it intuitive, therefore, it is a good
>> mechanical model. For relativity AND QM.
>>
>> Uwe Hayek.
>>
>
> Gegroet.
Ook zoveel, :-)
harry
I would not know how one could change the spin of an electron; and I think
that ONLY statistical considerations together with some conceptual models
lead to the famous strange conclusions. With Google I found a good looking
explanation of the issues here:
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SternGerlach/SternGerlach.html
It reminds me a lot of magician tricks that are based on a misinterpretation
of what the audience really sees. Or similarly, if the answer on the
question looks wrong, perhaps the question itself was wrong.
Regards,
Harald
Eric Gisse
> Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > "Hayek" <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> schreef in bericht
> > news:49a9fe94$0$200$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> >> Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> >>> Quantum weirdness defies special relativity.
> >>> Scientific American March 2009 The article starts
> >>> at page 26 with: "Entanglement, like many quantum
> >>> effects, violates some of our deepest intuitions
> >>> about the world."
>
> >>> In the first paragraph we read: "We term this
> >>> intuition "locality"" My question: What has
> >>> intuition to do with science, physics? IMO
> >>> nothing.
> >> Intuition is very important. It is actually the
> >> basis of all scientific progress. A good model and
> >> intuition, and ones goes far.
>
> > If you study any physics, chemistry or astronomy book
> > nowhere the concept of intuition is mentioned.
>
> Of course. They want you to be a drone.
>
> Einstein said : "It is a miracle that curiosity survives
> formal education".
>
> Our current "education" is more indoctrination, witness
> given by Dirk Vdm and Eric Gisse here.
It pleases me mightily to see that I serve as the Golden Standard for
education to you.
I am somewhat curious to know why you think I haven't put any thoughts
into my current opinions.
[...]
Nicolaas Vroom
>
> "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaa...@pandora.be> wrote in message
> news:2Xxql.47693$us3....@newsfe01.ams2...
>>
>> "K_h" <KHo...@SX729.com> schreef in bericht
>> news:vrOdnfyxVszBHzXU...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "harry" <harald.NOTT...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>>> news:1235749...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>>>>
>>>> "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaa...@pandora.be> wrote in message
>>>> news:ZHTpl.29257$1N5....@newsfe21.ams2...
>>>>> Quantum weirdness defies special relativity.
>>>>> Scientific American March 2009
>>>>> The article starts at page 26 with:
>>>>> "Entanglement, like many quantum effects, violates
>>>>> some of our deepest intuitions about the world."
>>>>
>>>> Maybe...
>> Such type of experiment should be described in the article.
>> Unfortunate it does not.
>
> I would not know how one could change the spin of an electron; and I think
> that ONLY statistical considerations together with some conceptual models
> lead to the famous strange conclusions. With Google I found a good looking
> explanation of the issues here:
> http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SternGerlach/SternGerlach.html
>
> It reminds me a lot of magician tricks that are based on a
> misinterpretation of what the audience really sees. Or similarly, if the
> answer on the question looks wrong, perhaps the question itself was wrong.
>
> Regards,
> Harald
I agree with you.
When I wrote the text of the experiment I already had in my mind
to change the directions of the spin by means of a magnet
by Alice.
The issue of course is if such a change would change
the spin of an electron being near and going in the direction of Buzz.
IF that is possible in practice than SR has a problem.
Only a mathematical discussion or a thought experiment
is not enough.
It is interesting to see in the article by Bernard d'Espagnat in SA
of 1979 that only the classical opinion is explained
expressed by the Bell Equality which states more or less
that the chance of finding a particle in the A+,B+,C+ direction is 1/8
while the prediction of Quantum Mechanics is not shown.
The article states that for some choices of axis this
(Bell Equality) is not true but does not give more detail.
In 2009 30 years later there is not much progress to explain
the issues clearly.
Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
Nicolaas Vroom
> What you learn and parrot, is the result of tuition,
> what you conclude by thinking by yourself, thats intuition.
>
Accordingly to Collins English Dictionary
the definition of intuition is: spontaneous insight.
Synonyms are: instinct, perception, insight and sixth sense.
Ofcourse (?) this has nothing to do with science
(the way science operates. For example the LHC)
and what is more it does not help me to understand
the sentence:
"We term this intuition locality"
Nicolaas Vroom
Strich.Nein
wrote:
http://groups.google.co.ls/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/60f23fb73b510a19
One should read the full article to understand it. First, it starts
by a seeming questioning of Einstein. The article then graudally
spins the data back in favor of Einstein, essentially concluding that
relativity has survived its contradiction with Quantum mechanics.
This is an old spin, and that it is being revisited in a popular
science magazine only means that the fallacy of Einstein is spreading
among the populace.
Relativity is at odds with 'action at a distance', negatively
described by Einstein as spooky. The use of this label is
interesting, for it is evidence of Einstein using name calling to try
to refute a scientific theory. Another alternative explanation is
also illustrative. It is a well-known phenomenon that people label
something as supernatural when their comprehension fails them, and
Einstein seems to have reached the limits of his cognition trying to
understand Quantum mechanics. It is true that Einstein contributed
indirectly to Quantum mechanics by his Nobel prize winning
photoelectirc effect. But it is also obvious that he did not
understand 90% of it, for he cannot understand how information could
be transmitted instantaneously. Newton's gravity 'acted at a
distance', and Planck/Heisenberg/Schrodinger's quantum theory 'acted
at a duistance'. Only relativity is 'ineffectial at a distance'.
In summary, the Scientific American article is nothing new. It is an
old spin trying to deny the intrinsic incompatibility between
relativity and Quantum mechanics, which is by now the gold standard
for all theories. Quantum mechanics allows instantaneous transfer of
information (or so-called entanglement), a fact that relativity has no
means of dealing with.
_______________________________________
And more of the failings of relativity:
http://groups.google.co.ls/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/92e60483a6dc0940
Hayek
The Gold Standard was abandoned in favor of fiat education.
>
> I am somewhat curious to know why you think I haven't
> put any thoughts into my current opinions.
I did not know that parrots had opinions,
at least now you found something original.
Eric Gisse
[snip all, unread]
Looks like David has moved on from the thousand post/day model to the
1 long post a day. I prefer this, as it makes his spew more contained
and easy to ignore.
By the way David, welcome back from your dignity recovery vacation. It
looks like you finally realized how pathetic you look by acting like
this, which explains the 5th name change.
Nicolaas Vroom
"Strich.Nein" <stric...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1eea0987-a942-40a6...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
End of Quote.
What we are discussing is the following issue:
In the physical world in which we are living is
there any form of faster than light propagation
involved.
The classical understanding is that this is not true.
IMO If someone claims Yes than he or she should
clearly demonstrate that.
(Only mathematics is not enough)
You can claim that if you measure the state of one electron
that you know the state of an other electron when
they are entangled only under one condition
namely that you know that they are entangled.
Entangled meaning that you perform a test 100 times
which always the same result namely that you measure
both states (of two electrons a certain distance apart)
and that always one is Up and the other is Down.
However such a claim does not imply
faster than light propagation.
To demonstrate faster than light propagation
more is involved as I have suggested for example
in a previous posting. But also other proposals
are possible.
Only after such a demonstration you can claim
that there is a problem with SR
Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
Ilja Schmelzer
wrote:
> When the answer and result is correct then what is so
> spooky about this ? experiment ?
>
> IMO part of the the solution lies in describing the
> complete setup of the experiment by Alice and Butt
> in much more detail including how the entangled electrons
> are created.
>
> Nicolaas Vroomhttp://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
See http://ilja-schmelzer.de/realism/game.php for my description of
what is strange with EPR correlations.
Ilja
Ilja Schmelzer
> Hidden variables theory is dead.
Not at all.
De Broglies pilot wave theory is more alive today than
it has been in the past.
Ilja
harry
Sorry but the coin has not yet dropped ... you there write:
"Does that mean that we have to give up causality? No. We have a much
simpler solution - simply to go back to Lorentz ether theory."
It completely escapes me how this is "simply" done. Do you propose
superluminal information transfer of some hidden non-energetic entity, or
what?
Thanks,
Harald
K_h
> Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 8:32 pm, "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaas.vr...@pandora.be>
>> wrote:
>>> When the answer and result is correct then what is so
>>> spooky about this ? experiment ?
>>>
>>> IMO part of the the solution lies in describing the
>>> complete setup of the experiment by Alice and Butt
>>> in much more detail including how the entangled electrons
>>> are created.
>>>
>>> Nicolaas Vroomhttp://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
>>
>> See http://ilja-schmelzer.de/realism/game.php for my description of
>> what is strange with EPR correlations.
>
> Sorry but the coin has not yet dropped ... you there write:
> "Does that mean that we have to give up causality? No. We have a much
> simpler solution - simply to go back to Lorentz ether theory."
Lorentz ether theory is wrong. There is no problem with EPR correlations in
relativity under the usual understanding of quantum theory. But it does
appear possible to have local realism in relativistic quantum theory see,
for example:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179
> It completely escapes me how this is "simply" done. Do you propose
> superluminal information transfer of some hidden non-energetic entity, or
> what?
It escapes me too. However, it is not necessary to do this because there is
no problem with EPR, or any quantum effects, in existing standard physical
theory.
k
harry
"K_h" <KHo...@SX729.com> wrote in message
news:UZedndMFpangfSzU...@giganews.com...
>
> "harry" <harald.NOTT...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:1236246...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>> Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>>> On Feb 27, 8:32 pm, "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaas.vr...@pandora.be>
>>> wrote:
>>>> When the answer and result is correct then what is so
>>>> spooky about this ? experiment ?
>>>>
>>>> IMO part of the the solution lies in describing the
>>>> complete setup of the experiment by Alice and Butt
>>>> in much more detail including how the entangled electrons
>>>> are created.
>>>>
>>>> Nicolaas Vroomhttp://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
>>>
>>> See http://ilja-schmelzer.de/realism/game.php for my description of
>>> what is strange with EPR correlations.
>>
>> Sorry but the coin has not yet dropped ... you there write:
>> "Does that mean that we have to give up causality? No. We have a much
>> simpler solution - simply to go back to Lorentz ether theory."
>
> Lorentz ether theory is wrong. There is no problem with EPR correlations
> in relativity under the usual understanding of quantum theory. But it
> does appear possible to have local realism in relativistic quantum theory
> see, for example:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179
Thanks that looks interesting - in the past I have been in contact with a
statistician who also claimed that unwarrented conclusions were made. I'll
have a look.
Harald
shuba
> in the past I have been in contact with a
> statistician who also claimed that unwarrented conclusions were made.
The deceased crank Caroline Thompson must have made quite an
impression on you. While no serious physicist ever bothered with
her nonsense, she attracted kooks like Steven Rado and the
"brilliant" (her word) Dennis McCarthy. Maybe you should spend
more time being "in contact" with reliable people.
---Tim Shuba---
Androcles
"shuba" <tim....@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
news:tim.shuba-D6317...@news.twtelecom.net...
> Harald wrote:
>
>> in the past I have been in contact with a
>> statistician who also claimed that unwarrented conclusions were made.
>
> impression on you. While no serious physicist ever bothered with
> "brilliant" (his word) H A Lorentz. Maybe you should spend
harry
"shuba" <tim....@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
news:tim.shuba-D6317...@news.twtelecom.net...
??
I commented on:
" But it
> does appear possible to have local realism in relativistic quantum theory
> see, for example:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179
As I stated, the author - his name is Joy Christian - claims that
unwarranted conclusions were made, and I just happen to know that he isn't
the first. Do you claim that he is wrong or that he writes nonsense? We'll
all be grateful if you point out his errors.
Harald
shuba
> "shuba" <tim....@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
> > Harald wrote:
> >
> >> in the past I have been in contact with a
> >> statistician who also claimed that unwarrented conclusions were made.
> >
> > The deceased crank Caroline Thompson must have made quite an
> > impression on you. While no serious physicist ever bothered with
> > her nonsense, she attracted kooks like Steven Rado and the
> > "brilliant" (her word) Dennis McCarthy. Maybe you should spend
> > more time being "in contact" with reliable people.
>
> ??
>
> I commented on:
>
> " But it
> > does appear possible to have local realism in relativistic quantum theory
> > see, for example:
> >
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179
>
> As I stated, the author - his name is Joy Christian - claims that
> unwarranted conclusions were made, and I just happen to know that he isn't
> the first. Do you claim that he is wrong or that he writes nonsense? We'll
> all be grateful if you point out his errors.
Nice dodge. I'm suppose there could be dozens of people you who
would refer to as a "statistician" that you have been in contact
with "in the past" about this. I suppose it could be a wild
coincidence that the only one you've ever mentioned out of the
bunch is the physicist-bashing NPA nutcase Thompson, who
participated in the same yahoo discussion group as you.
---Tim Shuba---
harry
"shuba" <tim....@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
Nice dodge indeed - of you. I don't mind to participate in the same
newsgroup as you and Androcles but I wonder if you can make a useful comment
about the paper that Holmes brought to our attention. Do you claim that Joy
Christian is wrong or that he writes nonsense?
Harald
Sue...
> Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 8:32 pm, "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaas.vr...@pandora.be>
> > wrote:
> >> When the answer and result is correct then what is so
> >> spooky about this ? experiment ?
>
> >> IMO part of the the solution lies in describing the
> >> complete setup of the experiment by Alice and Butt
> >> in much more detail including how the entangled electrons
> >> are created.
>
> >> Nicolaas Vroomhttp://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
>
> > what is strange with EPR correlations.
>
> Sorry but the coin has not yet dropped ... you there write:
> "Does that mean that we have to give up causality? No. We have a much
> simpler solution - simply to go back to Lorentz ether theory."
>
> It completely escapes me how this is "simply" done. Do you propose
> superluminal information transfer of some hidden non-energetic entity, or
> what?
A "hidden non-energetic entity" is exactly how
near or evanescent fields appear. They can even
be measured as FTL with induction probes.
They are not however FTL because they are
required to maintain energy conservation.
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
Sue...
>
> Thanks,
> Harald
shuba
> Do you claim that Joy
> Christian is wrong or that he writes nonsense?
No. I claim Caroline Thompson wrote nonsense, addressed the
same subject (CHSH inequality), was a statistician, and was a
physicist-bashing crank admired by you.
---Tim Shuba---
harry
"shuba" <tim....@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
> Harald wrote:
[reinsert:]
>> I wonder if you can make a useful comment
>> about the paper that Holmes brought to our attention.]
>> Do you claim that Joy
>> Christian is wrong or that he writes nonsense?
>
> No. I claim Caroline Thompson wrote nonsense, addressed the
> same subject (CHSH inequality), was a statistician, and was a
> physicist-bashing crank admired by you.
Thus you were unable to make a useful comment.
Harald
Androcles
"shuba" <tim....@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
No physicist has been bashed, only prominent theoretical physicists
qualify for bashing.
Shuba the flaming bigot believes the PoR is "The laws of physics are
the same in all inertial rams of reference" and not "relative motion".
He is not only ignorant but stupid and should be bashed.
The First Postulate of Crank Einstein's Relativity reads:
"Examples of this sort, (see A below) (see B below)(see C below)
(see D below).
(E) We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter
be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate"
Does any crank know what the "example of this sort" is?
Hint: In the previous paragraph it says "Take, for example..."
a really good clue for the illiterate and stupid.
Examples of this sort, (A) together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' (B)
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. (C) They
suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small
quantities, (D) the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid
for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
(E) We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and
also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable
with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with
a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple
and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on
Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a ``luminiferous
ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be
developed will not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with
special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty
space in which electromagnetic processes take place.
Extra bullshit (A) -- "suggest that, together with the unsuccessful attempts
to discover any motion of the earth
"relatively" (- wonder what that means)
to the ``light medium,'' (the unnamed Michelson Morley interferometer
experiment)
Extra bullshit (B) -- suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well
as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of
absolute rest."
Extra bullshit (C) -- They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to
the first order of small quantities
Extra bullshit (D) -- "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
hold good.
WHAT is the example (without all the fucking suggestions)?
Excerpt from previous paragraph:
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet".
Does anybody know what "relative motion" is?
Previous paragraph:
It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the
present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do
not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the
reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable
phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the
magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two
cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For
if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the
neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite
energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are
situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no
electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor,
however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative
motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and
intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.
Wow! The Holy First Postulate is good old Galilean relativity with some
suggestions added. How highly suggestive.
Strich.Nein
wrote:
> Quantum weirdness defies special relativity.
> Scientific American March 2009
> The article starts at page 26 with:
> "Entanglement, like many quantum effects, violates
> some of our deepest intuitions about the world."
This article is obviously proaganda against the growing realization
that relativity is plain wrong. Observe the wording of the title.
Note the character assassination against QM by calling it weird. Note
the implication that Relativity is the more superior theory, when in
fact it is the weaker theory. The title should be:
Relativity attempts to defy Quantum Mechanics. A complete reading of
the article shows its profound bias.
Also, while QM violates intuition (what is this? this is not science,
this is not even art, it is just feeling), Relativity violates logic
(what is this? it is the foundation of all science and mathematics).
So the real question is, does one go for INTUITION, or LOGIC? The
answer is obvious.
PD
> On Feb 27, 11:32 am, "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaas.vr...@pandora.be>
> wrote:
>
> > Quantum weirdness defies special relativity.
> > Scientific American March 2009
> > The article starts at page 26 with:
> > "Entanglement, like many quantum effects, violates
> > some of our deepest intuitions about the world."
>
> This article is obviously
Oh, obviously. And it's obvious that the nurses are upping your
medication as a government-supported campaign to keep people like you
suppressed. The medication makes you babble incoherently, so that The
People you are here on Earth to save, won't recognize you for the
genius you are.
harry
["Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaa...@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:ZHTpl.29257$1N5....@newsfe21.ams2...
Scientific American March 2009
The article starts at page 26 with:
"Entanglement]
"K_h" <KHo...@SX729.com> wrote in message
news:UZedndMFpangfSzU...@giganews.com...
>
> "harry" <harald.NOTT...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:1236246...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>> Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>>> On Feb 27, 8:32 pm, "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaas.vr...@pandora.be>
>>> wrote:
>>>> When the answer and result is correct then what is so
>>>> spooky about this ? experiment ?
>>>>
>>>> IMO part of the the solution lies in describing the
>>>> complete setup of the experiment by Alice and Butt
>>>> in much more detail including how the entangled electrons
>>>> are created.
>>>>
>>>> Nicolaas Vroomhttp://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
>>>
>>> See http://ilja-schmelzer.de/realism/game.php for my description of
>>> what is strange with EPR correlations.
>>
>> Sorry but the coin has not yet dropped ... you there write:
>> "Does that mean that we have to give up causality? No. We have a much
>> simpler solution - simply to go back to Lorentz ether theory."
>
> Lorentz ether theory is wrong. There is no problem with EPR correlations
> in relativity under the usual understanding of quantum theory. But it
> does appear possible to have local realism in relativistic quantum theory
> see, for example:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179
I now had a look at it and it appears to be a serious paper. However, I
don't know Clifford algebra and it's unclear to me how to interpret Ilja's
EPR example above in the light of that paper - it seems that not both
examples can be right.
I thus crosspost this to sci.physics, perhaps someone has an idea?
Regards,
Harald
harry
> [crosspost to sci.physics as the topic is on SR+QM -> EPR correlations]
>
> ["Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaa...@pandora.be> wrote in message
> news:ZHTpl.29257$1N5....@newsfe21.ams2...
> Scientific American March 2009
> The article starts at page 26 with:
> "Entanglement]
>
> "K_h" <KHo...@SX729.com> wrote in message
> news:UZedndMFpangfSzU...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "harry" <harald.NOTT...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>> news:1236246...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>>> Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>>>> On Feb 27, 8:32 pm, "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaas.vr...@pandora.be>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> When the answer and result is correct then what is so
>>>>> spooky about this ? experiment ?
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO part of the the solution lies in describing the
>>>>> complete setup of the experiment by Alice and Butt
>>>>> in much more detail including how the entangled electrons
>>>>> are created.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nicolaas Vroomhttp://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
>>>>
>>>> See http://ilja-schmelzer.de/realism/game.php
"If asked about the same card, my friend measures the same direction and
obtains the "correct" answer - correct means the same as I have given, so
that we don't have to pay the fine. "
>>>> for my description of
>>>> what is strange with EPR correlations.
>>> Sorry but the coin has not yet dropped ... you there write:
>>> "Does that mean that we have to give up causality? No. We have a much
>>> simpler solution - simply to go back to Lorentz ether theory."
>>
>> Lorentz ether theory is wrong. There is no problem with EPR correlations
>> in relativity under the usual understanding of quantum theory. But it
>> does appear possible to have local realism in relativistic quantum theory
>> see, for example:
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179
"the spin correlations derived within our locally causal model violate the
CHSH inequality just as strongly as their quantum mechanical counterparts. "
> I now had a look at it and it appears to be a serious paper. However, I
> don't know Clifford algebra and it's unclear to me how to interpret Ilja's
> EPR example above in the light of that paper - it seems that not both
> examples can be right.
> I thus crosspost this to sci.physics, perhaps someone has an idea?
See also Arnold Neumaier's slides:
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/ms/optslides.pdf
"it appears that, all quantum systems can be simulated by classical
electromagnetic waves"
Harald
Daryl McCullough
>See also Arnold Neumaier's slides:
>http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/ms/optslides.pdf
>
>"it appears that, all quantum systems can be simulated by classical
>electromagnetic waves"
I don't understand Neumaier's paper. In his derivations, Planck's
constant h-bar is introduced with no explanation. Where did it come
from?
Also, it is true that a classical theory of polarized light behaves
mathematically much like quantum mechanics. However, the essential
part of quantum mechanics is missing in a classical interpretation:
namely the interpretation of the norm of the wavefunction as a probability
distribution. I don't see how that interpretation makes any sense,
classically.
Finally, another big difference between quantum mechanics and
any classical analogue is the fact that whereas electromagnetic
fields are functions on coordinate space (they vary from point
to point and from time to time), quantum mechanical wave functions
are functions on *configuration* space. For single particles, there
is no difference between these two, but for multiple particles,
there is a big difference. Configuration space requires 3N
coordinates, where N is the number of particles.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Daryl McCullough
>I commented on:
>
>" But it
>> does appear possible to have local realism in relativistic quantum theory
>> see, for example:
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179
>
>As I stated, the author - his name is Joy Christian - claims that
>unwarranted conclusions were made, and I just happen to know that he isn't
>the first. Do you claim that he is wrong or that he writes nonsense? We'll
>all be grateful if you point out his errors.
To me, the error is in the title, "Disproof of Bell's Theorem by ..."
He did not disprove Bell's Theorem. I'm not exactly sure what the
significance of Christian's mathematical derivation is, but it sure
doesn't seem to dispell any of the arguments about quantum mechanics.
Bell assumed that when one measures an electron's spin along an
axis u, he gets an answer +1 or -1 depending on whether the particle
is spin-up or spin-down with respect to that axis. A deterministic
local explanation would be a function A_u(lambda) that is a function
from some unknown hidden state variable lambda to {+1,-1}.
Christian says that Bell's mistake was to assume that A_u(lambda)
commutes with A_u'(lambda). But the function A_u returns a *real*
number, +1 or -1. How could it not commute? I don't see how that
makes any sense.
Christian's alternative to Bell is to assume that that the
state variable lambda is a term from Clifford algebra, and
to interpret A_u(lambda) as a Clifford algebra product of
u and lambda. But the point of A_u(lambda) is that it returns
+1 or -1. A function that returns an element of a Clifford
algebra is not relevant to the problem.
When I measure the spin of an electron, I get a boolean
answer: spin up or spin down. What does it mean to get
a Clifford number as an answer?
harry
"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gp5hm...@drn.newsguy.com...
Thanks for the comments!
I see three possible solutions (intuitively I think (2) or (3) to be most
likely, but I don't exclude (1)):
1. conceptual errors in Christian's example (and also Neumaier's),
2. conceptual errors in Schmeltzer's example,
3. a surprising discovery of tricks that can be played with "classical"
devices
I understand that you seek the answer in solution 1.
However, if Christian is not completely confused about his favourite
algebra, then you didn't spot his error yet. For in his Q and A follow-up to
his paper (available in the same link), Christian explains that in his
example the output of measurements is not Clifford numbers, but only *real*
numbers, or even not even that but only the signs +1 or -1. In his words:
"Thus, the only attribute that can possibly be revealed in any experiment is
its sign, + or ?, which corresponds to the sense of its rotation."
Regards,
Harald
harry
> harry says...
>
>>See also Arnold Neumaier's slides:
>> http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/ms/optslides.pdf
>>
>>"it appears that, all quantum systems can be simulated by classical
>>electromagnetic waves"
>
> I don't understand Neumaier's paper. In his derivations, Planck's
> constant h-bar is introduced with no explanation. Where did it come
> from?
Hmm.. it seems to pop up out of nowhere! I hope that he will see your
question and clarify that himself.
> Also, it is true that a classical theory of polarized light behaves
> mathematically much like quantum mechanics. However, the essential
> part of quantum mechanics is missing in a classical interpretation:
> namely the interpretation of the norm of the wavefunction as a probability
> distribution. I don't see how that interpretation makes any sense,
> classically.
I understand that it is "missing" on purpose. You may have overlooked:
"Probabilistic foundations of quantum mechanics are therefore intrinsically
muddled up with the problem of measurement."
And in his first lecture he put:
"The probabilistic results of low intensity photodetection are therefore the
consequence of the interaction with the ensemble of highly localized
particles in the macroscopic detector"
> Finally, another big difference between quantum mechanics and
> any classical analogue is the fact that whereas electromagnetic
> fields are functions on coordinate space (they vary from point
> to point and from time to time), quantum mechanical wave functions
> are functions on *configuration* space. For single particles, there
> is no difference between these two, but for multiple particles,
> there is a big difference. Configuration space requires 3N
> coordinates, where N is the number of particles.
How does that affect his conclusion?
Regards,
Harald
Strich.Nein
http://groups.google.co.ls/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/924cdfe6ee24c7f5?dmode=source
Of course he was. How often must the argument be rehashed until it is
finally understood? We all know that quantum mechanics is 100%
correct and the tests that prove it can be repeated again and again
with the same results. Sadly, the same cannot be said for relativity.
The problem it seems is one of intellect. The majority of physicists
are too intellectually inferior to grasp the underlying principles of
quantum mechanics. The human mind has yet to evolve for the majority
of humanity to understand the very advanced concepts being espoused by
QM. Most people can only grasp the cute geometries of relativity, and
would prefer the latter for the simple reason of comprehension, not
veracity.
The conflict between relativity and QM has long been resolved in favor
of QM. Here is the summary:
1) QM and SR/GR are mutually inconsistent
2) Thus Einstein formulated the EPR paradox as the counterargument
against QM
3) Bell showed the EPR paradox does not falsify QM; hence it falsifies
SR/GR
4) End of story
Again, QM is counter-intuitive. SR/GR is counter-logical. It is
easier for people to suspend logic than intuition (as seen in the
prevalence of supernatural explanations worldwide) thus the favor of
SR/GR over QM. It would take another millenia of human evolution
before people can grasp the structure of QM.
Eric Gisse
[...]
>It would take another millenia of human evolution
> before people can grasp the structure of QM.
Where a "millenia" is defined to be "one semester of graduate quantum
mechanics".
David, did you know that SR and QM work together quite nicely and that
the incompatibilities between GR and QM have been known for years
before you were born? What is it like being wrong when you aren't
decades out of date?
byron
The Australian philosopher colin leslie dean has shown that both maths
and QM end in meaninglessness ie self contradiction
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Absurd_math_science4.pdf
The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science:
paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes
them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical
thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views
quote
Similarly there is ample evidence of theories giving the predicted
results even though they collapse into absurdity i.e. are self-
contradictory or paradoxical such as those in quantum mechanics- just
as there is in mathematics. Heisenberg notes that “ the strangest
experience of those years was that the paradoxes of quantum theory did
not disappear during this process of clarification; on the contrary
they have become even more marked and exciting.”
In regard to the paradoxes and contradictions of quantum theory Wick
state the orthodox view when he says “here my opinion of the orthodox
quantum mechanics, like Bohr, comes down to the meaning of words.
“Classical” and “complementarity”, insult and commendation, are
euphemisms; the belief concealed is that Nature has been found in a
contradiction. But quantum physicists are not simpletons. In their
hearts they know such a claim is philosophically unacceptable and
would be rejected in other sciences.”
Wick notes “ I believe orthodox quantum theorists [slates] reason,
consciously or unconsciously, something like this. The microscopic
world exhibits paradoxes or contradictions and this fact is reflected
in the best theory describing it.”
thus we see QM ends in paradox contradiction ie meaninglessness
Strich.Nein
For people who do not know, Eric is an overstaying student who has not
graduated from his course at some mid-lower level university. His
opionions in physics are often based on ignorance peppered with too
much of dishonesty. Obviously, the one semester of QM is lost on
Eric.
Let me up the ante of intellectual discussion so Eric is left behind
on planet dummy for good.
Attempts to unify QM and SR/GR has indeed been attempted. Thus is
born the mangled theory of QFT (quantum field theory). QFT produces
illogical results all the time (what do you expect if you mother in
the illogical SR/GR). To correct the genetic anomalies of QFT, a
special procedure known as renormalization is introduced. Without
renormalization, QFT dies in a heartbeat.
------------------------
What is renormalization? Let me explain in layman's terms. Suppose
you had a QFT type formula for calculating the height of the giraffe.
The QFT type formula would arrive at heights ranging from zero feet to
one million feet. That is how bogus the theory is. What physicists
do then is ask, 'what is the common height of a giraffe?' Well,
another physicist goes, 'the last one we measured was 12 feet'. 'Ok,
let us then scrap all the calculations we made and plug in 12 feet'.
Another one helps in, 'yeah, the QM calculations also yield 12 feet,
so we must be close to the correct answer.' Thus the calculation is
renormalized.
byron
you say
QFT produces
illogical results all the time
fact is a colin leslie dean points out QM it self ends in
NoEinstein
>
Dear Harry: EINSTEIN WHO?? :-) — NoEinstein —
>
> [crosspost to sci.physics as the topic is on SR+QM -> EPR correlations]
>
>
> news:ZHTpl.29257$1N5....@newsfe21.ams2...
> Scientific American March 2009
> The article starts at page 26 with:
> "Entanglement]
>
>
> news:UZedndMFpangfSzU...@giganews.com...
>
> > "harry" <harald.NOTTHISvanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> >news:1236246...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
> >> Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> >>> On Feb 27, 8:32 pm, "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaas.vr...@pandora.be>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> When the answer and result is correct then what is so
> >>>> spooky about this ? experiment ?
>
> >>>> IMO part of the the solution lies in describing the
> >>>> complete setup of the experiment by Alice and Butt
> >>>> in much more detail including how the entangled electrons
> >>>> are created.
>
> >>>> Nicolaas Vroomhttp://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
>
> >>> what is strange with EPR correlations.
>
> >> Sorry but the coin has not yet dropped ... you there write:
> >> "Does that mean that we have to give up causality? No. We have a much
> >> simpler solution - simply to go back to Lorentz ether theory."
>
> > Lorentz ether theory is wrong. There is no problem with EPR correlations
> > in relativity under the usual understanding of quantum theory. But it
> > does appear possible to have local realism in relativistic quantum theory
> > see, for example:
>
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179
>
> I now had a look at it and it appears to be a serious paper. However, I
> don't know Clifford algebra and it's unclear to me how to interpret Ilja's
> EPR example above in the light of that paper - it seems that not both
> examples can be right.
> I thus crosspost this to sci.physics, perhaps someone has an idea?
>
> Regards,
>
> - Show quoted text -
doug
Strich.Nein wrote:
> On Mar 10, 8:04 am, "harry" <harald.NOTTHISvanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
> http://groups.google.co.ls/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/924cdfe6ee24c7f5?dmode=source
>
> Of course he was. How often must the argument be rehashed until it is
> finally understood? We all know that quantum mechanics is 100%
> correct and the tests that prove it can be repeated again and again
> with the same results. Sadly, the same cannot be said for relativity.
Except, of course, for the century of experiments that have tested
it and the daily testing in the gps system.
>
> The problem it seems is one of intellect.
Strich does have that problem.
The majority of physicists
> are too intellectually inferior to grasp the underlying principles of
> quantum mechanics. The human mind has yet to evolve for the majority
> of humanity to understand the very advanced concepts being espoused by
> QM. Most people can only grasp the cute geometries of relativity, and
> would prefer the latter for the simple reason of comprehension, not
> veracity.
>
> The conflict between relativity and QM has long been resolved in favor
> of QM. Here is the summary:
>
> 1) QM and SR/GR are mutually inconsistent
> 2) Thus Einstein formulated the EPR paradox as the counterargument
> against QM
> 3) Bell showed the EPR paradox does not falsify QM; hence it falsifies
> SR/GR
> 4) End of story
>
> Again, QM is counter-intuitive. SR/GR is counter-logical.
It counter to strich's prejudice and ignorance but that is
not a scientific argument.
doug
byron wrote:
> On Mar 11, 12:40 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 10, 5:38 am, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>It would take another millenia of human evolution
>>>before people can grasp the structure of QM.
>>
>>Where a "millenia" is defined to be "one semester of graduate quantum
>>mechanics".
>>
>>David, did you know that SR and QM work together quite nicely and that
>>the incompatibilities between GR and QM have been known for years
>>before you were born? What is it like being wrong when you aren't
>>decades out of date?
>
>
> The Australian philosopher colin leslie dean has shown that both maths
> and QM end in meaninglessness ie self contradiction
Philosophy is not science. Philosophy is what you do when you
cannot do science.
>
> http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Absurd_math_science4.pdf
>
> The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science:
> paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes
> them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical
> thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views
>
The philosophers do not know any science or know how to do science
so they say stupid things. The theories work, get over it.
Blustering about with silly ideas trying to claim they are
philosophically wrong is a waste of time. The world has already
decided.
>
> quote
>
>
> Similarly there is ample evidence of theories giving the predicted
> results even though they collapse into absurdity i.e. are self-
> contradictory or paradoxical such as those in quantum mechanics- just
> as there is in mathematics.
If they give correct results, they are correct descriptions in their
realm of applicability. Philosophers not understanding or liking the
theories has no effect on them.
Heisenberg notes that “ the strangest
> experience of those years was that the paradoxes of quantum theory did
> not disappear during this process of clarification; on the contrary
> they have become even more marked and exciting.”
>
> In regard to the paradoxes and contradictions of quantum theory Wick
> state the orthodox view when he says “here my opinion of the orthodox
> quantum mechanics, like Bohr, comes down to the meaning of words.
> “Classical” and “complementarity”, insult and commendation, are
> euphemisms; the belief concealed is that Nature has been found in a
> contradiction. But quantum physicists are not simpletons. In their
> hearts they know such a claim is philosophically unacceptable and
> would be rejected in other sciences.”
> Wick notes “ I believe orthodox quantum theorists [slates] reason,
> consciously or unconsciously, something like this. The microscopic
> world exhibits paradoxes or contradictions and this fact is reflected
> in the best theory describing it.”
>
>
> thus we see QM ends in paradox contradiction ie meaninglessness
Except, of course, it is an accurate description of the world since
it makes correct predictions. Philosophers cannot do science.
Ray Vickson
> On Mar 10, 8:04 am, "harry" <harald.NOTTHISvanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:http://groups.google.co.ls/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/924cdfe6e...
>
> Of course he was. How often must the argument be rehashed until it is
> finally understood? We all know that quantum mechanics is 100%
We know that it works. We know that no observable violations have
appeared so far. However, we do not know that it is 100% correct. We
NEVER know that a scientific theory is 100% correct.
> correct and the tests that prove it can be repeated again and again
> with the same results. Sadly, the same cannot be said for relativity.
On the contrary: see http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
or http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/tests-of-relativity.html
or http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/ResearchInst/FundPhys.html or
http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2031 or http://www.photonics.com/Content/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=12774
or
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2002/split/590-1.html etc., etc. The list goes
on and on.
>
> The problem it seems is one of intellect. The majority of physicists
> are too intellectually inferior to grasp the underlying principles of
> quantum mechanics.
Nonsence. Who do you think invented the subject? Why do you think that
every Master's or Doctoral degree physics student, whether
"experimental" or "theoretical", is required to take and pass courses
on the subject and very often used it routinely in his/her research?
> The human mind has yet to evolve for the majority
> of humanity to understand the very advanced concepts being espoused by
> QM. Most people can only grasp the cute geometries of relativity, and
> would prefer the latter for the simple reason of comprehension, not
> veracity.
I'm not sure how easy it is to grasp the concept of curved 4-
dimensional spaces, especially.
>
> The conflict between relativity and QM has long been resolved in favor
> of QM.
No. It has not been resolved yet. There is no conflict with Special
Relativity, only with GR. Ultimately, of course, perhaps both QM and
GR are incorrect at some very small space-time scales, but in such a
way that they somehow "become (almost) correct" at larger, separate
scales. We still don't know.
> Here is the summary:
>
> 1) QM and SR/GR are mutually inconsistent
Nonsense. QM and SR fit nicely together.
> 2) Thus Einstein formulated the EPR paradox as the counterargument
> against QM
> 3) Bell showed the EPR paradox does not falsify QM; hence it falsifies
> SR/GR
Not true.
R.G. Vickson
doug
Ray Vickson wrote:
> On Mar 10, 6:38 am, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 10, 8:04 am, "harry" <harald.NOTTHISvanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:http://groups.google.co.ls/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/924cdfe6e...
>>
>>Of course he was. How often must the argument be rehashed until it is
>>finally understood? We all know that quantum mechanics is 100%
>
>
> We know that it works. We know that no observable violations have
> appeared so far. However, we do not know that it is 100% correct. We
> NEVER know that a scientific theory is 100% correct.
>
>
>>correct and the tests that prove it can be repeated again and again
>>with the same results. Sadly, the same cannot be said for relativity.
>
>
> On the contrary: see http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
> or http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/tests-of-relativity.html
> or http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/ResearchInst/FundPhys.html or
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2031 or http://www.photonics.com/Content/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=12774
> or
> http://www.aip.org/pnu/2002/split/590-1.html etc., etc. The list goes
> on and on.
>
Strich thinks they are all wrong. Either he does not like them or he
thinks the authors were not famous enough or they were not put in
a sufficiently important journal etc. That shows you how he "thinks".
>
>>The problem it seems is one of intellect. The majority of physicists
>>are too intellectually inferior to grasp the underlying principles of
>>quantum mechanics.
>
>
> Nonsence. Who do you think invented the subject? Why do you think that
> every Master's or Doctoral degree physics student, whether
> "experimental" or "theoretical", is required to take and pass courses
> on the subject and very often used it routinely in his/her research?
>
Strich feels that he is the most intelligent person in the history
of the world. That shows how little he knows.
>
>> The human mind has yet to evolve for the majority
>>of humanity to understand the very advanced concepts being espoused by
>>QM. Most people can only grasp the cute geometries of relativity, and
>>would prefer the latter for the simple reason of comprehension, not
>>veracity.
>
>
> I'm not sure how easy it is to grasp the concept of curved 4-
> dimensional spaces, especially.
>
>
>>The conflict between relativity and QM has long been resolved in favor
>>of QM.
>
>
> No. It has not been resolved yet. There is no conflict with Special
> Relativity, only with GR. Ultimately, of course, perhaps both QM and
> GR are incorrect at some very small space-time scales, but in such a
> way that they somehow "become (almost) correct" at larger, separate
> scales. We still don't know.
>
>
>> Here is the summary:
>>
>>1) QM and SR/GR are mutually inconsistent
>
>
> Nonsense. QM and SR fit nicely together.
>
>
>>2) Thus Einstein formulated the EPR paradox as the counterargument
>>against QM
>>3) Bell showed the EPR paradox does not falsify QM; hence it falsifies
>>SR/GR
>
>
> Not true.
That never stops strich. He will just define it as true and
move on.
Androcles
"Ray Vickson" <RGVi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:9d72577a-8ac5-4356...@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Nonsense. QM and SR fit nicely together.
Your head and your arse fit nicely together.
Michael Moroney
>Of course he was. How often must the argument be rehashed until it is
>finally understood? We all know that quantum mechanics is 100%
>correct and the tests that prove it can be repeated again and again
>with the same results. Sadly, the same cannot be said for relativity.
Oh really? Show me a test that shows that relativity isn't correct when
repeated again and again? Just one. But I want an actual test that
disproves relativity, not a misinterpretation of a test or thought
experiment by a patient of the mental ward of the VA.
>The problem it seems is one of intellect. The majority of physicists
>are too intellectually inferior to grasp the underlying principles of
>quantum mechanics. The human mind has yet to evolve for the majority
>of humanity to understand the very advanced concepts being espoused by
>QM. Most people can only grasp the cute geometries of relativity, and
>would prefer the latter for the simple reason of comprehension, not
>veracity.
There is no reason to try to project the fact that you haven't evolved
enough to understand relativity on everyone else.
Ray Vickson
> "Ray Vickson" <RGVick...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
As is well known, you are a true vulgarian, and use insult in place of
reasoned or reasonable argument.
R.G. Vickson
Androcles
==================================
Saying "Nonsense" is a reasoned argument? You stupid,
ignorant moron.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR4kids/special_relativity_for_children.htmThat is reasoned argument, not that you'll answer with reason, you fuckingbigot.
PD
> byron wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 12:40 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Mar 10, 5:38 am, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>[...]
>
> >>>It would take another millenia of human evolution
> >>>before people can grasp the structure of QM.
>
> >>Where a "millenia" is defined to be "one semester of graduate quantum
> >>mechanics".
>
> >>David, did you know that SR and QM work together quite nicely and that
> >>the incompatibilities between GR and QM have been known for years
> >>before you were born? What is it like being wrong when you aren't
> >>decades out of date?
>
> > The Australian philosopher colin leslie dean has shown that both maths
> > and QM end in meaninglessness ie self contradiction
>
> Philosophy is not science. Philosophy is what you do when you
> cannot do science.
Well, I wouldn't go THAT far. But it is certainly true that philosophy
and physics deal with different things and have different metrics for
determining or even exploring truth.
As for Colin Leslie Dean, this guy has caused a bit of a buzz-up by
claiming that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is wrong. Keep in mind
that he has not in any way presented anything resembling a formal
proof.
>
> >http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Absurd_math_sci...
>
> > The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science:
> > paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes
> > them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical
> > thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views
There are no paradoxes in physics. There are many things that are
counter to our *intuitions*, but those intuitions are based on
extrapolations of what we are accustomed to from our senses. Many of
those extrapolations objectively fail. That is not a contradiction.
That is just a surprise.
doug
PD wrote:
> On Mar 10, 12:04 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>>byron wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 11, 12:40 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Mar 10, 5:38 am, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>[...]
>>
>>>>>It would take another millenia of human evolution
>>>>>before people can grasp the structure of QM.
>>
>>>>Where a "millenia" is defined to be "one semester of graduate quantum
>>>>mechanics".
>>
>>>>David, did you know that SR and QM work together quite nicely and that
>>>>the incompatibilities between GR and QM have been known for years
>>>>before you were born? What is it like being wrong when you aren't
>>>>decades out of date?
>>
>>>The Australian philosopher colin leslie dean has shown that both maths
>>>and QM end in meaninglessness ie self contradiction
>>
>>Philosophy is not science. Philosophy is what you do when you
>>cannot do science.
>
>
> Well, I wouldn't go THAT far. But it is certainly true that philosophy
> and physics deal with different things and have different metrics for
> determining or even exploring truth.
I guess that to be correct I should have said philosophy is one
of the things you do when you cannot do science.
The problem comes when you get people who fancy themselves as philosophy
of science types. They are always funny to listen to.
>
> As for Colin Leslie Dean, this guy has caused a bit of a buzz-up by
> claiming that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is wrong. Keep in mind
> that he has not in any way presented anything resembling a formal
> proof.
>
At least it keeps them busy.
PD
> On Mar 11, 12:40 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 10, 5:38 am, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > >It would take another millenia of human evolution
> > > before people can grasp the structure of QM.
>
> > Where a "millenia" is defined to be "one semester of graduate quantum
> > mechanics".
>
> > David, did you know that SR and QM work together quite nicely and that
> > the incompatibilities between GR and QM have been known for years
> > before you were born? What is it like being wrong when you aren't
> > decades out of date?
>
> The Australian philosopher colin leslie dean has shown that both maths
> and QM end in meaninglessness ie self contradiction
Colin Leslie Dean is an Australian poet interested in self-promotion.
He has shown nothing of the sort. All he has shown is a rather ill-
informed and poorly-formed opinion.
>
> http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Absurd_math_sci...
>
> The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science:
> paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes
> them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical
> thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views
>
> quote
>
> Similarly there is ample evidence of theories giving the predicted
> results even though they collapse into absurdity i.e. are self-
> contradictory or paradoxical
There are no contradictions in quantum mechanics.
Perhaps you meant "not what I expected".
BURT
If both clocks are going slow then they would be going at the same
rate.
Mitch
PD
It helps to know what relativity actually says, rather than these
little comic-book statements.
Strich.Nein
1) QM is non-relativistic.
2) QM does not treat time on the same footing as space.
3) This is important. In QM time is a paramter,
whereas spatial coordinates are operators.
4) A space-time continuum fantasy does not exist in QM.
5) QM deals with the fine structure of matter.
In comparison, SR/GR is clueless as to what is going on at this
level.
6) QM is the most fundamental theory.
In comparison, SR/GR is a superfluous theory about this childish
fetish
with retarded clocks, shrunken rulers and crooked space.
7) There are no hidden variables in QM.
8) The fanatics of SR/GR adapted QM to a relativistic formulation
called QFT.
9) Guess what, the logical inconsistencies of SR/GR was dragged into
QFT.
10) The theory is now plagued by infinities.
11) This is corrected by renormalization.
12) Renormalization is possible because
QM provides the correct underlying foundation.
13) A type of QFT for gravity has been attempted.
14) It is also beset by infinities.
15) These cannot be corrected by the usual renormalization.
16) Why? Because there is no underlying Quantum Mechanical treatment
of
gravity that can be used as a template for the correction.
(Ha ha ha, the underlying treatment for gravity by
GR is useless as a template to obtain correct answers!)
In summary, if QFT adds nothing new, then why was it introduced? Why
dress the perfect QM with the cross-dressing SR/GR blouse only to come
up with the mutant QFT that can only be kept alive by renormalization
life support? The answer is all too human. Relativist vanity wanted
to legitimize SR/GR by incorporating it into QM. And look at them
now. Still with their thumbs in their mouths.
-----------------------
Again we expect the usual ad hominems, though my points are based on
fact. After a while, the comical ad hominems become increasingly
transparent as the anemic attempts at rebuttal by feeble minds. Note
how relativists cannot engage one single quantum mechanical idea.
They can only go as far as the simple algebra of SR and the simple
pictures of GR (the equations are mere window dressing to transmute
the normally Euclidean equations to a Riemannian fantasy--talk about
the diametric opposite of Occam's principle). It is a shame. Tons
and tons of relativists, and not a single one with a useful brain.
doug
Strich.Nein wrote:
> Let me clarify some basic truths about QM.
>
[snip crap and strich delusions]
When strich is shown to be badly wrong, he just ignores
it and repeats his same stupidity again hoping no one
will notice he was wrong the last ten times or so.
Dirk Van de moortel
ad15cec5-17f0-4663...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com
> On Mar 11, 12:54 am, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip other crap]
> you say
>
> QFT produces
> illogical results all the time
>
> fact is a colin leslie dean points out QM it self ends in
> meaninglessness ie self contradiction
>
> http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Absurd_math_science4.pdf
gamahucherpress:
59.167.191.15 AU AUSTRALIA VICTORIA MELBOURNE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER
Byron (aka colin leslie dean):
210.50.248.75 AU AUSTRALIA VICTORIA MELBOURNE PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Let me guess... born yesterday, right?
Dirk Vdm
PD
> Let me clarify some basic truths about QM.
>
> 1) QM is non-relativistic.
Dirac equation.
> 2) QM does not treat time on the same footing as space.
Dirac equation. Idiot.
> 3) This is important. In QM time is a paramter,
> whereas spatial coordinates are operators.
QED Langrangian.
> 4) A space-time continuum fantasy does not exist in QM.
QED Lagrangian. Idiot.
>
> 5) QM deals with the fine structure of matter.
> In comparison, SR/GR is clueless as to what is going on at this
> level.
And in what way does that make them incompatible? Organic chemistry
deals with the interaction of molecules. Cellular biology deals with
life's larger structures. Is cellular biology incompatible with
organic chemistry?
> 6) QM is the most fundamental theory.
And what does "fundamental" mean to you?
> In comparison, SR/GR is a superfluous theory about this childish
> fetish
> with retarded clocks, shrunken rulers and crooked space.
Sorry, propaganda is no substitute for the truth.
> 7) There are no hidden variables in QM.
>
Nor are there in relativity.
> 8) The fanatics of SR/GR adapted QM to a relativistic formulation
> called QFT.
And this is supposed to let you conclude what, exactly?
> 9) Guess what, the logical inconsistencies of SR/GR was dragged into
> QFT.
What logical inconsistencies?
> 10) The theory is now plagued by infinities.
Hey, guess what? That's true in nonrelativistic QM too!
> 11) This is corrected by renormalization.
Which sure seems like it's not much of plague, right?
> 12) Renormalization is possible because
> QM provides the correct underlying foundation.
Propaganda again.
>
> 13) A type of QFT for gravity has been attempted.
Yes.
> 14) It is also beset by infinities.
No. The really nice thing about this QFT is that it is free from those
infinities.
> 15) These cannot be corrected by the usual renormalization.
Nor are they needed.
> 16) Why? Because there is no underlying Quantum Mechanical treatment
> of
> gravity that can be used as a template for the correction.
> (Ha ha ha, the underlying treatment for gravity by
> GR is useless as a template to obtain correct answers!)
>
> In summary, if QFT adds nothing new, then why was it introduced?
Because nonrelativistic QM doesn't get the right answers. This has
been pointed out to you before.
> Why
> dress the perfect QM with the cross-dressing SR/GR blouse only to come
> up with the mutant QFT that can only be kept alive by renormalization
> life support? The answer is all too human. Relativist vanity wanted
> to legitimize SR/GR by incorporating it into QM. And look at them
> now. Still with their thumbs in their mouths.
>
> -----------------------
>
> Again we expect the usual ad hominems, though my points are based on
> fact.
What facts?
achille
6) debatable
7) correct
8) NO, QFT exists or not has nothing to do with SR/GR.
it exists in order to deal with the fact particles
can be created, destroyed or decay to other particles.
9) N/A because (8)
10) yes,
11) sort of, on 3+1 dim we basically only know how to get rid
of the infinities in presence of some local symmetries.
We use the local symmetry as a guide to cancel out most of
infinities and allow us to absorb the remaining few as a
renormalization of parameters in the theory.
12) Nope, it just works. nothing to do whether QM is fundamental'
or not. In fact, people simply view 'renormalization' as a
hint our current theory is a low-energy effective theory of
the true theory.
13-14) yes.
15) yes, but it is a limitation of human. From the viewpoint of
regular QFT, the problem of gravity has nothing to do with GR.
The problem is the symmetry demands us to use a spin-2 particle
to describe the quanta of GR. A side effect is the infinities
becomes much worst than usual and we don't have an alternate
principle to cancel out the infinities.
16) All the QM/QFT are only approximate. In fact, we only know how
to compute concrete number using divergence series expansion :-(
BTW, QM/QFT works very well with SR.
achille
> > 10) The theory is now plagued by infinities.
>
> Hey, guess what? That's true in nonrelativistic QM too!
>
I don't thinks so, example?
> > 14) It is also beset by infinities.
>
> No. The really nice thing about this QFT is that it is free from those
> infinities.
>
Are you talking about string theory where the fundamental entries
are not particles or extended object (I don't consider those as part
of QFT).
PD
> On Mar 11, 5:01 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 10) The theory is now plagued by infinities.
>
> > Hey, guess what? That's true in nonrelativistic QM too!
>
> I don't thinks so, example?
Sure. Take the non-relativistic scalar theory with a lambda*phi^4
interaction. Plenty of terms in the perturbative expansion of the
scattering matrix which involve integrating over all momenta -->
infinities.
>
> > > 14) It is also beset by infinities.
>
> > No. The really nice thing about this QFT is that it is free from those
> > infinities.
>
> Are you talking about string theory where the fundamental entries
> are not particles or extended object (I don't consider those as part
> of QFT).
I don't see why not. They are quantized fields.
PD
PD
>
> > > 10) The theory is now plagued by infinities.
>
> > Hey, guess what? That's true in nonrelativistic QM too!
>
> I don't thinks so, example?
Hmmm...
I may take this back. I got to thinking about your comment about
particle creation. Let me think of an example of a Lagrangian that is
not Lorentz-covariant but has a particle-creation operator that
appears in perturbation expansions.
achille
>
> Sure. Take the non-relativistic scalar theory with a lambda*phi^4
> interaction. Plenty of terms in the perturbative expansion of the
> scattering matrix which involve integrating over all momenta -->
> infinities.
>
I see what you mean now.
>
> I don't see why not. They are quantized fields.
>
> PD
Yes, they are quantized fields but the 'QFT' of extended
objects involves a lot of new concepts. Personally, I think
it is better to use a different name to avoid confusion.
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 10, 9:40 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 10, 5:38 am, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > >It would take another millenia of human evolution
> > > before people can grasp the structure of QM.
>
> > Where a "millenia" is defined to be "one semester of graduate quantum
> > mechanics".
>
> > David, did you know that SR and QM work together quite nicely and that
> > the incompatibilities between GR and QM have been known for years
> > before you were born? What is it like being wrong when you aren't
> > decades out of date?
>
> For people who do not know, Eric is an overstaying student who has not
> graduated from his course at some mid-lower level university.
For people who do not know, David is a resident of a mental
institution who has no formal education in any field much less
physics.
> His
> opionions in physics are often based on ignorance peppered with too
> much of dishonesty.
My opinoins in physics are buttressed by the years of study you are so
quick to mention.
> Obviously, the one semester of QM is lost on
> Eric.
That'e exactly one more than you have ever seen, and one less than I
actually took and passed.
>
> Let me up the ante of intellectual discussion so Eric is left behind
> on planet dummy for good.
>
> Attempts to unify QM and SR/GR has indeed been attempted. Thus is
> born the mangled theory of QFT (quantum field theory). QFT produces
> illogical results all the time (what do you expect if you mother in
> the illogical SR/GR). To correct the genetic anomalies of QFT, a
> special procedure known as renormalization is introduced. Without
> renormalization, QFT dies in a heartbeat.
I like how you don't know whether it is SR or GR. Sort-of undermines
the whine, does it not?
>
> ------------------------
>
> What is renormalization? Let me explain in layman's terms.
Those are the -only terms- you can explain it with, as you have not
studied the theory.
> Suppose
> you had a QFT type formula for calculating the height of the giraffe.
> The QFT type formula would arrive at heights ranging from zero feet to
> one million feet. That is how bogus the theory is. What physicists
> do then is ask, 'what is the common height of a giraffe?' Well,
> another physicist goes, 'the last one we measured was 12 feet'. 'Ok,
> let us then scrap all the calculations we made and plug in 12 feet'.
> Another one helps in, 'yeah, the QM calculations also yield 12 feet,
> so we must be close to the correct answer.' Thus the calculation is
> renormalized.
As I said, never studied the theory. It is clear.
Androcles
"achille" <achil...@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message
news:be1b7d8f-331c-4192...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
=================================
Idiotic BULLSHIT.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, repeatedly posting politics or religion to a sci. newsgroup,
attempting free advertising or because you are a troll; any reply will
go unread. There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will
admit into my home and you do not qualify.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge. You have the right to free
speech, I have the right not to listen. The kill-file will be cleared
annually with spring cleaning or whenever I purchase a new computer or
hard drive. I hope this explanation is satisfactory.
Have a nice day.
byron
> "achille" <achille_...@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message
you say
As for Colin Leslie Dean, this guy has caused a bit of a buzz-up by
> claiming that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is wrong. Keep in mind
> that he has not in any way presented anything resembling a formal
> proof.
fact is dean has shown godel cannot tell us what makes a mathematical
statement true-thus his incompleteness theorem is meaningless
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/GODEL5.pdf
some say there are no contradictions in QM
dean has shown there are quoting the physicist wick-go read the thread
for the quote
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Absurd_math_science4.pdf
byron
you say dean has not given a formal proof the show godels cant tell us
what makes a maths statement true
read this
IT IS CLAIMED GODEL CAN NOT TELL US WHAT MAKES A STATEMENT TRUE
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/GODEL5.pdf
at the time godel wrote his theorem he had no idea of what truth was
as peter smith the Cambridge expert on Godel admitts
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/ebde70b...
Quote:
Gödel didn't rely on the notion
of truth
but truth is central to his theorem
as peter smith kindly tellls us
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218...40_excerpt.pdf
Quote:
Godel did is find a general method that enabled him to take any theory
T
strong enough to capture a modest amount of basic arithmetic and
construct a corresponding arithmetical sentence GT which encodes the
claim ‘The sentence GT itself is unprovable in theory T’. So G T is
true if and only
if T can’t prove it
If we can locate GT
, a Godel sentence for our favourite nicely ax-
iomatized theory of arithmetic T, and can argue that G T is
true-but-unprovable,
and godels theorem is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...s_theorems#Fir...
Quote:
Gödel's first incompleteness theorem, perhaps the single most
celebrated result in mathematical logic, states that:
For any consistent formal, recursively enumerable theory that proves
basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but
not provable in the theory, can be constructed.1 That is, any
effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary
arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.
you see godel referes to true statement
but Gödel didn't rely on the notion
of truth
now because Gödel didn't rely on the notion
of truth he cant tell us what true statements are
thus his theorem is meaningless
this puts mathematicians in deep shit because all the modern idea
derived from godels theorem have no epistemological or mathematical
worth for we dont know what true statement are
without a notion of truth we dont know what makes those statements
true thus the theorem is meaningless
Some argue that Tarskis semantic theory of truth can fit Godels
theorems
But Tarskis theory of truth is logically flawed where in fact truth is
never really defined . The problem with Tarskis theory is it requires
a metalangauge and we get an ad infinitum
If a grammar of a language must be in its metalanguage, as Tarski
seems to require, than the grammar of this metalanguage must be in its
metalanguage. Thus we have a notion of truth in the object language
dependent on
the notion of truth in the metalanguage. But the notion of truth in
the metalangague is itself dependent on the notion of truth in its
meta-meta-language
As is stated in
Philosophy of logic
By Dale Jacquette, Dov M. Gabbay, John Hayden
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=1xEVkzuX5e0C&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&d...
"the indefinitely ascending stratification of metalanguages in which
the truth or falsehood of sentences is permitted for only the lower
tiers of the hierarchy never reaches an end point at which the
theorist can say that truth has finally been defined"
So neither Godel nor Tarski can tell us what makes a mathematical
statement true
Thus again Godels theorm is meaningless
doug
byron wrote:
>
> you say
>
> As for Colin Leslie Dean, this guy has caused a bit of a buzz-up by
>
>>claiming that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is wrong. Keep in mind
>>that he has not in any way presented anything resembling a formal
>>proof.
>
>
> fact is dean has shown godel cannot tell us what makes a mathematical
> statement true-thus his incompleteness theorem is meaningless
> http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/GODEL5.pdf
It is good to see that some of the cranks spend their times on
crap like this and do not try to disprove relativity or some
such. This guy, Dean, while making nice use of capital lettters
and grammar mistakes to help his arguments has a degree in
literature which has nothing to do with science.
>
> some say there are no contradictions in QM
> dean has shown there are quoting the physicist wick-go read the thread
> for the quote
>
> http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Absurd_math_science4.pdf
I thought the physics cranks are bad. This guy is telling us to just
dive deep into dispair and hopelessness. When he starts of going on
about the contradictions in relativity, you know he knows nothing about
it. His comments on QM are similarly ignorant. He tries to take the
comic book overview and make something deeper out of it that is not
there. It reads like a comedy sketch parodying philosophers spouting
nonsense.
Amazing, simply amazing.
Daryl McCullough
>However, if Christian is not completely confused about his favourite
>algebra, then you didn't spot his error yet.
It's not an error in his mathematics. I'm fairly familiar with
Clifford algebras myself. What I don't understand is why he thinks
his derivation says anything about Bell's theorem.
>For in his Q and A follow-up to
>his paper (available in the same link), Christian explains that in his
>example the output of measurements is not Clifford numbers, but only *real*
>numbers, or even not even that but only the signs +1 or -1. In his words:
>
>"Thus, the only attribute that can possibly be revealed in any experiment is
>its sign, + or ?, which corresponds to the sense of its rotation."
I don't understand that at all. The function A_u(lambda) is supposed
to return the result of a spin measurement. But Christian has it returning
a bivector. How is a bivector the result of a spin measurement?
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Androcles
you say
Change your name again, I have plenty of space.
Daryl McCullough
>> Finally, another big difference between quantum mechanics and
>> any classical analogue is the fact that whereas electromagnetic
>> fields are functions on coordinate space (they vary from point
>> to point and from time to time), quantum mechanical wave functions
>> are functions on *configuration* space. For single particles, there
>> is no difference between these two, but for multiple particles,
>> there is a big difference. Configuration space requires 3N
>> coordinates, where N is the number of particles.
>
>How does that affect his conclusion?
It implies that classical electromagnetism *cannot*
simulate the quantum mechanics of several particles.
byron
> "byron" <spermato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
you say
I thought the physics cranks are bad. This guy is telling us to just
dive deep into dispair and hopelessness. When he starts of going on
about the contradictions in relativity, you know he knows nothing
about
it. His comments on QM are similarly ignorant. He tries to take the
comic book overview and make something deeper out of it that is not
there. It reads like a comedy sketch parodying philosophers spouting
when people attack the person and not the arguments you know they cant
attack the arguments
how about telling us what wrong with dean cliams rather than tell us
whats wrong with dean
you have wick telling you QM is full of paradox and contradiction
Peter Webb
"Strich.Nein" <stric...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd75ede9-dbbc-4ee2...@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 8:04 am, "harry" <harald.NOTTHISvanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
http://groups.google.co.ls/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/924cdfe6ee24c7f5?dmode=source
Of course he was. How often must the argument be rehashed until it is
finally understood? We all know that quantum mechanics is 100%
correct
******** No we don't.
and the tests that prove it can be repeated again and again
with the same results. Sadly, the same cannot be said for relativity.
******** Yes it can.
The problem it seems is one of intellect. The majority of physicists
are too intellectually inferior to grasp the underlying principles of
quantum mechanics. The human mind has yet to evolve for the majority
of humanity to understand the very advanced concepts being espoused by
QM. Most people can only grasp the cute geometries of relativity, and
would prefer the latter for the simple reason of comprehension, not
veracity.
The conflict between relativity and QM has long been resolved in favor
of QM. Here is the summary:
1) QM and SR/GR are mutually inconsistent
2) Thus Einstein formulated the EPR paradox as the counterargument
against QM
3) Bell showed the EPR paradox does not falsify QM; hence it falsifies
SR/GR
********* No, that does not follow. EPR does not disprove Relativity.
4) End of story
Again, QM is counter-intuitive. SR/GR is counter-logical. ***** No its
not.
It is
easier for people to suspend logic than intuition (as seen in the
prevalence of supernatural explanations worldwide) thus the favor of
SR/GR over QM. It would take another millenia of human evolution
before people can grasp the structure of QM.
************ You seem to think that evidence of QM somehow implies SR is
wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. QM is in fact built on SR,
as relativistic effects must be considered in solving the wave equation, and
every successful experimental test of the predictions of QM is also a
successful experimental test of SR.
doug
byron wrote:
It is not even well enough done to be wrong. It needs a lot of
cleaning up to get to that point.
> how about telling us what wrong with dean cliams rather than tell us
> whats wrong with dean
>
> you have wick telling you QM is full of paradox and contradiction
And you have the rest of the world telling you it is not. Your inability
to understand it is not a scientific argument. For instance, you seem
upset about the dual nature of light. You think that is a problem with
QM. What it means is you are asking the wrong question. Nature has told
us what the answer is. If you measure light as a particle, you get
a particle. If you measure it as a wave, you get a wave. This means
not that there is any problem with qm, but that you have asked the wrong
question. The categories you have chosen for light are wrong. It has
properties that do not neatly fit your preconceived notions. The
real problem with the philosphers is that there is always a "it
is obvious" type statement in the process. This is where the
scientist would stop but the philosopher barges right along. The whole
paper was full of nonsense taken from out of context quotes. This
comes from the ignorance of what the scientific theories actually
are. If you want to make some sense, study what the theories
actually are. This takes years to understand and does not come
out of a comic book. Your whole paper comes from the comic
book level and is thus pretty silly.
byron
you say
You think that is a problem with
QM. What it means is you are asking the wrong question. Nature has
told
us what the answer is.
fact is it is a paradox
Wave–particle duality is deeply embedded into the foundations of
quantum mechanics,
quote
A central concept of quantum mechanics, duality addresses the
inadequacy of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" in fully
describing the behaviour of small-scale objects. Various
interpretations of quantum mechanics attempt to explain this
ostensible *paradox.*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality#Treatment_in_modern_quantum_mechanics
Wave–particle duality is deeply embedded into the foundations of
quantum mechanics, so well that modern practitioners rarely discuss it
as such. In the formalism of the theory, all the information about a
particle is encoded in its wave function, a complex function roughly
analogous to the amplitude of a wave at each point in space. This
function evolves according to a differential equation (generically
called the Schrödinger equation), and this equation gives rise to wave-
like phenomena such as interference and diffraction.
now there is the
Particle-only view
quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality#Alternative_views
This idea is held by a significant minority within the physics
community.[16]
there is the wave only view
quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality#Alternative_views
The Many-worlds interpretation is sometimes presented as a waves-only
theory, including by its orginator, Hugh Everett who referred to MWI
as "the wave interpretation
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On Mar 10, 8:04 am, "harry" <harald.NOTTHISvanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:http://groups.google.co.ls/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/924cdfe6e...
>
> Of course he was. How often must the argument be rehashed until it is
> finally understood? We all know that quantum mechanics is 100%
> with the same results. Sadly, the same cannot be said for relativity.
>
> are too intellectually inferior to grasp the underlying principles of
> quantum mechanics. The human mind has yet to evolve for the majority
> of humanity to understand the very advanced concepts being espoused by
> QM. Most people can only grasp the cute geometries of relativity, and
> would prefer the latter for the simple reason of comprehension, not
> veracity.
>
> The conflict between relativity and QM has long been resolved in favor
> of QM. Here is the summary:
>
> 1) QM and SR/GR are mutually inconsistent
> 2) Thus Einstein formulated the EPR paradox as the counterargument
> against QM
> 3) Bell showed the EPR paradox does not falsify QM; hence it falsifies
> SR/GR
>
> Again, QM is counter-intuitive. SR/GR is counter-logical. It is
> easier for people to suspend logic than intuition (as seen in the
> prevalence of supernatural explanations worldwide) thus the favor of
> SR/GR over QM. It would take another millenia of human evolution
> before people can grasp the structure of QM.
Well, that's true. Since the wanks in QM go around
making so much idiotic claims about double slits have
something to do with the logic of a nonexistent theory of
everything,
that why the people who can actually think
even built GPS, Holograms, Fiber Optics, CD, DVD, Optical
Computers,
HDTV, On-Line Publishing, and Post Ford batteries for the idiots.
harry
"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gp72b...@drn.newsguy.com...
> harry says...
>
>>However, if Christian is not completely confused about his favourite
>>algebra, then you didn't spot his error yet.
>
> It's not an error in his mathematics. I'm fairly familiar with
> Clifford algebras myself. What I don't understand is why he thinks
> his derivation says anything about Bell's theorem.
As I understand him, he proposes a local, hidden physical variable of which
not just a selected value is measured (as in Bell's assumption) but instead
a projection of it on the apparatus is measured; and he apparently thinks
that that better corresponds with what spin really is.
>>For in his Q and A follow-up to
>>his paper (available in the same link), Christian explains that in his
>>example the output of measurements is not Clifford numbers, but only
>>*real*
>>numbers, or even not even that but only the signs +1 or -1. In his words:
>>
>>"Thus, the only attribute that can possibly be revealed in any experiment
>>is
>>its sign, + or - , which corresponds to the sense of its rotation."
[corrected copy-paste encoding error above]
> I don't understand that at all. The function A_u(lambda) is supposed
> to return the result of a spin measurement. But Christian has it returning
> a bivector. How is a bivector the result of a spin measurement?
I may be mistaken as I don't understand much of this yet (better read it
yourself), but his bivector is a projection of his hidden variable (which is
a unit volume element, or a trivector). The direction of the bivector is
imposed by the apparatus, and the only measured value is the direction of
rotation.
Harald
harry
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:811e396b-4a34-456a...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 4:54 am, "harry" <harald.NOTTHISvanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
>
Dear Harry: EINSTEIN WHO?? :-) — NoEinstein —
That doesn't sound like a useful idea to me - it's Albert Einstein. ;-)
But slowly I get more and more the imprssion that Einstein was right - see
below.
[..]
> >>> See http://ilja-schmelzer.de/realism/game.php for my description of
> >>> what is strange with EPR correlations.
[..]
> > does appear possible to have local realism in relativistic quantum
> > theory
> > see, for example:
>
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179
>
> I now had a look at it and it appears to be a serious paper. However, I
> don't know Clifford algebra and it's unclear to me how to interpret Ilja's
> EPR example above in the light of that paper - it seems that not both
> examples can be right.
> I thus crosspost this to sci.physics, perhaps someone has an idea?
>
> Regards,
> Harald
Meanwhile I had a look at that paper as well as a few follow-up papers, in
particular
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1333
and Joy Christian's CV:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=72&pi=Joy_ChristianI estimate that - if he didn't suffer brain damage - he certainly knows histopic very well; he even co-edited a book on the general topic. As heverified his model in different ways already and discussed quite some toughcriticism, clearly it was thus not just another wild Arxiv paper but forsure a serious contender.Of course, even if it turns out that he is right, that doesn't decide ifIlja's card game description is wrong or if it shows that it is possible todo tricks with classical devices that really look like magic.Note: just before sending this I discover that he also proposes amacroscopic, "classical" experiment: http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.3078v1.pdfHarald
PD
There is no paradox. There is only the resistance of nature to fall
into two categories that we attempt to pigeon hole things into.
From macroscopic experience, we observed some phenomena that could be
characterized as particle-like, and some phenomena that could be
characterized as wave-like.
Based on this experience, we then make the *mental leap* (gambling,
not with assurance) that the universe can be segregated into these two
categories, and that those categories are both exhaustive and mutually
exclusive. Keep in mind that this conclusion is wholly out of our
heads and nothing more.
Then we discover a whole new category of physical object which resists
pigeon-holing into either of these characterizations. It exhibits
*some* properties of waves but doesn't consistently behave like waves;
it exhibits *some* properties of particles but doesn't behave
consistently like particles. It is a whole new kind of beast,
exhibiting some of the properties of both but being NEITHER ONE.
This kind of thing is conceptually disruptive and uncomfortable, but
it is nevertheless a part of science.
It is only the reactionary that says, "No! NO! Must be A or B! A and B
are all. There IS no C. Only A and B."
And it is this attitude that gives rise to the perception of paradoxes
that aren't there.
And as you've noticed, it even takes time for physicists to get over
it. The fact that some physicists take longer than others to recognize
a new category does not mean that there is endorsement that the
paradox is real.
>
> quote
>
> A central concept of quantum mechanics, duality addresses the
> inadequacy of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" in fully
> describing the behaviour of small-scale objects. Various
> interpretations of quantum mechanics attempt to explain this
> ostensible *paradox.*
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality#Treatment_in_moder...
>
> Wave–particle duality is deeply embedded into the foundations of
> quantum mechanics, so well that modern practitioners rarely discuss it
> as such. In the formalism of the theory, all the information about a
> particle is encoded in its wave function, a complex function roughly
> analogous to the amplitude of a wave at each point in space. This
> function evolves according to a differential equation (generically
> called the Schrödinger equation), and this equation gives rise to wave-
> like phenomena such as interference and diffraction.
>
> now there is the
>
> Particle-only view
>
> quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality#Alternative_views
> This idea is held by a significant minority within the physics
> community.[16]
>
> there is the wave only view
>
> quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality#Alternative_views
Androcles
"harry" <harald.NOTT...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:123677...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>
> "NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:811e396b-4a34-456a...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 4:54 am, "harry" <harald.NOTTHISvanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
>>
> Dear Harry: EINSTEIN WHO?? :-) — NoEinstein —
>
> That doesn't sound like a useful idea to me - it's Albert Einstein. ;-)
> But slowly I get more and more the imprssion that Einstein was right - see
> below.
Impression?
I get the impression that you believe you can turn apples into oranges
if the dork Einstein said so, because he certainly claims to turn length
into duration.
I even get the impression you are a gullible idiot spreading more bullshit
than a herd of buffalo.
doug
byron wrote:
No, the fact is QM describes it well. When we try to fit it into
categories it does not fit in, we have issues.
>
> Wave–particle duality is deeply embedded into the foundations of
> quantum mechanics,
>
> quote
>
> A central concept of quantum mechanics, duality addresses the
> inadequacy of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" in fully
> describing the behaviour of small-scale objects. Various
> interpretations of quantum mechanics attempt to explain this
> ostensible *paradox.*
Note the word "ostensible" in from of paradox. It is not a paradox.
Philosophers do not know how to analyze the world and get stuck
in their narrow minded personal worlds.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality#Treatment_in_modern_quantum_mechanics
>
> Wave–particle duality is deeply embedded into the foundations of
> quantum mechanics, so well that modern practitioners rarely discuss it
> as such. In the formalism of the theory, all the information about a
> particle is encoded in its wave function, a complex function roughly
> analogous to the amplitude of a wave at each point in space. This
> function evolves according to a differential equation (generically
> called the Schrödinger equation), and this equation gives rise to wave-
> like phenomena such as interference and diffraction.
>
Yes, QM describes it well.
Now there is the word definition arguments given below. QM correctly
describes the behaviour. The rest is what you call it which is not
going to change what it is.
> now there is the
>
> Particle-only view
>
> quote
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality#Alternative_views
> This idea is held by a significant minority within the physics
> community.[16]
This is from a long time ago and it not taken very seriously now.
>
> there is the wave only view
>
> quote
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality#Alternative_views
> The Many-worlds interpretation is sometimes presented as a waves-only
> theory, including by its orginator, Hugh Everett who referred to MWI
> as "the wave interpretation
There are lots of fringe group physicists looking for alternative
explanations. But you have to remember that, since QM gives accurate
results, any new theory has to reduce to QM and its predictions.
>
But what is the point of all this. You are arguing over names. Names
are what we assign to things. The universe operates the way it does
and the job of the physicist is to find out how to describe the
universe. Philosophers seem to come around to demonstrate that
they do not understand it.
Strich.Nein
say 'quantum', many different ideas come into play:
QT - quantum theory - the original idea by Planck that energy is
quantized.
QM - quantum mechanics - the formalism developed by Schrodinger and
Heisenberg. This is where the famous ideas of complementarity and ,
superposition enter. Note that the Schrodinger and Heisenberg
equations are time independent (unlike relativity) and assume a
unitary evolution of time and hence are not compatible with
relativity. Note that the solutions to the equations become
increasingly complex with multiple particles, but not increasingly non-
sensical, as misunderstood by PD in his infinite stupidity. Contrast
this with QFT below.
QFT - quantum field theory - started by Dirac with his equations, this
is where relativity enters the picture. The relativistic
reformulation of QM into QFT downgrades the formalism, as the time-
independence is lost. With the relativistic reformulation, the
equations now generate non-sensical values which have to be corrected
by a mathematical sleight of hand known as renormalization.
QED - quantum electrodynamics - most often associated with Feynman, is
the subset of QFT that deals with electromagnetic phenomena. It is
accurate, except for the part with the non-sensical infinities,
correctible only by renormalization. Note that renormalization is
easily accomplished, because non-relativistic QM provides the
necessary template to do this.
QCD - quantum chromodynamics - the subset of QFT that deals with the
strong force. Like QED, it is also riddled with infinities. Unlike
QED, renormalization is difficult because there is no QM template to
guide the corrections.
QG - quantum gravity - so-called unification of QM and General
Relativity. It will also be a subset of QFT. It is a dead-end field
with no sign or possibility of success.
---------------------------------------------
Here are some useful references so that the reader need not be
unnecessarily misled by the lies of the crank relativists such as PD,
Eric, Dirk and their equally ignorant minions.
http://www.stanford.edu/~mukul/tutorials/Quantum_Mechanics.pdf
http://www.stanford.edu/~mukul/tutorials/Quantum_Optics.pdf
PD
"Hey, look at me! I'm an expert."
Oh, really?
"You bet. And you guys are all bozos, as I've explained."
Ah. Have you tried looking anything up?
"Sure! I know everything there is to know about it."
Like what?
"OK, see? I looked something up. Now I'm an expert. And you guys are
all bozos."
PD
Eric Gisse
[...]
Now let's see you solve the Schroedinger equation for an infinite
square well.
BURT
> "harry" <harald.NOTTHISvanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>
> news:123677...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>
>
>
> > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >news:811e396b-4a34-456a...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 10, 4:54 am, "harry" <harald.NOTTHISvanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
>
> > Dear Harry: EINSTEIN WHO?? :-) — NoEinstein —
>
> > That doesn't sound like a useful idea to me - it's Albert Einstein. ;-)
> > But slowly I get more and more the imprssion that Einstein was right - see
> > below.
>
> Impression?
> I get the impression that you believe you can turn apples into oranges
> if the dork Einstein said so, because he certainly claims to turn length
> into duration.
> I even get the impression you are a gullible idiot spreading more bullshit
> than a herd of buffalo.
Most people believe Einstein was wrong about the quantum mechanics. I
now think that he was right.
Mitch Raemsch
PD
That's OK. Next week you'll think that bologna is nuclear fuel.
PD
Strich.Nein
relativistic, as it assumes a constant evolution of time, clearly in
violation of the flaky time concept of SR/GR, and how the relativistic
infection of QM into QFT easily runs aground with mathematical
inconsistencies correctible only by renormalization, let us introduce
experimental evidence against the increasingly
ignonimous idea of relativity.
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000977000001000310000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.0681v1
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070412131304.htm
Note how both technologically advanced experiments are performed in
the same country that pioneered the equally advanced technology of
rocket science we still use today. It only goes to show that the
daydreams and fantasies of theoretical physics about wormholes and
time travel are nothing but modern versions of flying carpets and
levitations and will get you nowhere further than your armchair. Let
the relativist crackpots take heed of this last advise.
Eric Gisse
doug
Strich.Nein wrote:
>
Notice how strich cannot support his nonsense so
he just blathers on about something else.
Maybe this is part of his anger control therapy.
PD
Strich9 has taken the same approach as NoEinstein. He's only here to
listen to himself talk anyway, so he'll just respond to himself and
ignore the responses. All excellent reasons to post to a *discussion*
group.
PD
Strich.Nein
relativistic, as it assumes a constant evolution of time, clearly in
clear how the relativistic infection of QM into the pus-filled QFT
easily runs aground with mathematical inconsistencies treatable only
by the voodoo of renormalization. Here are solid experiments that
disprove relativity.
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=...
http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.0681v1
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070412131304.htm
And don't forget the tutorials of non-relativistic quantum physics
that show the boneheadedness of the relativistic formulation known as
QFT. Let me quote: "If we start with single particle relativistic
classical equation of motion and quantize it, we don't get a self
consistent theory of single particle relativistic quatum physics."
Notice how self-inconsistency is a hallmark of relativistic physics.
Perhaps these clues require a high IQ, for this seems to get lost on
the majority of relativists.
http://www.stanford.edu/~mukul/tutorials/Quantum_Optics.pdf
-----------------------------
And so far, there are no intellectual rebuttals. We get the usual
three stooge replies: heckling from pathetic troll Doug, true to form
laziness from professional flunkie Eric, and denial from Wernicke-
Korsakoff point man PD. Of course no intellectual argument is really
expected from relativists, especially from these three stooges, as has
been shown time and time again as the theory is illogical. It would
be really funny if their replies were in standard silent-movie
format. For now, we just have to imagine their contortions as they
bump heads with one another. Now let us watch the sequel: 'The Return
of the 3 Stooges - Defending Relativity by Dirty Deeds'.
doug
Strich.Nein wrote:
> Now that it is clear why untainted Quantum Mechanics is non-
> relativistic, as it assumes a constant evolution of time, clearly in
> violation of the famous flaky concept of time in SR/GR.
Wrong at this point so the rest is nonsense.
You enjoy demonstrating your ignorance but are afraid to
answer any rebuttals. You are just here to hear yourself
talk. It would be nice if you would say something.
Dorn.Strich
Dummkoph, do some reading. Your ignorance is not a rebuttal. Being a
butthead does not mean shaking your head is a rebuttal :-)
http://www.stanford.edu/~mukul/tutorials/Quantum_Mechanics.pdf
PD
>
> -----------------------------
> And so far, there are no intellectual rebuttals.
"I intend to continue to make one statement after another, as colorful
and as ludicrous as I please, and I will herewith dare anyone to offer
an intellectual rebuttal to my statements. If no one comes forward
with a rebuttal that I acknowledge is intellectually forceful, then my
statement will stand as correct, because I say so. Failure to get me
to shut up, or failure to force me to acknowledge an intellectual
rebuttal, constitutes a defeat in this debate. So say I." -- Mad
Hatter, Washington DC.