 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / May 2007quantum randomness is BUNK
all the uncertainity principle says is that you cannot measure the location and momentum of a particle at the same time it says NOTHING about randomness, in fact it says that you CANNOT even know if it is random or not, because you cannot measure it this is an example of just how far the mainstream of science can stray from ethics  SignatureDale http://www.vedantasite.org > all the uncertainity principle says is that you cannot measure the > location and momentum of a particle at the same time Or the amount of energy in a place and the duration of its existence. Or any other pair of complementary quantities whose dimensions multiply together to make the unit of action or angular momentum. > it says NOTHING about randomness, in fact it says that you CANNOT even > know if it is random or not, because you cannot measure it *whistle* Sorry. Bullshit has been called. In fact, it is now understood that a particle simply does not HAVE a well-defined position and momentum simultaneously. It is a wave function dispersed through phase space as long as it is not being observed or measured. So yes, in fact, you CAN know whether it is random or not -- and the answer depends on which of two different kinds of 'randomness' you are referring to. It is *not* random in the sense that the spread of the wave function happens according to well-understood statistical laws, but it *is* random in the sense that it is impossible to predict exactly what individual result within that statistical spread you will find when you measure it. Which, by the way, you obviously can do, of course. The whole point of the uncertainty principle is what happens when you measure it. Saying it says 'you cannot measure it' is like saying thermodynamics implies you can't heat anything. What it says is that the more precise your measurement of position the less precisely you can measure momentum, and vice versa -- because the product of the uncertainties of the two measurements must always be greater than or equal to Planck's constant over 2 times pi. In short ... YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND A f.cking THING ABOUT QUANTUM THEORY! STOP f.cking TALKING ABOUT IT LIKE YOU DO! EVERY SINGLE THING YOU HAVE SAID IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, AND IN AN INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS WAY, EXCEPT FOR WHEN IT'S JUST MEANINGLESS NONSENSE! Is that clear enough for you?? > this is an example of just how far the mainstream of science can stray > from ethics 1) Science and ethics are two entirely different disciplines. Science by its very nature is incapable of answering any question of ethics. 2) What in the f.ck are you even talking about?? What does the uncertainty principle and randomness have to do with ethics?? Do you really think you can just string together a bunch of unrelated words that sound vaguely 'philosophical' and end up saying something meaningful? Signature--Sean http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/ 'When people have brain-crotch problems, it's usually the result of using one too much and the other too little.' --Dr Gregory House > it is now understood that a particle simply does not HAVE a well-defined > position and momentum simultaneously-- WRONG, the uncertainty principle says you will ALWAYS be uncertain and that NO explanation, even randomness, can arise there is a DIFFERENCE between randomness and uncertainty, uncertainty says you CANNOT even know if it is random this whole randomness bunk is an assumption and conjecture, since it CANNOT be tested, since you cannot measure the location and momentum simultaneously, by the uncertainty principle, and if events are random they cannot be reproduced and tested, therefore randomness with always be hypothethical, a hypothesis, not a theory, let alone a founded theory SignatureDale http://www.vedantasite.org > > it is now understood that a particle simply does not HAVE a well-defined > > position and momentum simultaneously-- [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -- > Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org bell's theorem proves it is random. therefore, you are wrong and should stop talking. > bell's theorem proves it is random. therefore, you are wrong and should > stop talking.-- bell's theory violates the uncertainty principle, it makes every assumption about correlation, when the uncertainty principle says you can know NOTHING about correlation SignatureDale http://www.vedantasite.org > > bell's theorem proves it is random. therefore, you are wrong and should > > stop talking.-- > > bell's theory violates the uncertainty principle, it makes every > assumption about correlation, when the uncertainty principle says you can > know NOTHING about correlation it is bell's THEOREM, not theory. it is an observed FACT. please educate yourself before replying. > -- > Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org > it is bell's THEOREM, not theory. it is an observed FACT. please educate > yourself before replying.-- a theorem is a mathematical proof, it says NOTHING about fact, in fact a theorem can only be proved by an attempt at falsification, bell's hypothesis is not even falsifiable SignatureDale http://www.vedantasite.org > > it is bell's THEOREM, not theory. it is an observed FACT. please educate > > yourself before replying.-- > > a theorem is a mathematical proof, it says NOTHING about fact, in fact a > theorem can only be proved by an attempt at falsification, bell's > hypothesis is not even falsifiable why do you keep replying without first understanding what bell's theorem is? it is a theorem on how to tell the difference between true randomness and hidden variables in entangled particles. now, go read up on it BEFORE replying and furthing your public display of ignorance. > -- > Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org >> bell's theory violates the uncertainty principle, it makes every >> assumption about correlation, when the uncertainty principle says you >> can know NOTHING about correlation > > it is bell's THEOREM, not theory. it is an observed FACT. please > educate yourself before replying. *snort* It's a truism that a sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. The Dalek has not educated himself and there's no reason to believe he ever will. Once one has built castles in the air there's a real incentive to close one's eyes to anything that conflicts with that flight plan. Let him go on babbling to himself, is my advice. -JAH > bell's theory violates the uncertainty principle, *bangs head against desk repeatedly while screaming, 'WHY?? WHY????'* Signature--Sean http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/ 'When people have brain-crotch problems, it's usually the result of using one too much and the other too little.' --Dr Gregory House > > > it is now understood that a particle simply does not HAVE a well-defined > > > position and momentum simultaneously-- [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > bell's theorem proves it is random. therefore, you are wrong and > should stop talking. bell's theorem proves no such thing! why is this myth so perpetuated? i think this is a consequence of using books like griffith's to teach QM poor source material turns out poor understandings... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > > > > it is now understood that a particle simply does not HAVE a well-defined > > > > position and momentum simultaneously-- [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > poor source material turns out poor understandings... and just to make a stronger point j s bell of " bell's theorem " was very enamored of purely deterministic bohmian theories he wrote extensively on them encouraged exploration in them among his peers he wrote a book which explores these and other thoughts on quantum mechanics called " speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics " echoing the taboo nature such ideas seem to have garnered despite their mathematical rigor -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > > > > it is now understood that a particle simply does not HAVE a well-defined > > > > position and momentum simultaneously-- [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > poor source material turns out poor understandings... and just to make a stronger point j s bell of " bell's theorem " was very enamored of purely deterministic bohmian theories he wrote extensively on them encouraged exploration in them among his peers he wrote a book which explores these and other thoughts on quantum mechanics called " speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics " echoing the taboo nature such ideas seem to have garnered despite their mathematical rigor -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > > > > it is now understood that a particle simply does not HAVE a well-defined > > > > position and momentum simultaneously-- [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > bell's theorem proves no such thing! notice the lack of demonstrating what it *does* prove. i wonder why you left that part out? > why is this myth so perpetuated? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > > > > > it is now understood that a particle simply does not HAVE a well-defined > > > > > position and momentum simultaneously-- [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > notice the lack of demonstrating what it *does* prove. i wonder why > you left that part out? well i mentioned nonlocality and compositionality in another leaf of this thread but basically bell's theorem states that given certain assumptions about local realism contextuality compositionality definitions of spin properties ... in a two-state system with perfect anticorrelation then one has for the 2-correlations 1 + C(2, 3) >= | C(1, 2) - C(1, 3) | this "theorem" is then shown to violate quantum mechanics there were actually a number of assumptions in the original over the years the theorem has been generalised and the core mathematical attributes used have been analysed the most important issue identified and studied has been the assumption of locality which a number of hidden variable interpretations do not share additionally compositionality and contextuality have been researched and the assumptions on systems descriptions analysed a large number of conferences have been held exploring these issues and a number of proceedings should be available in your local university library > > why is this myth so perpetuated? > > > i think this is a consequence > > of using books like griffith's to teach QM > > > poor source material turns out poor understandings... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > > > > > > it is now understood that a particle simply does not HAVE a well-defined > > > > > > position and momentum simultaneously-- [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > compositionality and contextuality have been researched > and the assumptions on systems descriptions analysed and this has *what* to do with randomness? > a large number of conferences have been held > exploring these issues [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > > > > > > > it is now understood that a particle simply does not HAVE a well-defined > > > > > > > position and momentum simultaneously-- [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > and this has *what* to do with randomness? my claim was that it had nothing to do with randomness unless i am misreading you i am under the impression you claimed bells theorem proved randomness bohm's theory is a completely deterministic quantum interpretation it has an ontology where there is a particle at a point in space at all times that this set of locations is actually a trajectory the copenhagen interpretation is completely probabilistic both violate bell's inequality this is because their predictions are completely isomorphic > > a large number of conferences have been held > > exploring these issues [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > > poor source material turns out poor understandings... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar >>it is now understood that a particle simply does not HAVE a well-defined >>position and momentum simultaneously-- > WRONG, Um ... no. Right. Quantum physicists say so. Quantum physicists actually know something about quantum theory. You do not. Ergo, I will take the word of the quantum physicists for it. Signature--Sean http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/ 'When people have brain-crotch problems, it's usually the result of using one too much and the other too little.' --Dr Gregory House > > it is now understood that a particle simply does not HAVE a well-defined > > position and momentum simultaneously-- [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > they cannot be reproduced and tested, therefore randomness with always be > hypothethical, a hypothesis, not a theory, let alone a founded theory You're going to defend your position after that spanking you just got? You gotta be kidding me. If you claim to speak from authority then neing ignorant is bad, but curable. Being ignorant *after* you've been educated means you're a moron. Stupidity is incurable. This is one reason people make fun of creationists - they're ignorant even after they've been spoon-fed information. That means they're idiots. Thanks for the demonstration. Lee Jay > f.ck-- whenever someone results to profanity, thuggery and hoodlum behavior, you know they have no rationality or logic to draw from SignatureDale http://www.vedantasite.org >> f.ck-- > > whenever someone results to profanity, thuggery and hoodlum behavior, you > know they have no rationality or logic to draw from Whenever someone uses *results* insteas of *resorts* you know they are horribly out of their depth and can safely discount the bulk of their arguments on all subjects. Gee, ain't generalisations fun? >>f.ck-- > whenever someone results to profanity, thuggery and hoodlum behavior, you > know they have no rationality or logic to draw from Not true at all. Profanity exists in the English language for a reason. It expresses strong emotion. The utter vapidity, blatant inaccuracy, and nonsensical illogic of your posts, where you pretend you know something about quantum theory when you clearly don't know the first thing about it, evoke strong emotion in me. (Not to mention that I went out of my way to demonstrate the bankruptcy of your 'ideas' by rationality and logic *before* I resorted to profanity.) Quantum theory is a beautiful thing. You dirty it by invoking its name in your absurd pseudointellectual rants. Therefore, you have earned every profanity I have typed. Signature--Sean http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/ 'When people have brain-crotch problems, it's usually the result of using one too much and the other too little.' --Dr Gregory House > > f.ck-- > > whenever someone results to profanity, thuggery and hoodlum behavior, you > know they have no rationality or logic to draw from You have already demonstrated that you have nothing of that, so why should anyone else? I can very well understand and sympathise with Sean - even a saint may get hopping mad at being subjected to such heaps of BS that you have been blessing this group with for a long time now. If you know with such certainty that what you believe is correct while the world's top notch scientists, including Stephen W. Hawking and Robert B. Laughlin and thousands of other therotical physicists are dead wrong, you should go into therotical physics professionally. Overturning science, just like Einstein did, you may be certain of a Nobel Prize. Now just tell us why you won't do that, or cease and desist from spreading any more BS. We prefer idiots before morons here. > -- > Dale > http://www.vedantasite.org Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> wrote in news:LAWQh.214016$ia7.198383 @newsfe14.lga: > In short ... YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND A f.cking THING ABOUT QUANTUM THEORY! > STOP f.cking TALKING ABOUT IT LIKE YOU DO! EVERY SINGLE THING YOU HAVE > SAID IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, AND IN AN INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS WAY, > EXCEPT FOR WHEN IT'S JUST MEANINGLESS NONSENSE! > > Is that clear enough for you?? I'm not sure. Could you go over it again? -JAH > all the uncertainity principle says is that you cannot measure the > location and momentum of a particle at the same time No. It says you can't measure the *precise* position and *precise* momentum at the same time. The more precise your position measurement is, the less precise your momentum measurement is. And the other way around. > it says NOTHING about randomness, in fact it says that you CANNOT even > know if it is random or not, because you cannot measure it Why do you think the uncertainty principle says something about randomness? Uncertainty is a natural phenomena of wave motion whether it be classical or quantum. Certainly, randomness and order exist both in classical and quantum domains. > this is an example of just how far the mainstream of science can stray > from ethics I don't think ethics has anything to do with your particular confusion about this. ;-) Fred Diether Moderator: sci.physics.foundations > all the uncertainity principle says is that you cannot measure the > location and momentum of a particle at the same time [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org BWA HA HA AH AHA HA AHA HA HA AHA HA HA AHA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH AHA HA HA HA A AHA HA AH AHA HA HA HA HA HA AHA AWA HA HA AH AHA HA AHA HA HA AHA HA HA AHA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH AHA HA HA HA A AHA HA AH AHA HA HA HA HA HA AHA AWA HA HA AH AHA HA AHA HA HA AHA HA HA AHA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA AH AHA HA AHA HA HA AHA HA HA AHA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH AHA HA HA HA A AHA HA AH AHA HA HA HA HA HA AHA AWA HA HA AH AHA HA AHA HA HA AHA HA HA AHA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH AHA HA HA HA A AHA HA AH AHA HA HA HA HA HA AHA AWA HA HA AH AHA HA AHA HA HA AHA HA HA AHA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH AHA HA HA HA A AHA HA AH AHA HA HA HA HA HA AHA AAH AHA HA HA HA A AHA HA AH AHA HA HA HA HA HA AHA AHA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ================================================ Lenny Flank "There are no loose threads in the web of life" Author: "Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America" http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html Creation "Science" Debunked: http://www.geocities.com/lflank > > all the uncertainity principle says is that you cannot measure the > > location and momentum of a particle at the same time [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Creation "Science" Debunked:http://www.geocities.com/lflank Why $31.99? This is an example of how little sense a supposedly "crystal clear" morontheist posting usually makes. SignatureRomans 2:24 revised: "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you cretinists, as it is written on aig." My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus > all the uncertainity principle says is that you cannot measure the > location and momentum of a particle at the same time [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > this is an example of just how far the mainstream of science can stray > from ethics also from ballet dancing... talk about non sequiturs...what the hell does science have to do with ethics? what the uncertainty principle says is that one conjugate variable...and they are not limited to location and momentum...can not be measured to a specified precision without affecting the other variable... dale thinks this is deterministic...an idea that would have surprised newton... > what the uncertainty principle says is that one conjugate variable...and > they are not limited to location and momentum...can not be measured to a > specified precision without affecting the other variable... > > dale thinks this is deterministic...an idea that would have surprised > newton...-- affecting the other variable implies cause and effect SignatureDale http://www.vedantasite.org > > what the uncertainty principle says is that one conjugate variable...and > > they are not limited to location and momentum...can not be measured to a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > affecting the other variable implies cause and effect really? so tell me...you have 2 radioactive atoms which will decay first? > > > what the uncertainty principle says is that one conjugate variable...and > > > they are not limited to location and momentum...can not be measured to a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > which will decay first? Whichever one God decides. > really? so tell me...you have 2 radioactive atoms > which will decay first? Whichever one you leave out of the fridge. Signature--Sean http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/ 'Just because it's inexplicted doesn't mean it's inexplicable.' --Dr Gregory House | > really? so tell me...you have 2 radioactive atoms | | > which will decay first? | | Whichever one you leave out of the fridge. If Shoedinger had two cats and he kept one in the fridge... HEiSENBERG was NOT WRONG just BECAUSE he GOT CAUGHT too OFTEN, trying-to-((focus))-on-BOTH-ENDs of a VELOCiTY-vector AT-ONCE. MOMENTUM, a vector-QUANTiTY, caN'T-BE-MEASURED at all AT ONCE: [VECTORs are ONLY iMAGiNED and *MEASURED* ONLY in RETROSPECT]. $$ o o o o $$ o o o vector $$ o MOMENTUM o o PROjECTiON $$ A--VELOCiTY vector---------->B -- -- -- -->C $$ o o o o $$ o o Fig 1: ANY train-track or PATH.!! $$ o o o o [You MUST *already* KNOW-BOTH-POiNTs A and B, for MOMENTUM].!! See ANY OTHER-two-points ON-SAME-PATH is a DiFFERENT vector.!! Heisenberg's UNNECESSARY uncertainty PRiNCiPLE is REDUNDANT.!! [POSiTiON A caN'T be MEASURED with ACCURACY, + or - hbar/2].!! $$ Heisenberg was NOT WRONG, just because he GOT CAUGHT too OFTEN, $$ TRYiNG-to (FOCUS-on-BOTH-ENDs ..at-ONCE), of a velocity-VECTOR. $$ [Even the VECTOR, right-on-iN-BETWEEN ADjACENT-points ..duh.] > > > o o o o > > > o o o vector [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > Fig 1. o o ANY train-track, or PATH. > > > o o > > > See ANY OTHER-two-points ON-SAME-PATH is a DiFFERENT vector.!! > > > [You MUST *already* KNOW-BOTH-POiNTs A and B, for MOMENTUM].!! > There's PLANCK-UNCERTAiNTY of how-exact POSiTiON A is measured.!! > > > [POSiTiON A caN'T be MEASURED with ACCURACY, + or - hbar/2].!! > [This means the SUBSEQUENT-Heisenberg-UNCERTAiNTY ..REDUNDANT].!! > > > SiMPLY ..the MOMENTUM is ONLY, ever BETWEEN TWO (2) points. > > > [i.e. You NEED TWO POSiTiONs to MEASURE any REAL momentum]. > > > Subsequently, only BECAUSE OF the momentum-VECTOR's 2 ENDs. > > > SHORTEST-momentum-VECTOR lies only BETWEEN-ADjACENT-points. > > > [DoesN'T MATTER if these ADjACENT-points ARE on ANY curve]. > > > [CaN'T confirm if ADjACENT-points are STRAiGHT, or CURVED]. > > > MOMENTUM (a vector-QUANTiTY) caN'T-BE-MEASURED at-once AT-ALL: > > > [VECTORs are ONLY iMAGiNED and *MEASURED* ONLY in RETROSPECT]. > > CaN'T locate ONE point to + or - hbar/2 let-alone-TWO-at-ONCE.!! > > [Not to mention having to measure mass also at the SAME time].!! > > HEiSENBERG was NOT WRONG just BECAUSE he GOT CAUGHT ..too OFTEN, > > trying-to-((focus-on-BOTH-ENDs-AT-ONCE)) of a VELOCiTY-vector.!! > > > > 2. the schrodinger equation is [WRONG]: [g g^2 v1^2] > > > > [-- = ---- = ----] [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > $$> [$$ 2*M*nL^2 ]. > > > > -- the quantum potential. > > 3. Planck h*(LaGrangian frequency fL): > > Higgs [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > = ------------ = -------- = -------- = ------------------ > > Ni Ni Ni Ni. > > Bohr Magneton magnetic moment Ub -> jOULE / Tesla > > -> Kilogram*(meter)^4 / Volt*(sec)^3 > > -> (mol part)*(degree Kelvin)*meter*sec > > -> Ampere*(meter)^2 -> Volt*Amp*sec / Tesla. >$$ 4. Note X = 2*pi*Y (Mechanically ADjUSTABLE on actual MODEL): > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Ni = ----------------- = ----------------- = ---------------- > > h*fL 2*pi*fL X*fL. GUESS GENERAL UNiVERSAL EQUATiON of STATE SYSTEM frame-of-reference. [g/rA=g^2/v1^2=v1^2/rA^2=4*(pi)^2*fA^2 in (nabla)^2] BETWEEN points. < alt.sci.nanotech >< sci.geo >< sci.edu >< stefan-Qx.jpg > ..AGAiN. $$ And, 'UNiVERSE-ity-CULT-low-DEGREED-physicist' ..to boot.!! > Actually, that is not correct. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle > says that there is a limit to how well we can measure the position > and momentum of a particle at the same time. $$ Heisenberg UNCERTAiNTY fails for UNscientific POiNT A exactness.!! $$ There is PLANCK-UNCERTAiNTY of how-exact POSiTiON A is measured.!! $$ [This means the SUBSEQUENT-Heisenberg-UNCERTAiNTY is REDUNDANT].!! > I have a degree in physics, and it is obvious to me that you do not > know what you are talking about. Do you even know the difference [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > assertions that you already know you can't defend. You are a > coward and a liar. You have no integrity. $$ So ONCE again... > > > VECTORs are ONLY iMAGiNED and "MEASURED" ONLY in RETROSPECT. > > > See ANY OTHER-two-points ON-SAME-PATH is a DiFFERENT vector.!! > > > o o o o > > > o o o vector [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > Fig 1. o o ANY train-track, or PATH. > > > o o $$ Heisenberg UNCERTAiNTY fails for UNscientific POiNT A exactness. $$ PLANCK-UNCERTAiNTY is 'of-how-exact' POSiTiON A can-BE-measured. $$ [This means the SUBSEQUENT-Heisenberg-UNCERTAiNTY is REDUNDANT].!! $$ Heisenberg was NOT WRONG, just because he GOT CAUGHT too OFTEN, $$ TRYiNG-to (FOCUS-on-BOTH-ENDs ..at-ONCE), of a velocity-VECTOR.!! $$ Heisenberg was NOT WRONG, just because he GOT CAUGHT too OFTEN, > TRYiNG-to (FOCUS-on-BOTH-ENDs ..at-ONCE), of a velocity-VECTOR. > [Even the VECTOR, right-on-iN-BETWEEN ADjACENT-points ..Duh.] > > > o o o o > > > o o o vector [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > Fig 1. o o ANY train-track, or PATH. > > > o o > > > See ANY OTHER-two-points ON-SAME-PATH is a DiFFERENT vector.!! > > > [You MUST *already* KNOW-BOTH-POiNTs A and B, for MOMENTUM].!! > There's PLANCK-UNCERTAiNTY of how-exact POSiTiON A is measured.!! > > > [POSiTiON A caN'T be MEASURED with ACCURACY, + or - hbar/2].!! > [This means the SUBSEQUENT-Heisenberg-UNCERTAiNTY ..REDUNDANT].!! > > > Subsequently, only BECAUSE OF the momentum-VECTOR's 2 ENDs. > > > [i.e. You NEED TWO POSiTiONs to MEASURE any REAL momentum]. > > > SHORTEST-momentum-VECTOR lies only BETWEEN-ADjACENT-points. > > > [DoesN'T MATTER if these ADjACENT-points ARE on ANY curve]. > > > [CaN'T confirm if ADjACENT-points are STRAiGHT, or CURVED]. > > > MOMENTUM (a vector-QUANTiTY) caN'T-BE-MEASURED at-once AT-ALL: > > > [VECTORs are ONLY iMAGiNED and *MEASURED* ONLY in RETROSPECT]. > > CaN'T locate ONE point to + or - hbar/2 let-alone-TWO-at-ONCE.!! > > [Not to mention having to measure mass also at the SAME time].!! > > HEiSENBERG was NOT WRONG just BECAUSE he GOT CAUGHT ..too OFTEN, > > trying-to-((focus-on-BOTH-ENDs-AT-ONCE)) of a VELOCiTY-vector.!! > > > > 2. the schrodinger equation is [WRONG]: [g g^2 v1^2] > > > > [-- = ---- = ----] [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > > [ 2*M*nL^2 ]. > > > > -- the quantum potential. > > 3. Planck h*(LaGrangian frequency fL): > > Higgs [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > = ------------ = -------- = -------- = ------------------ > > Ni Ni Ni Ni. > > Bohr Magneton magnetic moment Ub -> jOULE / Tesla > > -> Kilogram*(meter)^4 / Volt*(sec)^3 > > -> (mol part)*(degree Kelvin)*meter*sec > > -> Ampere*(meter)^2 -> Volt*Amp*sec / Tesla. > > 4. Note X = 2*pi*Y (Mechanically ADjUSTABLE on actual MODEL): > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Ni = ----------------- = ----------------- = ---------------- > > h*fL 2*pi*fL X*fL. GUESS GENERAL UNiVERSAL EQUATiON of STATE SYSTEM frame-of-reference. [g/rA=g^2/v1^2=v1^2/rA^2=4*(pi)^2*fA^2 in (nabla)^2] BETWEEN points. < alt.sci.nanotech >< sci.space >< sci.edu >< stefan-Qx.jpg > AGAiN. $$ See 'The UNiVERSiTY-cult PROBLEM ..it's Aspects And The Solution'. > Actually, that is not correct. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle > says that there is a limit to how well we can measure the position > [BOTH the VECTOR ENDs] and momentum of a particle at the same time. > Heisenberg UNCERTAiNTY fails for UNscientific POiNT A exactness. > There is PLANCK-UNCERTAiNTY of how-exact POSiTiON A is measured. > [This means the SUBSEQUENT-Heisenberg-UNCERTAiNTY is REDUNDANT].!! > I have a degree in physics, and it is obvious to me that you do not > know what you are talking about. Do you even know the difference [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > assertions that you already know you can't defend. You are a > coward and a liar. You have no integrity. $$ So ONCE again... > > > VECTORs are ONLY iMAGiNED and "MEASURED" ONLY in RETROSPECT. > > > See ANY OTHER-two-points ON-SAME-PATH is a DiFFERENT vector.!! > > > o o o o > > > o o o vector [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > Fig 1. o o ANY train-track, or PATH. > > > o o > Heisenberg UNCERTAiNTY fails for UNscientific POiNT A exactness. > PLANCK-UNCERTAiNTY is 'of-how-exact' POSiTiON A can-BE-measured. > [This means the SUBSEQUENT-Heisenberg-UNCERTAiNTY is REDUNDANT].!! $$ Heisenberg was NOT WRONG, just because he GOT CAUGHT too OFTEN, $$ TRYiNG-to (FOCUS-on-BOTH-ENDs ..at-ONCE!) of a velocity-VECTOR.!! $$ Heisenberg was NOT WRONG, just because he GOT CAUGHT too OFTEN, > TRYiNG-to (FOCUS-on-BOTH-ENDs ..at-ONCE), of a velocity-VECTOR. > [Even the VECTOR, right-on-iN-BETWEEN ADjACENT-points ..Duh.] > > > o o o o > > > o o o vector [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > Fig 1. o o ANY train-track, or PATH. > > > o o > > > See ANY OTHER-two-points ON-SAME-PATH is a DiFFERENT vector.!! > > > [You MUST *already* KNOW-BOTH-POiNTs A and B, for MOMENTUM].!! > There's PLANCK-UNCERTAiNTY of how-exact POSiTiON A is measured.!! > > > [POSiTiON A caN'T be MEASURED with ACCURACY, + or - hbar/2].!! > [This means the SUBSEQUENT-Heisenberg-UNCERTAiNTY ..REDUNDANT].!! > > > Subsequently, only BECAUSE OF the momentum-VECTOR's 2 ENDs. > > > [i.e. You NEED TWO POSiTiONs to MEASURE any REAL momentum]. > > > SHORTEST-momentum-VECTOR lies only BETWEEN-ADjACENT-points. > > > [DoesN'T MATTER if these ADjACENT-points ARE on ANY curve]. > > > [CaN'T confirm if ADjACENT-points are STRAiGHT, or CURVED]. > > > MOMENTUM (a vector-QUANTiTY) caN'T-BE-MEASURED at-once AT-ALL: > > > [VECTORs are ONLY iMAGiNED and *MEASURED* ONLY in RETROSPECT]. > > CaN'T locate ONE point to + or - hbar/2 let-alone-TWO-at-ONCE.!! > > [Not to mention having to measure mass also at the SAME time].!! > > HEiSENBERG was NOT WRONG just BECAUSE he GOT CAUGHT ..too OFTEN, > > trying-to-((focus-on-BOTH-ENDs-AT-ONCE)) of a VELOCiTY-vector.!! > > > > 2. the schrodinger equation is [WRONG]: [g g^2 v1^2] > > > > [-- = ---- = ----] [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > > [ 2*M*nL^2 ]. > > > > -- the quantum potential. > > 3. Planck h*(LaGrangian frequency fL): > > Higgs [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > = ------------ = -------- = -------- = ------------------ > > Ni Ni Ni Ni. > > Bohr Magneton magnetic moment Ub -> jOULE / Tesla > > -> Kilogram*(meter)^4 / Volt*(sec)^3 > > -> (mol part)*(degree Kelvin)*meter*sec > > -> Ampere*(meter)^2 -> Volt*Amp*sec / Tesla. > > 4. Note X = 2*pi*Y (Mechanically ADjUSTABLE on actual MODEL): > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Ni = ----------------- = ----------------- = ---------------- > > h*fL 2*pi*fL X*fL. GUESS GENERAL UNiVERSAL EQUATiON of STATE SYSTEM frame-of-reference. [g/rA=g^2/v1^2=v1^2/rA^2=4*(pi)^2*fA^2 in (nabla)^2] BETWEEN points. < alt.sci.nanotech >< sci.space >< sci.edu >< stefan-Qx.jpg > AGAiN. $$ ['UNiVERSiTY-cult (UNnecessary steps ..BEYOND one's academics)']. > Actually, that is not correct. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle > says that there is a limit to how well we can measure the position > [BOTH the VECTOR ENDs] and momentum of a particle at the same time. > Heisenberg UNCERTAiNTY fails for UNscientific POiNT A exactness. > There is PLANCK-UNCERTAiNTY of how-exact POSiTiON A is measured. > [This means the SUBSEQUENT-Heisenberg-UNCERTAiNTY is REDUNDANT].!! > I have a degree in physics, and it is obvious to me that you do not > know what you are talking about. Do you even know the difference [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > assertions that you already know you can't defend. You are a > coward and a liar. You have no integrity. $$ So finally.. 'Heisenberg's unNECESSARY Principle'. > > > VECTORs are ONLY iMAGiNED and "MEASURED" ONLY in RETROSPECT. > > > See ANY OTHER-two-points ON-SAME-PATH is a DiFFERENT vector.!! > > > o o o o > > > o o o vector [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > Fig 1. o o ANY train-track, or PATH. > > > o o $$ PLANCK-UNcertainty for-POSiTiON-A means NO-Heisenberg-CONjUGATE.!! > PLANCK-UNCERTAiNTY is 'of-how-exact' POSiTiON A can-BE-measured. > Heisenberg UNCERTAiNTY fails for UNscientific POiNT A exactness. > [This means the SUBSEQUENT-Heisenberg-UNCERTAiNTY is REDUNDANT].!! $$ Heisenberg was NOT WRONG, just because he GOT CAUGHT too OFTEN, $$ TRYiNG-to (FOCUS-on-BOTH-ENDs ..at-ONCE!) of a velocity-VECTOR.!! > all the uncertainity principle says is that you cannot measure the > location and momentum of a particle at the same time > > it says NOTHING about randomness, in fact it says that you CANNOT even > know if it is random or not, because you cannot measure it Bah. This claim is simply wrong. The first axiom of quantum mechanics states that all the information that exists is encapsulated within the wave function. (Yes, I know this is a weird thing to assume, but there you have it). The second axiom states that the wave function must be an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian. It has been observed that it is impossible to craft a wave function that fully defines both the position and momentum of a particle. This is "impossible" in the same sense that it is impossible to find an angle whose sine and cosine are both zero. The uncertainty principly quantifies this observation: for any wave function that can be created, the product of the uncertainty in momentum times the uncertainty in position is at least h-bar/2 (Planck's constant over 4 pi). The crucial point, which a lot of people miss, is in the first axiom. Reworded, it states that if a certain piece of information cannot be encapsulated within the wave function, then that information DOES NOT EXIST. Logically, this leads to the conculstion that quantum mechanics predicts that for any given particle, the exact position and momentum do not simultaneously exist. Not "we cannot measure the exact position and momemtum", but these two quantities cannot simulataneously exist. Now, there is a fundamental difference between a theory that states that information does not exist, and a theory that states that the information is merely inaccessilble. These latter theories are called "hidden variable" theories, with the notion that the missing information is encapsulated in hidden variables which cannot be observed. Common sense tells us that these hidden variable theories must be correct and that quantum mechanics must be wrong. It is clearly absurd to assume that a particle's exact position and momentum do not exist. It is much more reasonable to assume that we just have trouble measuring them. Well, TOO BAD. Common sense is wrong. Reality is absurd. Many, many experiments have been performed to test quantum mechanics, and quantum mechanics has been shown to be correct. Experiments have been performed to test the "hidden variable" hypothesis, and that hypothesis has been shown to be inconsistent with reality. Reality is quantum mechanical and some information simply does not exist. The conclusion is that the exact position and momentum of a particle do not simultaneously exist. Again, as I said, this has been shown experimentally that it must be the case. This conclusion is not a philosophy or an interpretation; it is the only explanation that is consistent with reality. And I would certainly think that the result of an attempt to measure a quantity that does not exist would qualify as "random". -- Ken On Apr 5, 12:49 am, kenkelley.p...@gmail.com wrote: > > all the uncertainity principle says is that you cannot measure the > > location and momentum of a particle at the same time [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > -- Ken This is actually all a separate issue from the question of is QM stochastic or deterministic. What you have said is true, that there is no classical trajectory (x(t),p(t)). But that does not imply randomness in the full sense. If I can model everything including measurements with the Schroedinger equation, then QM is by definition deterministic as the Schroedinger equation is deterministic. Though what is deterministic is the evolution of the quantum state and not the evolution of classical trajectories. Measurements are then considered to be effectively random & irreversible in a kind of Brownian sense. The measurements would be interactions between the quantum system and a classical measuring device/environment. One cannot track the Avogadro's number of variables in the classical system, so the result of this interaction would be effectively random & irreversible even if it were classical. Else if the measurements are truly random, then they cannot be fully described with the Schroedinger equation and we do not know the full theory that would. One would have to admit that the Schroedinger equation really only applies to small, isolated systems. On Apr 5, 12:05 am, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 5, 12:49 am, kenkelley.p...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > theory that would. One would have to admit that the Schroedinger > equation really only applies to small, isolated systems. no what he said is not true it is possible to give classical trajectories polar decompose the wave function the real part gives an ensemble conservation equation the imaginary part gives the hamilton-jacobi for the trajectories all very old results dating to early quantum theory... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > On Apr 5, 12:05 am, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > > all very old results dating to early quantum theory... That's not a classical trajectory, it's nonlocal. On Apr 6, 4:07 am, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote: > galathaea: [...] > > it is possible to give classical trajectories > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That's not a classical trajectory, it's nonlocal. 1) trajectories are neither local nor nonlocal those terms apply to the dynamics a trajectory is simply as you point out a continuous assignment (x(t), p(t)) in the phase space of a particle 2) classical dynamics is nonlocal it wasn't until electrodynamics that local theories described natural process and not until relativity was all natural process so described 3) what ken said and what you agreed to is still very wrong -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > On Apr 6, 4:07 am, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > a continuous assignment (x(t), p(t)) > in the phase space of a particle I didn't say that. And even if I did, you should know what I mean and not split. > 2) classical dynamics is nonlocal > > it wasn't until electrodynamics > that local theories described natural process > and not until relativity was all natural process so described It doesn't have to be, and even when it is it isn't nonlocal in the same way. Take your BM equations of motion, take the limit h to zero, note the big difference in the character of the equations. On Apr 6, 3:54 pm, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Apr 6, 4:07 am, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I didn't say that. And even if I did, you should know what I mean and > not split. Make that "split hairs". > > 2) classical dynamics is nonlocal > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > same way. Take your BM equations of motion, take the limit h to zero, > note the big difference in the character of the equations. On Apr 6, 12:54 pm, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Apr 6, 4:07 am, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > same way. Take your BM equations of motion, take the limit h to zero, > note the big difference in the character of the equations. yes that limit in bohmian mechanics explains quantum chaos calculations much better and completely than any copenhagen limit behavior have you read the literature on this? it exists you know... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > On Apr 6, 12:54 pm, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > explains quantum chaos calculations much better and completely > than any copenhagen limit behavior The discussion is the nonlocality of QM as opposed to what you are calling nonlocality in continuum CM. > have you read the literature on this? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar On Apr 7, 3:08 am, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote: > gal: > > chris: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The discussion is the nonlocality of QM as opposed to what you are > calling nonlocality in continuum CM. actually the discussion has gone all over the place as you have attempted to avoid the point of my posting and save face for the errors in your posting dale kelly who apparently has some kind of agenda that people are upset at posted a point on randomness and quantum mechanics there are many ways to approach his post one could for instance point out that the yes/no randomness ( either something is random or it is not ) of the OP corresponds to what others call determinism randomness that is measurable ( this is random of measure .23... ) like kolmogorov complexity applies to classical systems as well as quantum and gives a more intuitive notion of the relation to expectation those are the types of valid observations i'd expect from a scientific response however i saw outright falsehoods being promoted as fact and others following up with " good point! " ken kelly came in with a chopped up and distorted axiomatics of quantum mechanics probably taken out of some horrid excuse for a textbook like griffiths attempting to even state trajectories couldn't exist and claiming there had been many many tests that had disproved hidden variable theories and showing quantum mechanics correct i assume he was talking of the aspect-like experiments but who knows maybe he was talking of tests like those proposed by ghose concerning symmetries in bohmian mechanics it doesn't really matter because no experiment has "disproved" bohmian mechanics yet i'm not claiming its not possible this just happens to be a field a keep a close eye on and then you came in chris fleming and agreed with what ken kelly said but then tried to make a point that sounds close to distinguishing types of randomness in the process though you restated claims against the trajectory i came in and corrected these misunderstandings because i am very concerned about intellectual dishonesty of this kind and post about it regularly you made some vague claim about nonlocality that you felt resolved the issue and elsewhere pointed to expectation values on more complex functions than single variable when i pointed out both such observations were again incorrect you accused me of not knowing the literature when i pointed out that i have an easily searchable history on bohmian mechanics on the newsgroups including extensions of bohminisations to quantum field theory quantum gravity superstrings noncommutative geometry with references to articles in my posts derivations in my posts ... you've decided to narrow down keep your comments vague and still sound disapproving yes as your last post claims you have changed the topic to "nonlocality of QM" and something vague about the classical limit bohmians prefer to take the classical limit by pointing out their "quantum potential" is the only thing that makes their trajectories nonclassical and that as this goes to zero classical hamilton-jacobi equations are recovered but the h->0 behavior is also interesting and is explored some in quantum chaos research which i pointed out your avoidance reaction will i am sure find some other "topic" that makes it sound like you understand the literature so you can still attempt to save face for your intellectual dishonesty but really you are already showing the same signs that made me realise bilge was hopelessly self-justifying despite his obvious intelligence and ability to understand you too had always seemed intelligent... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > On Apr 7, 3:08 am, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > and elsewhere pointed to expectation values > on more complex functions than single variable I said it wasn't a classical trajectory because of the nonlocality. Now what nonlocality could I have possibly been talking about? I hinted at the difference in the very nature of the Bohmian equations of motions when you take hbar to zero. In classical mechanics the classical trajectory is a curve in phase space that describes the evolution of a pure state. The evolution is simplectic. In standard quantum mechanics, things are not the same. There is no such classical trajectory. Now you are the one that made the gigantic claim that Bohmian mechanics gives you a classical trajectory. You are the one that needs to back it up. As far as I am concerned, this is either crazy talk, or you are really stretching the full meaning of a "classical trajectory". I would be beyond astounded if you could provide me with a paper that shows I am wrong. > when i pointed out both such observations were again incorrect > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar On Apr 8, 3:57 am, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Apr 7, 3:08 am, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > I said it wasn't a classical trajectory because of the nonlocality. > Now what nonlocality could I have possibly been talking about? hmmmm.... hmmmmm.... since i've already addressed the scientific definition of nonlocality as used in all of the conference proceedings i've read on it you must be meaning the chris definition and unfortunately i don't have my mind reader working to try to fathom uses different from the scientific community > I > hinted at the difference in the very nature of the Bohmian equations > of motions when you take hbar to zero. let me foolishly try your game since you enjoy not stating what you mean with the purpose of sounding knowledgable and mysterious some quantities in quantum mechanics do not make sense in the limit h -> 0 that is true of all quantum interpretations because all must derive the same predictions however in bohmian mechanics the dynamics are described as a classical evolution of point particles as with all such evolutions they are flows in the state space and obey the louiville formalism of ensemble flow the evolution of these ensemble flows are described in a classical hamilton-jacobi that is in fact the classical hamilton-jacobi with an additional term that term is sometimes called the quantum potential it goes to zero in the h -> 0 limit under hypotheses on the form of the dynamics that they make classical sense so that equation reduces exactly to the classical! hmm.. that couldn't be what you meant since that validates my claims... in fact this is one place where geometric quantisation has many similarities to bohmian mechanics in the algebraic formalism the copenhagen interpretation suffers much greater flaws it doesn't have a particle existing at all times so it still suffers from all the quantum observation issues wigner's friend... in that limit > In classical mechanics the classical trajectory is a curve in phase > space that describes the evolution of a pure state. The evolution is > simplectic. In standard quantum mechanics, things are not the same. > There is no such classical trajectory. you must certainly be talking about semi-classical regimes there exists a well-known classical limit in bohmian mechanics that reproduces exactly the classical hamilton-jacobi period in all other regimes bohmian flow does not obey some of the classical symmetries in completely unobservable ways the unobservable is more interesting than the classical bohmian trajectories are also not specially covariant but that doesn't stop them from being able to completely reproduce consistently relativistic quantum field theory not all classical trajectories are symplectic nor are all classical trajectories lorentz covariant what does this have to do with nonlocality? notice how you seem to agree there are trajectories in a consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics trajectories with positions at all times and momenta at all times and have tried to change the argument to some other topic? do you see that? its called an avoidance mechanism > Now you are the one that made the gigantic claim that Bohmian > mechanics gives you a classical trajectory. You are the one that needs > to back it up. As far as I am concerned, this is either crazy talk, or > you are really stretching the full meaning of a "classical > trajectory". I would be beyond astounded if you could provide me with > a paper that shows I am wrong. the spatial coordinate representation always gives a classical ensemble flow the literature is full of papers on this here's one: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0611032 now i'm sure you've probably included baggage into your definition of "classical trajectory" so you can keep on arguing but you will look foolish if it has anything to say other than a particle with real position and real momentum obeying a classical state-space flow in the louiville formalism because that is what you agreed to when answering ken kelly > > when i pointed out both such observations were again incorrect > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > > you too had always seemed intelligent... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > On Apr 8, 3:57 am, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 203 lines] > > http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0611032 This paper straight up says that you need both Psi and Q to describe the complete physical state in BM. It also discusses nonlocality. What's classical about the trajectory? It's incomplete information and the interactions are nonlocal. And by the way, section 3.3 of this paper is wrong. It as well as it's reference assumes that the wave function collapse must happen either simultaneously with or after the measurement reading takes place, (or never). Amazing that none of these authors could imagine that the classical measuring device just might collapse the wave before it's able to make it's reading. > now i'm sure you've probably included baggage into > your definition of "classical trajectory" [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar On Apr 8, 4:57 pm, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote: [...] > > hmmmm.... > [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > What's classical about the trajectory? It's incomplete information and > the interactions are nonlocal. yes realist quantum mechanics is nonlocal yes realist ontologies still include the wavefunction the quantum potential is derived from the waveform the ensemble spread is derived from the waveform this is standard nearly every paper on bohmian mechanics says this explicitly and the very few remaining say it implicitly no one has ever made an attempt to hide that fact in any of the referred papers i am aware of it is an _interpretation_ of _quantum_mechanics_ you think it has no relation to the wavefunction? none of the is an objection to the fact that quantum mechanics can specify true trajectories for particles but you've outed yourself you obviously know nothing of bohmian mechanics if this surprises you and yet when i brought the subject up you bluntly claimed i was unfamiliar with the literature it is now very clear what type of person you are and there is no need to further this conversation or any other with you [snip more surprise] > > now i'm sure you've probably included baggage into > > your definition of "classical trajectory" [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > > > > you too had always seemed intelligent... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar On Apr 8, 7:57 pm, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Apr 8, 3:57 am, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 215 lines] > classical measuring device just might collapse the wave before it's > able to make it's reading. I retract this last assertion. I might be right, but need to think about this more carefully. > > now i'm sure you've probably included baggage into > > your definition of "classical trajectory" [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > those are the types of valid observations i'd expect > from a scientific response > > however > i saw outright falsehoods being promoted as fact > and others following up with " good point! " That is how they hijack a thread or newsgroup. On Apr 6, 12:54 pm, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Apr 6, 4:07 am, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > same way. Take your BM equations of motion, take the limit h to zero, > note the big difference in the character of the equations. the literature on quantuum chaos is quite clear on this limiit in the bohmian model the model actually gives a means of arriving at this classical limit none of the other interpretations do " quantum chaos? i thought the equations were linear... " yes the bohmian models have good information in that limit... there's even a nice literature on this... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > > all the uncertainity principle says is that you cannot measure the > > location and momentum of a particle at the same time [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > -- Ken Reality rules, 100 times out of 100 > <kenkelley.p...@gmail.com> skrev i meldingnews:1175748598.261335.76480@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Quantum bunkness is random too! On Apr 4, 9:49 pm, kenkelley.p...@gmail.com wrote: > > all the uncertainity principle says is that you cannot measure the > > location and momentum of a particle at the same time [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > -- Ken you are very wrong bohmian mechanics is a completely consistent hidden variable model that gives position and momentum to every particle at every time the only hidden variable models ruled out are local theories with a certain form of compositionality that is completely mathematically defined -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > On Apr 4, 9:49 pm, kenkelley.p...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > are local theories with a certain form of compositionality > that is completely mathematically defined It works for simple expectation values like <x(t)>. If you want to look at something like <x(t)y(s)> you have to rig up the measurement in Bohmian mechanics to get the same expectation values as ordinary QM. By the time you manage to do that correctly, you should realize that maybe, just maybe you're not helping yourself doing all this. On Apr 6, 7:52 am, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Apr 4, 9:49 pm, kenkelley.p...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > By the time you manage to do that correctly, you should realize that > maybe, just maybe you're not helping yourself doing all this. there is no " rigging " there is an initial postulate of the theory that the ensemble distribution obeys the same statistics as the wave function the conservation equation then maintains this agreement and observations are explained in the theory through a basic evolution description to maintain this agreement over observations all of this is just the mathematical formalism of the interpretation one doesn't say relativity is " rigged " to solve the twin " paradox " unless one is trying to build sympathy for an opposing position as for helping myself doing mathematical manipulations the point behind looking at alternate interpretations is because there are serious gaps in explanatory power and coherent explanation in the standard copenhagen interpretation in particular it is the copenhagen interpretation that has the difficulty in describing what " observation " means re: wigner's friend it is that lack which is the fuel for so much pop-physics speculation on relationships between quantum theory and consciousness the bohmian interpretation actually addresses and resolves those fundamental issues -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > On Apr 6, 7:52 am, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar Look up papers detailing how somebody calculated two variable, time correlations in BM and SQM and found disagreement. Then you can look up the Bohmian rebuttals to these discrepancies. Proper expectation values of complicated things in Bohmian mechanics do require what I refer to as "rigging". Weather or not it is rigging is debatable, but you just don't seem to know what I am talking about. On Apr 6, 12:45 pm, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Apr 6, 7:52 am, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] > refer to as "rigging". Weather or not it is rigging is debatable, but > you just don't seem to know what I am talking about. yes i've read all those papers a number of times in the past i had a huge argument with bilge lasting over a hundred posts on these newsgroups where i explained in excruciating detail _all_ of those such disagreements i am not ignorant of the literature here but fine you've found your crutch to ignore at that point you stop with the discussion and have made your mind up very unscientific -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar In the "What is that smell in my inbox?" category > i had a huge argument with bilge > lasting over a hundred posts on these newsgroups -- Regards Alex McDonald > all the uncertainity principle says is that you cannot measure the > location and momentum of a particle at the same time Can you tell when a specific atom of uranium will decay? > it says NOTHING about randomness, in fact it says that you CANNOT even > know if it is random or not, because you cannot measure it We can sure measure the decay of a uranium atom. > this is an example of just how far the mainstream of science can stray > from ethics f.ck you, you're wrong. SignatureDenis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com | > all the uncertainity principle says is that you cannot measure the | > location and momentum of a particle at the same time [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | | We can sure measure the decay of a uranium atom. And give it a half life which merely says it will probably decay in such a time. If you have 2 atoms with the same half life you cannot know which will decay first so this is a good example of randomness SignatureQ: Why did the tachyon cross the road? A: Because it was on the other side. > | > all the uncertainity principle says is that you cannot measure the > | > location and momentum of a particle at the same time [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > decay > first so this is a good example of randomness Thank you! :-) Oy! That's a good one! SignatureDenis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com > | > all the uncertainity principle says is that you cannot measure the > | > location and momentum of a particle at the same time |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message