 |
 | 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 mechanics is a farce
the uncertainty principle says that you cannot empirically know the location and momentum of nature in the particle realm for certain many unethical scientists have equated uncertainty with randomness and propagated an uncorrect philosophy called quantum mechanics if you are uncertain, this is NOT random, in fact it means that you CANNOT even know if the population of particles is random, a random population is determinate and has statistical properties all nature in the particle realm, ALWAYS, results in the cause and effect models we see in the classical realm, in fact, ALL, interpretations of quantum mechanics reduce supposed particle behavior to classical behavior  SignatureDale http://www.vedantasite.org > the uncertainty principle says that you cannot empirically know the > location and momentum of nature in the particle realm for certain. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org In my opinion, the most funny thing with QM is that you are not permitted even to imagine an electron at rest!! That is because of the uncertainty principle. If the uncertainty in the location of an electron is reduced to zero (when at rest) then the uncertainty principle will make the uncertainty in its momentum to be infinity. Hence the electron cannot be at rest!!! GSS >> the uncertainty principle says that you cannot empirically know the >> location and momentum of nature in the particle realm for certain. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >GSS Apparently both human conceptual models of wave and particle are only human conceptual models. What is actually manifesting to us in such as an "electron", is very limited by us. Analogous to the limited perceptions of a Flatland denizen as a higher dimensional sphere passes through. > > the uncertainty principle says that you cannot empirically know the > > location and momentum of nature in the particle realm for certain. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - how can you be certain Mummy my head hurts > > the uncertainty principle says that you cannot empirically know the > > location and momentum of nature in the particle realm for certain. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - how can you be certain Mummy my head hurts > > the uncertainty principle says that you cannot empirically know the > > location and momentum of nature in the particle realm for certain. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > In my opinion, the most funny thing with QM is that you are not > permitted even to imagine an electron at rest!! Actually, you can imagine it. It just won't have any bearing on reality. > That is because of the uncertainty principle. If the uncertainty in > the location of an electron is reduced to zero (when at rest) then the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - Show quoted text - .... > > In my opinion, the most funny thing with QM is that you are not > > permitted even to imagine an electron at rest!! > > Actually, you can imagine it. It just won't have any bearing on > reality. Well, thanks if you permit me to imagine an electron at rest! It implies that I am also permitted to define the position of an electron at rest. Let me try. Let us consider an inertial reference frame K with Cartesian coordinate system XYZ, defined to be at rest in the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF). Let us define the position of an electron to be X1, Y1, Z1 at an instant of time t1. Now to ensure that this electron is at rest at this location, we further define the location of this electron to be X1, Y1, Z1 at some subsequent instants of time t2, t3, and t4 such that t4>t3>t2>t1. The above definition of the location of the electron in the inertial reference frame K, ensures that the electron is at rest at point X1, Y1, Z1 and its momentum is zero in this reference frame. That is the uncertainties in the position and momentum of this electron are both zero which violates the principle of uncertainty. Well, your permission to define an electron at rest in certain inertial reference frame implies your permission to violate the principle of uncertainty. Is it really permitted in QM? I think it would have been more logical if the uncertainty principle were to be applicable only for actual measurements and not for theoretical considerations. GSS > > That is because of the uncertainty principle. If the uncertainty in > > the location of an electron is reduced to zero (when at rest) then the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - > .... > > > In my opinion, the most funny thing with QM is that you are not [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Is it really permitted in QM? As I said, what you choose to *define* is up to you. Whether it has any bearing on reality is another matter. The reality is that you will be physically unable to create an electron state that has the characteristics you describe above. The reason why you will be unable to do so is that the physical laws that electrons behave will not allow it, and the uncertainty principle is an observation of that fact. *Imagining* that you create such an electron state in no way assures that nature will respect your imagining. In this event, you might as well be applying the same definition to a little pink pixie, because the "electron" you are defining that way has the same level of reality. "Theoretical considerations" does NOT mean "what I can imagine". A theory is intended to describe reality and to be consistent with observations. If "what I can imagine" immediately violates observations, then what I am performing is in no way a "theoretical consideration". Fundamental error in terminology, as well as incorrect scientific thinking. PD > I think it would have been more logical if the uncertainty principle > were to be applicable only for actual measurements and not for > theoretical considerations. > > .... > > > > In my opinion, the most funny thing with QM is that you are not [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > were to be applicable only for actual measurements and not for > > theoretical considerations. Imagination is an indispensable tool for getting any glimpse of reality. Imagination is required even for interpreting the observations. Any mathematical model that claims to model physical reality, cannot serve its purpose if it defies imagination!! Let us make it simpler, can you imagine an electron at rest in your local coordinate system? If you can, kindly give a small description of it. If not kindly give reason for your inability. GSS > > > .... > > > > > In my opinion, the most funny thing with QM is that you are not [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > observations. Any mathematical model that claims to model physical > reality, cannot serve its purpose if it defies imagination!! Well, that's true. However, one has to become practiced at training the imagination to become more open-minded, especially if informed by experiment that imagination's constraints are unwarranted. Some people are better at this than others. :>) > Let us make it simpler, can you imagine an electron at rest in your > local coordinate system? If you can, kindly give a small description > of it. If not kindly give reason for your inability. I can certain imagine *something* being at rest in my local coordinate system, but I'm also aware that this "something" is little more than a little pink pixie. This is because I'm made aware, through experiment, that nothing real is at rest at a precisely known position in my local coordinate system. I'm further made aware that this fact has nothing to do with limitations of experiment, but is in fact due to the nature of real objects and the natural laws by which they behave. This is true for my coffee cup, it is true for the "T" key on my keyboard, it is true for any electron I choose in my local coordinate system. The moment I "imagine" something that defies those natural laws, then of course I am not imagining anything real. You seem to be under the apprehension that anything that is imaginable and sensible in the mind must be allowable and supported by the laws of physics. This is certainly not the case. The mind is a liar and a cheat when it comes to what is *actually* allowable by the laws of nature. The payoff is that what nature *actually* allows is a whole lot more interesting that what our minds would allow -- and this is precisely the attraction of science. PD ...... >> Imagination is an indispensable tool for getting any glimpse of >> reality. Imagination is required even for interpreting the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > PD Agreed that whatever we can imagine may not correspond to physical reality. But whatever belongs to physical reality can be mentally visualized provided we possess all the relevant information necessary for simulating that physical reality in the imagination process. Mental visualization of a dynamic physical process is quite akin to 3- D animated simulation of that process on the computer screen. Obviously we need a lots and lots of information for that. Whenever we fail to imagine or mentally visualize certain entity, it certainly implies that either our knowledge (information content) about such entity is lacking or such entity does not belong to physical reality. For example an electron is certainly a physical entity and if we fail to mentally visualize the electron at rest, it simply implies that we do not possess enough information (or knowledge) about the electron. Further, regarding the applicability of the uncertainty principle to a micro particle at rest, there does exist a lot of ambiguity and controversy. There is a general misinterpretation of uncertainty principle which implies that *nature* does not permit a micro particle to be at rest in any coordinate system - and this is attributed to 'complexity of reality'. Truly speaking the wave function must collapse for a micro particle at *rest* and hence the uncertainty principle will be simply *not applicable* for such cases. Do you agree? GSS > ...... > >> Imagination is an indispensable tool for getting any glimpse of [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > visualized provided we possess all the relevant information necessary > for simulating that physical reality in the imagination process. Yes. > Mental visualization of a dynamic physical process is quite akin to 3- > D animated simulation of that process on the computer screen. No. This constraint is probably what's causing you problems. The *informed* imagination is not so limited. If you are demanding such an artifact to emerge from your imagination, you are shackling it. > Obviously we need a lots and lots of information for that. > > Whenever we fail to imagine or mentally visualize certain entity, it > certainly implies that either our knowledge (information content) > about such entity is lacking or such entity does not belong to > physical reality. OK so far. : > For example an electron is certainly a physical > entity and if we fail to mentally visualize the electron at rest, it > simply implies that we do not possess enough information (or > knowledge) about the electron. No. Read your first sentence in your previous reply: "Agreed that whatever we can imagine may not correspond to physical reality." > Further, regarding the applicability of the uncertainty principle to a > micro particle at rest, there does exist a lot of ambiguity and > controversy. No. What you are suffering from is what you also said in your second sentence of your previous post: "But whatever belongs to physical reality can be mentally visualized provided we possess all the relevant information necessary for simulating that physical reality in the imagination process." You are not in possession of all the relevant information necessary for simulating that physical reality in the imagination process. > There is a general misinterpretation of uncertainty > principle which implies that *nature* does not permit a micro particle > to be at rest in any coordinate system - and this is attributed to > 'complexity of reality'. That is not a misinterpretation. > Truly speaking the wave function must > collapse for a micro particle at *rest* That is not correct. Again, you appear to be suffering from a lack of sufficient relevant information necessary for simulating that physical reality in your imagination process. > and hence the uncertainty > principle will be simply *not applicable* for such cases. > > Do you agree? I hope I've made it clear where I agree and disagree. At times it appears you do not agree with yourself. PD ...... >> Agreed that whatever we can imagine may not correspond to physical >> reality. But whatever belongs to physical reality can be mentally [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > *informed* imagination is not so limited. If you are demanding such an > artifact to emerge from your imagination, you are shackling it. OK. I think we need to differentiate between mental visualization and imagination. I have been using the term imagination in the sense of mental visualization of a physical entity or process. >> Obviously we need a lots and lots of information for that. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "Agreed that whatever we can imagine may not correspond to physical > reality." "But whatever belongs to physical reality can be mentally visualized provided we possess all the relevant information necessary for simulating that physical reality in the imagination process." And we know that an electron is certainly a physical entity. Hence if we fail to mentally visualize the electron at rest; it simply implies that we do not possess enough information (or knowledge) about the electron. >> Further, regarding the applicability of the uncertainty principle to a >> micro particle at rest, there does exist a lot of ambiguity and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > relevant information necessary for simulating that physical reality in > the imagination process. Agreed that 'we' do not possess sufficient information about the shape, size, structure, energy distribution, wave characteristics etc. of the electron. But 'we' do possess all relevant information regarding the *uncertainty principle*. So we can discuss the correlation or applicability of the uncertainty principle to the physical reality. (see below) >> There is a general misinterpretation of uncertainty >> principle which implies that *nature* does not permit a micro particle [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > PD Uncertainty Principle --------------------- The uncertainty principle states that when measuring conjugate quantities, the product of their standard deviations must be at least h/4pi. Here conjugate quantities imply a pair of variables mathematically defined in such a way that they become Fourier transform duals of one-another. Fundamentally, the uncertainty principle is based on the wave- particle duality. As per de Broglie's hypothesis, all microscopic particles of matter display a wave-like nature while in motion. The de Broglie relations show that the wavelength L is inversely proportional to the momentum p of a particle (L=h/p) and that the frequency f is directly proportional to the particle's kinetic energy (f=E/h). What it implies is that the dynamic characteristics of a micro particle can be ascribed to the wave characteristics of a pilot wavelet accompanying the micro particle in motion. Logically, the intensity of the pilot wavelet accompanying the micro particle in motion is expected to be large in magnitude in the immediate vicinity of the micro particle and small elsewhere. However, as per Quantum Mechanics(QM), the intensity of the pilot wavelet is interpreted as the position probability density for the location of the micro particle. That is, in QM the location of the center of the micro particle in motion is assumed to be 'smeared across' the whole wavelet as a position probability density. The wavelet accompanying the micro particle in motion is described with a wave function Psi(r,t) such that the position probability density P(r,t) is given by, P(r,t) = |Psi(r,t)| ^2 By associating the intensity of the pilot wavelet with the position probability density of the micro particle it becomes convenient to normalize the wave function Psi(r,t). If on the other hand the intensity of the pilot wavelet was associated with the kinetic energy density of the micro particle in motion, the ensuing mathematics would have become extremely cumbersome. However, by interpreting the intensity of the pilot wavelet as the position probability density of the micro particle and normalizing the wave function accordingly, the QM has effectively been transformed into Statistical Quantum Mechanics. This *assumption* of interpreting the intensity of the pilot wavelet as the position probability density for the location of the micro particle is precisely the *point of departure* of QM from the physical reality. The existence of the position probability density P(r,t) makes it possible to calculate the expectation value of the position vector of the micro particle in motion. The expectation value is the mathematical expectation (or mean) in the sense of probability theory. The expectation values of the position vector r and the momentum vector p can be written as, <r> = Integral[r P(r,t) dv] and <p> = Integral[p P(r,t) dv] The uncertainty in the expectation value of x component of position vector r is denoted by delta.x or just dx and is defined to be the root-mean-square deviation from the mean or expectation value of x. Similarly the uncertainty in the expectation value of p is denoted by dp and is defined to be the root-mean-square deviation from the mean or expectation value of p. (dx)^2 = <(x-<x>)^2> = <x^2> - <x>^2 (dp)^2 = <(p-<p>)^2> = <p^2> - <p>^2 The product of these uncertainties can be shown to yield the famous uncertainty relation, dx.dp >= h/4pi Hence it may be summarized that the famous uncertainty principle is founded on the following assumptions, some of which may not remain valid under all circumstances. (a)As per de Broglie's hypothesis all micro particles in motion are accompanied by some sort of pilot wavelet whose wave parameters are governed by the kinetic energy and momentum of the micro particle. (b)The intensity of the pilot wavelet is interpreted as the position probability density for the location of the micro particle in motion. (c)The uncertainty dx or dp in the expectation values of x or p is defined to be the root-mean-square deviation from the mean or expectation values of x or p. Let us now examine a situation where at least one of the above assumptions is not valid. For this let us consider the micro particle under question to be at rest. If the micro particle is not in motion, its momentum and kinetic energy will be zero and obviously therefore, there will be no pilot wavelet accompanying this particle. Hence assumption (a) is no longer valid for a micro particle at rest. Logically therefore, the uncertainty relations will not be applicable for any micro particle at rest, for which the associated wave function can be considered as collapsed. GSS > ...... > >> Agreed that whatever we can imagine may not correspond to physical [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > imagination. I have been using the term imagination in the sense of > mental visualization of a physical entity or process. Then again, if you are expecting a little 3D movie where everything looks like it does in the macroscopic world, with edges and shape and volume and definite paths, then you are shackling the imagination. There is NO requirement that the entire universe looks and plays in a movie like it does in the tiny little corner of the universe that our senses are tuned to. In fact, it certainly appears that the universe is much richer and much more interesting than the little parochial corner we have become accustomed to. I know that you have enjoyed pointing little round pegs into little round holes, but there really is no sense in trying to pound square pegs and star-shaped pegs and things that aren't pegs at all into the little round holes you're used to dealing with. > >> Obviously we need a lots and lots of information for that. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > to mentally visualize the electron at rest; it simply implies that we > do not possess enough information (or knowledge) about the electron. No, the electron at rest, despite appearing in your imagination, does not correspond to physical reality. > >> Further, regarding the applicability of the uncertainty principle to a > >> micro particle at rest, there does exist a lot of ambiguity and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of the electron. But 'we' do possess all relevant information > regarding the *uncertainty principle*. Some people do. You however seem to be somewhat limited in your information about it. And this has hampered your ability for simulating its physical reality in your imagination process. > So we can discuss the > correlation or applicability of the uncertainty principle to the [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > ascribed to the wave characteristics of a pilot wavelet accompanying > the micro particle in motion. What pilot wavelet? It appears your information about quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle is too limited to fully simulate its physical reality in your imagination process. There is no pilot wavelet suggested or required. > Logically, the intensity of the pilot wavelet accompanying the micro > particle in motion is expected to be large in magnitude in the [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> ...... >>>> Whenever we fail to imagine or mentally visualize certain entity, it [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > No, the electron at rest, despite appearing in your imagination, does > not correspond to physical reality. I am reminded of Tom Robert's pet remark, "What God whispered that in your ears?" >>>> Further, regarding the applicability of the uncertainty principle to a >>>> micro particle at rest, there does exist a lot of ambiguity and [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >>> That is not a misinterpretation. Yes it is, as shown below. >>>> Truly speaking the wave function must >>>> collapse for a micro particle at *rest* [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> Uncertainty Principle >> --------------------- .... >> As per de Broglie's hypothesis, all microscopic particles of matter >> display a wave-like nature while in motion. The de Broglie relations [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > There is no pilot wavelet suggested or required. It appears that you are trying to find some lame pretexts to wriggle out of these discussions. Generally the term wave is used for a continuous unbounded wave and the term wavelet can be used to indicate a finite wave contained within a bounded volume of space at any given instant of time. The term 'pilot' is used just to stress that the said wave is 'accompanying' the associated particle. If you feel more comfortable, you may replace the term 'pilot wavelet' with just 'wave' in the following write up and then give your comments. >> Logically, the intensity of the pilot wavelet accompanying the micro >> particle in motion is expected to be large in magnitude in the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> particle is precisely the *point of departure* of QM from the physical >> reality. I want you to specifically comment on the preceding assertion with detailed justification for your point of view. >> The existence of the position probability density P(r,t) makes it >> possible to calculate the expectation value of the position vector of [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >> there will be no pilot wavelet accompanying this particle. Hence >> assumption (a) is no longer valid for a micro particle at rest. Your specific comments are again required over here to either agree or disagree with the association of a wave with a micro particle at rest as per the de Broglie's hypothesis. >> Logically therefore, the uncertainty relations will not be applicable >> for any micro particle at rest, for which the associated wave function >> can be considered as collapsed. GSS > >> ...... > >>>> Whenever we fail to imagine or mentally visualize certain entity, it [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I am reminded of Tom Robert's pet remark, "What God whispered that in > your ears?" Experiment. That is the usual decider of these issues, but it seems to be something you're willing to dispense with. You've already acknowledged that not everything that exists in your imagination corresponds to physical reality. You've furthermore been unwilling to let experiment serve as the arbiter to which of those things in your imagination do and do not correspond to physical reality. All you are left with to make that decision, then, is your desire and your will. This, however, is no longer science, but faith. > >>>> Further, regarding the applicability of the uncertainty principle to a > >>>> micro particle at rest, there does exist a lot of ambiguity and [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > you may replace the term 'pilot wavelet' with just 'wave' in the > following write up and then give your comments. No, I know to what you are referring. Pilot waves have a very particular meaning, especially to those who coined the term. Bohmian mechanics, which are NOT the standard framework of quantum mechanics, have specific and well-defined experimental predictions, which have been tested and ruled out. There is no pilot wave suggested or required by the uncertainty principle. Your attempt to smudge the distinction between Bohmian mechanics and quantum mechanics by saying "pilot wave, wave, what's the difference?" simply reveals that you are not fully conversant in either. As I mentioned, you appear to be suffering from a lack of sufficient relevant information necessary for simulating that physical reality in your imagination process. > >> Logically, the intensity of the pilot wavelet accompanying the micro > >> particle in motion is expected to be large in magnitude in the [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > GSS > Pilot waves have a very > particular meaning, especially to those who coined the term. Bohmian [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > relevant information necessary for simulating that physical reality in > your imagination process. this is incorrect there has been no experimental distinctions between bohmian mechanics and other _interpretations_ of quantum mechanics all predictions are isomorphic although many have extended the bohmian formalism in attempts to stimulate new physical theories standard vanilla out-of-the-box bohmian mechanics gives exactly the same predictions as other interpretations including bell's and leggett's inequalities and the experiments of aspect and others the question has always been how one interprets the data before debroglie and later bohm it was incorrectly believed it was impossible to give a particle ontology to quantum mechanical predictions since that time these misunderstandings have continued in a number of research communities but foundationalists have moved on to different concerns studying the assumptions in von-neumann's no-go and the related derivations that show constraints in the ontology of classical and quantum mechanics they are studying contextuality compositionality locality contrafactuality ontological reality univalent temporality and other properties who collectively define the interpretations but the isomorphic predictions of the bohmian interpretation is a simple mathematical theorem and though there have been attempts no one has shown any flaws in it yet precisely because it is so simple ( only a handful of lines to show the polar decomposition gives a louiville flow ) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar ..... >>>>>> There is a general misinterpretation of uncertainty >>>>>> principle which implies that *nature* does not permit a micro particle [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> Yes it is, as shown below. ..... >>>> As per de Broglie's hypothesis, all microscopic particles of matter >>>> display a wave-like nature while in motion. The de Broglie relations [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > relevant information necessary for simulating that physical reality in > your imagination process. Again you are sidetracking the issue. Well, frankly speaking I was not aware of the Bohmian Mechanics till I read your response. Now look at your above remark, "No, I know to what you are referring". See, how biased you get sometime, just out of ignorance!! Today I had a glance at the 'Bohmian Mechanics' and I do find that it appears to have a more sensible formalism. But let us not sidetrack our discussion into Bohmian mechanics. Therefore, I am reproducing the original write up on uncertainty principle with the words 'pilot wavelet' replaced with just 'wave'. I hope now you will be in a position to read and respond to it. Uncertainty Principle --------------------- As per de Broglie's hypothesis, all microscopic particles of matter display a wave-like nature while in motion. The de Broglie relations show that the wavelength L is inversely proportional to the momentum p of a particle (L=h/p) and that the frequency f is directly proportional to the particle's kinetic energy (f=E/h). What it implies is that the dynamic characteristics of a micro particle can be ascribed to the wave characteristics of a wave accompanying the micro particle in motion. Logically, the intensity of the wave accompanying the micro particle in motion is expected to be large in magnitude in the immediate vicinity of the micro particle and small elsewhere. However, as per Quantum Mechanics(QM), the intensity of the pilot wavelet is interpreted as the position probability density for the location of the micro particle. That is, in QM the location of the center of the micro particle in motion is assumed to be 'smeared across' the whole wave as a position probability density. The wave accompanying the micro particle in motion is described with a wave function Psi(r,t) such that the position probability density P(r,t) is given by, P(r,t) = |Psi(r,t)| ^2 By associating the intensity of the wave with the position probability density of the micro particle it becomes convenient to normalize the wave function Psi(r,t). If on the other hand the intensity of the wave was associated with the kinetic energy density of the micro particle in motion, the ensuing mathematics would have become extremely cumbersome. However, by interpreting the intensity of the wave as the position probability density of the micro particle and normalizing the wave function accordingly, the QM has effectively been transformed into Statistical Quantum Mechanics. This *assumption* of interpreting the intensity of the wave as the position probability density for the location of the micro particle is precisely the *point of departure* of QM from the physical reality. The existence of the position probability density P(r,t) makes it possible to calculate the expectation value of the position vector of the micro particle in motion. The expectation value is the mathematical expectation (or mean) in the sense of probability theory. The expectation values of the position vector r and the momentum vector p can be written as, <r> = Integral[r P(r,t) dv] and <p> = Integral[p P(r,t) dv] The uncertainty in the expectation value of x component of position vector r is denoted by delta.x or just dx and is defined to be the root-mean-square deviation from the mean or expectation value of x. Similarly the uncertainty in the expectation value of p is denoted by dp and is defined to be the root-mean-square deviation from the mean or expectation value of p. (dx)^2 = <(x-<x>)^2> = <x^2> - <x>^2 (dp)^2 = <(p-<p>)^2> = <p^2> - <p>^2 The product of these uncertainties can be shown to yield the famous uncertainty relation, dx.dp >= h/4pi Hence it may be summarized that the famous uncertainty principle is founded on the following assumptions, some of which may not remain valid under all circumstances. (a)As per de Broglie's hypothesis all micro particles in motion are accompanied by some sort of wave whose parameters are governed by the kinetic energy and momentum of the micro particle. (b)The intensity of the wave is interpreted as the position probability density for the location of the micro particle in motion. (c)The uncertainty dx or dp in the expectation values of x or p is defined to be the root-mean-square deviation from the mean or expectation values of x or p. Let us now examine a situation where at least one of the above assumptions is not valid. For this let us consider the micro particle under question to be at rest. If the micro particle is not in motion, its momentum and kinetic energy will be zero and obviously therefore, there will be no wave accompanying this particle. (That is because zero frequency and infinite wavelength implies *no wave*) Hence assumption (a) is no longer valid for a micro particle at rest. Logically therefore, the uncertainty relations will not be applicable for any micro particle at rest, for which the associated wave function can be considered as collapsed. GSS > ..... > >>>>>> There is a general misinterpretation of uncertainty [quoted text clipped - 150 lines] > > GSS- Just a few comments: - Your understanding of particle wavefunctions is dim at best. As a small example, you seem unaware of the momentum representation of a wavefunction Psi*(p,t). - Secondly, you suppose that it is possible to define a particle that has NO WAVE representation simply by holding it at rest. You seem to be oblivious to the constraint that *every* particle in quantum mechanics, regardless of its value of kinetic energy, can be associated with a wavefunction. If, by your own claim, a kinetic energy of zero would result in NO WAVE FUNCTION, then this should tell you right away that no particle can have a kinetic energy of zero and still have a wave description. That is, you are supposing that "if a rectangle were to have three sides, then it obviously would demonstrate that the law that all rectangles have four sides doesn't apply to it." - Third, you seem to be unaware of stationary states in quantum mechanics. - Fourth, you are under some misapprehension that "wave function collapse" means the particle has been found at rest and therefore its wave function has ceased to exist. This is not at all what wave function collapse means, and in fact an electron's wavefunction can collapse in a measurement that shows it to have nonzero momentum. If this makes no sense to you, then I advise you to pick up a decent book on quantum mechanics and learn what collapse of the wavefunction really means. I suggest a book by Griffiths. - It is simply NOT TRUE that the intensity of the wavefunction is large in magnitude where the microparticle particle is found. Your phenomenally shallow understanding of the principles of quantum mechanics leaves me at a loss as to how to respond further. PD > Imagination is an indispensable tool for getting any glimpse of > reality. Imagination is required even for interpreting the > observations. Any mathematical model that claims to model physical > reality, cannot serve its purpose if it defies imagination!! That will be news to almost all physicists, who use mathematical models every day that feature such concepts as N-dimensional spaces, Feynman path integrals, de Broglie matter-waves, seas of negative-energy electrons, collisions that scatter particles backwards in time, non-Euclidean topological manifolds, abstract symmetries that relate mathematical 'groups' rather than actual objects, space-time singularities, gravitational waves, superpositions of multiple realities, superstrings that create both space-time and matter-energy out of their vibrations rather than existing within space-time and consisting of matter-energy, and even the fundamental concept of the entire quantum world -- the wave function -- all of which are concepts that cannot be pictured or imagined except through very rough, inaccurate analogies. In fact, the whole reason we HAVE mathematics is to allow us to explore things we CAN'T imagine, through symbolic manipulation according to set rules that capture the essence of how reality operates without the need for direct pictures, which are impossible anyway for most topics of any significant degree of complexity or abstraction. If we could imagine everything, why would we need abstract symbolic manipulation? If you believe that human imagination is greater than reality, and can contain all of it, you are sorely mistaken. In fact, human imagination is merely a *part* of reality, and not a particularly great part. It is as impossible to comprehend all of reality within human imagination as it is to contain our entire galaxy within a small jewelry box -- in fact, infinitely *more* so. 'Nature is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we *can* suppose.' --JBS Haldane Signature--Sean http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/ 'People don't bug me until they get teeth.' --Dr Gregory House >>>In my opinion, the most funny thing with QM is that you are not >>>permitted even to imagine an electron at rest!! >>Actually, you can imagine it. It just won't have any bearing on >>reality. > Well, thanks if you permit me to imagine an electron at rest! > It implies that I am also permitted to define the position of an > electron at rest. Sure it does, if you use the word 'imagine' in a completely different way from the way everyone else in the history of the world has used it, so that it means 'formally define'. You completely missed the point PD was trying to make. Let's try it again, more slowly and with stronger emphasis: 'Actually, you *can*. *IMAGINE* it. It just *won't*. Have *any* bearing. On *REALITY*.' (Pardon my sardonic tone -- no personal offence, I'm just an a.s.) Signature--Sean http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/ 'People don't bug me until they get teeth.' --Dr Gregory House > In my opinion, the most funny thing with QM is that you are not > permitted even to imagine an electron at rest!! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > uncertainty principle will make the uncertainty in its momentum to be > infinity. Hence the electron cannot be at rest!!! Well, if an electron is a wave function that is potentially spread out over the entire universe, it would be odd if you could confine it to an atomic nucleus, much less at one specific point. In the pictures of electron orbitals, 90% of the wave function is spread out over the entire volume of an atom, where it's bound as a standing wave: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function Another way to look at it is even empty space is a manifold of events; if you can't get space to stand still, then the concept of "at complete rest" is simply not defined for the microstructure of nature. SignatureCraig Franck craig.franck@verizon.net Cortland, NY > the uncertainty principle says that you cannot empirically know the > location and momentum of nature in the particle realm for certain [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > models we see in the classical realm, in fact, ALL, interpretations of > quantum mechanics reduce supposed particle behavior to classical behavior (Max Tegmark) "Although quantum mechanics is often described as inherently random and uncertain, the wave function evolves in a deterministic way. There is nothing random or uncertain about it. The sticky part is how to connect this wave function with what we observe. Many legitimate wave functions correspond to counterintuitive situations, such as a cat being dead and alive at the same time in a so-called superposition. In the 1920s physicists explained away this weirdness by postulating that the wave function 'collapsed' into some definite classical outcome whenever someone made an observation. This add-on had the virtue of explaining observations, but it turned an elegant, unitary theory into a kludgy, nonunitary one. The intrinsic randomness commonly ascribed to quantum mechanics is the result of this postulate. Over the years many physicists have abandoned this view in favor of one developed in 1957 by Princeton graduate student Hugh Everett III. He showed that the collapse postulate is unnecessary. Unadulterated quantum theory does not, in fact, pose any contradictions. Although it predicts that one classical reality gradually splits into superpositions of many such realities, observers subjectively experience this splitting merely as a slight randomness, with probabilities in exact agreement with those from the old collapse postulate." --Parallel Universes, Scientific American (David Deutsch) "Some [interpretations] are gibberish, like the Copenhagen interpretation." --Taming The Multiverse, New Scientist (David Deutsch) ".....it is related to a more general anti-rational phenomenon that was present in nearly all 20th-century philosophies, especially logical positivism, and reverberated into other fields. This was intended to be a retreat from metaphysics, which many philosophers considered meaningless, but really it was a retreat from reality and explanation. In physics, it took the form of deciding as a matter of principle that science is not about discovering how the world really is, but instead must confine itself to predicting the outcomes of observations. When quantum mechanics came along it required a drastic revision of people's conception of the world. Many physicists responded by denying that physics is about the world at all, only about what we see. Logical positivism is a form of solipsism. If you say physics is only about predicting the outcomes of experiments, you can only really say it's about experiments that you personally do, because to you any other person is just another thing you're observing. But solipsism is a dead-end philosophy and when it comes to science it's a poison. It doesn't allow further progress from existing theories, and that's why I think applications of quantum theory, particularly quantum computation, were overlooked for decades. You could say people didn't really think the theory was true because they had rejected the idea of truth in science. Truth in science must mean correspondence to reality, or it means nothing. Logical positivism is a dead end, and in science it's a poison." --Lone Voices Special, At Play In The Multiverse } "footprints in the snow" <option48@draze.com> wrote in message news:1178026090.871618.156960@ > (David Deutsch) "Some [interpretations] are gibberish, like the > Copenhagen interpretation." --Taming The Multiverse, New Scientist > > (David Deutsch) ".....it is related to a more general anti-rational > phenomenon that was present in nearly all 20th-century philosophies, > especially logical positivism, and reverberated into other fields. (David Deutsch) "...On September 11th 2001, everything changed. I don't know whether it is I who have misjudged those two men [Bush and Blair], or they who have grown in stature because of the existential logic of the jobs they are doing, but either way I was forced to revise my opinion of both of them sharply upwards. I think the world is very lucky to have the two of them in charge of their respective countries". T. > "footprints in the snow" <option48@draze.com> wrote in message > news:1178026090.871618.156960@ [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > T. "Nevertheless, it is true that [Isaac] Newton wrote some four million words on theology and prophecy and that, although he did not believe the world would end in a fiery cataclysm in 2060, he certainly did believe that biblical prophecy predicted the return of the Jews to Israel, the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple, the return of Christ, the battle of Armageddon and a 1000-year peaceful Kingdom of God on earth. Newton's God was a God of prophecy. That such an icon of rationality should be engaged in something so putatively 'irrational' as the literal interpretation of biblical prophecy, and that he shares so much theological territory with the contemporary premillenarian Protestants that Mr. Harpur is so keen to censure, has placed many observers in a quandary." http://www.isaacnewton.ca/media/Reply_to_Tom_Harpur-Feb_26.pdf Which is to say, there are reasons why that approach became a logical fallacy. } >> "footprints in the snow" <option48@draze.com> wrote in message >> news:1178026090.871618.156960@ [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Which is to say, there are reasons why that approach became a logical > fallacy. You miss the point. Daft though Newton's anti-rational, nonsense-generating obsessions might have been, at least he wasn't simultaneously delivering finger-wagging lectures to the world about 'gibberish' and the all-polluting effects of an 'anti-rational phenomenon'; nor indeed did his foolishness lead him to become a cheer-leader for his age's principal agents of international crime and mass-murder. If Deutsch doesn't want to end up looking more of a kook than Newton ever did, he'll have to learn when to keep his gob shut. T. > >> "footprints in the snow" <option48@draze.com> wrote in message > >> news:1178026090.871618.156960@ [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > T. Since spinning off into politics seemed out of context, I took it that you were going the route of trying to claim that because someone was an idiot in one area that it counted as evidence for that across the board. Aside from that, I had and have no interest in the matter. So if I was mistaken, then feel free to rail about about what Jewish physicists support or don't support outside their usual work (in any particular year) all you want. } >> >> "footprints in the snow" <option48@draze.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1178026090.871618.156960@ [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > physicists support or don't support outside their usual work (in any > particular year) all you want. Excellent melt-down. And I particularly like your gratuitous insertion of race into the topic: it's the most subtle accusation of anti-Semitism this n/g has seen in weeks. T. > >> >> "footprints in the snow" <option48@draze.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:1178026090.871618.156960@ [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > T. Initially a wink at a certain whack-a-doodle I've seen posting in semi- vacant groups in the past, who prattles about muddled conspiracies concerning the theories of Jewish physicists, ranging from Einstein to Lee Smolin. But also a factor in why an Israeli physicist getting an inital buzz from two Anglo-American leaders wanting to whack terrorists in sloppy, misguided fashion probably wasn't that remarkable to me. Yet if you feel he's a full-blown "cheer-leader for his age's principal agents of international crime and mass-murder", then so be it. } > the wave function evolves in a > deterministic way-- the wave function assumes a random (normal) population then ascribes statistics to it, it does NOT describe classical behavior, and IS NOT a unifier SignatureDale http://www.vedantasite.org > > the wave function evolves in a > > deterministic way-- > the wave function assumes a random (normal) population then ascribes > statistics to it, it does NOT describe classical behavior, and IS NOT a > unifier Why are the world's physicists unaware of this amazing fact? Signaturehttp://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "His physical presence has a penis!" -- Anya "I can work around it!" -- Willow > On Tue, 01 May 2007 09:40:45 -0500, Dale Kelly > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Why are the world's physicists unaware of this amazing fact? Because they don't take as much LSD as Dale? gregwrld > Because they don't take as much LSD as Dale? Because the mind is not chemically or physically deterministic, and ones will is free regardless of the chemical environment, obviously LSD can not be a factor in his loss of rationality. And you probably have misrepresented Dale. What may be happening is that he has a chemical imbalance, he has become addicted to it, and hence he has taken a strong stance against all mood altering drugs even and especially when medical practionors recommend them. I base this conjecture partly on his rants against psychiatry. Which may be the hidden truth in his rants. Mood altering drugs are probably oversubscribed. > > Because they don't take as much LSD as Dale? > Because the mind is not chemically or physically deterministic, Yes, it is. :-) > and ones will is free regardless of the chemical environment, No, it is not, no matter what Dale writes. > obviously LSD can not be a factor in his loss of rationality. But by golly it sure did help. > And you probably have misrepresented Dale. What may be > happening is that he has a chemical imbalance, he has become addicted [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Which may be the hidden truth in his rants. Mood altering drugs are > probably oversubscribed. Signaturehttp://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water > > > Because they don't take as much LSD as Dale? > > Because the mind is not chemically or physically deterministic, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No, it is not, no matter what Dale writes. You certainly have a capacity to get awfully ANGRY at the other automatons in the world, don't you? If no one has free will, let people BE, they can't help it. Of course, since I think people have free will I can get as angry as I want and not feel bad. Will in New Haven -- > > obviously LSD can not be a factor in his loss of rationality. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > --http://desertphile.org > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water > > > > Because they don't take as much LSD as Dale? > > > Because the mind is not chemically or physically deterministic, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > No, it is not, no matter what Dale writes. > You certainly have a capacity to get awfully ANGRY at the other > automatons in the world, don't you? Angry? Am I angry? How can you tell? Or are you telling me I should be angry? Or are you saying you want me to be angry, or are you hoping I was, am, or will be angry? > If no one has free will, let > people BE, they can't help it. 100% of the known observations of the world show no such thing as "free will." Dale insists upon issuing dicta about what "free will" is and how "free will" opperates, but so far he has failed utterly to show first that "free will" exists. Dale, and other people who believe "free will" exists, are left in the same sorry state as those who believe flying saucers from outer space are populated and controlled by unearthly creatures: they can (and thousands of them do!) argue about why those space aliens are here, what they look like, what they think about, what they eat, etc., but they never get around to actually producing any evidence for the phenomena they are talking about. "Free will," if it does exist, is unevidenced and therefore irrelevant. > Of course, since I think people have > free will I can get as angry as I want and not feel bad. You do not require anyone's permission to feel whatever you feel; most people have zero control over what they feel (i.e., no "free will" about what and how they feel). Signaturehttp://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "I'm the thing that monsters have nightmares about." -- Bully > On 1 May 2007 11:47:56 -0700, Will in New Haven > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > should be angry? Or are you saying you want me to be angry, or are > you hoping I was, am, or will be angry? You often write things that lead me, someone who does pay attention, to believe that you are probably angry at the automatons who have no more choice in their actions than you do. I am not criticizing you as you don't think you can help it. > > If no one has free will, let > > people BE, they can't help it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > will" is and how "free will" opperates, but so far he has failed > utterly to show first that "free will" exists. I suppose that he has some sort of obligation to prove it exists, since he has been nattering about it for quite awhile. However, what does it matter? If free will doesn't exist, why would you care what he has proven or failed to prove? > Dale, and other people who believe "free will" exists, are left in > the same sorry state as those who believe flying saucers from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they eat, etc., but they never get around to actually producing > any evidence for the phenomena they are talking about. This isn't a classroom or a courtroom. No one has to produce evidence for you. If there is free will, it behooves me to act as if there were. If there isn't, it doesn't matter. > "Free will," if it does exist, is unevidenced and therefore > irrelevant. yawn. > > Of course, since I think people have > > free will I can get as angry as I want and not feel bad. > > You do not require anyone's permission to feel whatever you feel; > most people have zero control over what they feel (i.e., no "free > will" about what and how they feel). I often wonder whether I control what I feel, control my reactions to what I feel or just control SHOWING what I feel but people keep making bad decisions against me at the poker table and that is all I need. Will in New Haven -- > --http://desertphile.org > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water > "I'm the thing that monsters have nightmares about." -- Bully > > If no one has free will, let > > people BE, they can't help it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > will" is and how "free will" opperates, but so far he has failed > utterly to show first that "free will" exists. I think you are falling for a old trick in polemics that dale is using. He is using the old "bait, switch and trap" technique. 1) Dale starts out with the bait, "Scientists and materialists of all sorts claim that the mind including our feelings and morals is controlled by deterministic processes." 2) Deterministic Materialist (you) takes bait: "Yes, morals and feelings are controlled by deterministic processes." a) For the record, I am not going to say that the materialist is absolutely correct here. There may or may not be nondeterministic processes controlling some subjective phenomena. Maybe or maybe not. However, regardless, no statement was made about the "reality" of morals and feelings. 3) Dale switches subject, "You dirty materialist just claimed that feelings and morals aren't real, and therefore you are claiming that anyone can do anytthing one wants and it doesn't matter. I want to be an intolerant bigot and hurt people and other creatures according to my whim. As you just said that feelings and morals aren't real, then it is alright to be a bigot and pick on anything that I so choose. You and the damn (Materialists, Jews, Psychiatrists, etc.) are trying to stop me from exerting my rights." Note at this point it is an obvious lie, as the deterministic materialist never said such a thing. 4) Deterministic Materialist closes trap: "You, Dale, have no proof that feelings or morals are real. As you have no proof, stop yelling at us for saying that I did something wrong." Some people can read the materialist in step 4 and interpret it to mean that it is alright for Dale to do whatever he likes to anything he likes. Which I think is Dale's real goal. I base my analysis on some of his other posts, the ones on quantum mechanics, where he claims that all processes are always classical and therefore deterministic. There, the Dualistic Materialist ends up saying something that sounds like the opposite (some things in life really are capricious) and Dale then comes to the same conclusion: If what you say is correct, then I can be an intolerant bigot and do anything I like to anything and anybody that I like. Funny how two extremely opposite starting points converge on how he, Dale, can do anything he likes to anyone he likes when he likes. His implied arguement concerning religion is that all feelings and morals are controlled by an Intelligent Designer (God). Therefore, individual feelings and morals aren't real. Therefore, Dale has the right to be an intolerant bigot and do whatever he likes to whoever he likes, because the Createor has decided it. Although usually spun that way, the fact that a Creator has decided it does not make feelings and standards of his lesser creations any less real. Job didn't think that way, and Jonah didn't think that way. For my part: Yes, on a microscopic level things are deterministic, although in terms of practicality most things in life are capricious. However, still there are feelings and still there are morals. The issue of Free Will has nothing to do with the reality of feelings or even of morals. The issue of a Creator also has little to do with the existence of feelings and of morals. Therefore, Dale does not have the right to do anything to anybody he wants and I will try to stop it when he does someone. > > On Tue, 01 May 2007 09:40:45 -0500, Dale Kelly > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > Why are the world's physicists unaware of this amazing fact? > Because they don't take as much LSD as Dale? Ah, well that does explain it. :-) Signaturehttp://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water >> the wave function evolves in a >> deterministic way-- > > the wave function assumes a random (normal) population then ascribes > statistics to it, it does NOT describe classical behavior, and IS NOT a > unifier A wave function represents a particle, not a population, and it certainly does not result in classical behavior. Also, a wave function is a probability function, not a statistical function. The distinction is subtle, but it is significant in quantum mechanics. Again, speaking as a physicist, you clearly do not know what you are talking about. > > the wave function evolves in a > > deterministic way-- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org According to quantum mechanics,the ground state energy of many system is non-zero which implies the system is not stable in the ground state also.Then what to say about the excited states ? In this sense,q.m is a farce only > > > the wave function evolves in a > > > deterministic way-- [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is non-zero which implies the system is not stable in the ground state > also. No. I don't know why you think the only stable state of a system is a zero energy state. > Then what to say about the excited states ? > In this sense,q.m is a farce only > all nature in the particle realm, ALWAYS, results in the cause and effect > models we see in the classical realm, in fact, ALL, interpretations of > quantum mechanics reduce supposed particle behavior to classical behavior You just contradicted yourself. You claimed in other posts that the mind is not determined by the laws of deterministic physics, that there is a will and a process of decision making that has no cause and effect. If so, the particles of the brain can not be bound by any cause and effect. Obviously, there is a part of nature in the particle realm that you explicitly believe does not follow rules of classical behavior. If all nature in the particle realm reduces to classical behavior, then there is no free will. This is because your brain and body are made of particles. Did you take your medication before you made that statement? There are mainstream (well, slightly off mainstream) physics theories that reinterprete quantum phenomenon as being emergent properties from a physical theory that is more classical. Sometimes it is refered to as the stochastic electrodynamics theory (SED). If interested, look up a) stochastic electrodynamics, b)zeropoint energy. If the SED theory are true, of course, it applies to the particles of the brain as well. Thus, there is no free will as you have claimed. > all nature in the particle realm, ALWAYS, results in the cause and effect > models we see in the classical realm, in fact, ALL, interpretations of > quantum mechanics reduce supposed particle behavior to classical behavior If you could measure it. But that is impossible. With billions of particles and assorted gizwidgets reacting to each other and changing their relative positions by the nanosecond, any kind of measuring method or instrument would change the interactions and the (altered) data collected would be hopelessly outdated before you could read it. Is that what you mean? How come Heisenberg didn't think of that? Yep. Just because Heisenberg was uncertain don't mean the rest of us have to be. Doug Chandler > the uncertainty principle says that you cannot empirically know the > location and momentum of nature in the particle realm for certain Actually, no, it does not say this at all. It does NOT say for example that you cannot empirically know the location and momentum of a particle at all. Videotaping a billiard ball is sufficient evidence that you can empirically know both. What the uncertainly principle DOES say is that the product of the *magnitudes* of the uncertainties of position and momentum of any particle (including a billiard ball) will be at least a particular minimum value. For macroscopic objects, this magnitude is so small that it doesn't really matter. For microscopic objects, it does begin to matter. Note the enormous difference between saying that an uncertainty in a momentum exceeds a certain value, and saying that the momentum is completely uncertain. Dale is under the impression that quantum mechanics says that position and momentum are *completely uncertain* -- that is, nothing is known at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a basic misunderstanding of simple terms, and a little bit of reading will correct the misunderstanding. PD > many unethical scientists have equated uncertainty with randomness and > propagated an uncorrect philosophy called quantum mechanics [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > models we see in the classical realm, in fact, ALL, interpretations of > quantum mechanics reduce supposed particle behavior to classical behavior Actually, this is demonstrably, experimentally NOT true. Deterministic cause and effect (that is, two initial states prepared identically and with the same laws of physics in play will always produce identical final states) simply does NOT happen in all reaches of the universe. If fact, it only happens in the small corner of the universe that we are comfortable in through our ordinary senses, which is not at all representative of the universe as a whole. Tough noogies. PD > the uncertainty principle says that you cannot empirically know the > location and momentum of nature in the particle realm for certain [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > models we see in the classical realm, in fact, ALL, interpretations of > quantum mechanics reduce supposed particle behavior to classical behavior Ignorant fool! > the uncertainty principle says that you cannot empirically know the > location and momentum of nature in the particle realm for certain More than that. The uncertainty principle says a singularly defined position and momentum do not exist as they are conjugate variables. This is a property of waves and there is an analogous property for sound between time and frequency: you cannot play a perfect note in an instant of time. > many unethical scientists have equated uncertainty with randomness and > propagated an uncorrect philosophy called quantum mechanics "Uncertainty" principle may even be a misnomer, but your ad hominem's are asinine. > if you are uncertain, this is NOT random, in fact it means that you > CANNOT even know if the population of particles is random, a random > population is determinate and has statistical properties You are confused. The uncertainty refers to the standard deviation of the distribution of measurements and not any uncertainty of the actual measurement. Individual measurements may very well be exact. > all nature in the particle realm, ALWAYS, results in the cause and effect > models we see in the classical realm, in fact, ALL, interpretations of > quantum mechanics reduce supposed particle behavior to classical behavior That's backwards thinking. It's total misinformation to put it mildly my trip to the new planet will soon show this to be so. I mean 20,000 light years from Earth being able to get there in less than an hour is a super dooper miracle and again I want to thank Hank with all my heart and soul for the ticket. I alway thought we had taken and had such travel trecknology the governments of Earth got from crashed alien devices. Nothing is imposible using simple love and light. 1111 is where it's all at - so, then.....there you go and that's it. > > the uncertainty principle says that you cannot empirically know the > > location and momentum of nature in the particle realm for certain [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > That's backwards thinking. On May 1, 5:33 pm, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > the uncertainty principle says that you cannot empirically know the > > location and momentum of nature in the particle realm for certain [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > That's backwards thinking. you are still wrong and growing more and more dishonest having been already corrected enjoying intellectual dishonesty chris? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > On May 1, 5:33 pm, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > enjoying intellectual dishonesty chris? As much as you are enjoying your nonexistent Bohmian QFT. On May 5, 12:38 pm, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 1, 5:33 pm, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > As much as you are enjoying your nonexistent Bohmian QFT. well since i posted published articles supporting my claims i am sure you are quite able to point out any mathematical flaws i am quite willing to accept mathematical mistakes and admit my position is wrong if they are pointed out i will await your cogent response -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > On May 5, 12:38 pm, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > i will await your cogent response Calculate some cross sections for us, with your Bohmian QFT. On May 5, 6:56 pm, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 5, 12:38 pm, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Calculate some cross sections for us, with your Bohmian QFT. that is a very strange request how do you calculate cross sections for the many-worlds interpretation? the consistent histories interpretation? grw? what about the quantum logic interpretation? causal sets interpretation? i'll tell you if you do not understand you do it the exact same way you do it in the copenhagen interpretation perturbation expansion is the most common starting with the lagrangian and pulling off scattering terms using feynmann diagrams or some other placeholder or there are explicit analytic methods in some rare integrable systems why would you think the interpretation chosen has anything to do with the method of calculation? how do you possibly imagine the phenomenology of copenhagen comes into play here? i did notice you made no mathematical claims against the papers have you read t'hooft's http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0105105 nobel prize winning t'hooft claiming realistic quantum mechanics may be the only way to overcome the ontological problems of all the other quantum gravity attempts of course not you don't like to read or research you just like to post your spew on usenet and even when its been pointed out to be incorrect you continue blindly smugly refusing to learn anything -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > On May 5, 6:56 pm, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > have you read t'hooft's > http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0105105 actually the paper of his i intended to reference was http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0212/0212095v1.pdf the other paper is good but it was this later paper where he explains the issues and suggests the beables of the model that interests him he actually has written quite often on this offering his own realist quantum field theories there are actually a huge number of such theories throughout the literature > nobel prize winning t'hooft > claiming realistic quantum mechanics [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > On May 5, 6:56 pm, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar So you can't. On May 6, 12:00 am, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 5, 6:56 pm, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > > So you can't. for the process - + - + e + e -> γ + γ ( pair annihilation ) the two lowest level feynman diagrams are ^ ^ . . .-->--. / \ ^ V and ^ ^ . . .--<--. \ / X / \ ^ V which contribute to the s-matrix as S = -e^2 ( 2 pi )^4 delta( k_1 + k_2 - p_1 - p_2 ) x ( 1/ '\/( 2 k_1 k_2 ) ) '\/( m / E_2) vbar( p_2, s_2 ) x ( eps_2 1/(ps_1 - ks_1 - m) eps_1 + eps_1 1/(ps_2 - ks_2 - m) eps_2 ) x '\/( m / E_1 ) u( p_1, s_1 ) now if i take the lorentz frame the representation gives k_1 = m ( m + E ) / ( m + E - |p| cos( theta ) ) k_2 = ( m + E ) ( E - |p| cos( theta ) ) / ( m + E - |p| cos( theta ) ) so the trace of the scattering matrix simplifies to tr(S) = 1 / 2m^2 ( k_2 / k_1 + k_1 / k_2 - 4( ep_1 . ep_2 )^2 + 2 ) ) so dsigma ------ = alpha^2 ( m + E ) / ( 8 |p| ( m + E - |p| cos( theta ) )^2 ) dOmega x 2 m^2 tr(S) and integrating over the solid angle gives sigma = pi alpha^2 / ( m^2 ( 1 + γ ) ) x ( ( γ^2 + 4 γ + 1 ) / ( γ^2 - 1 ) x ln( γ + '\/( γ^2 - 1 ) ) - ( γ + 3 ) / '\/( γ^2 - 1 ) ) ie. the cross section now again where does copenhagen's phenomenalism get used here? again don't think i didn't notice you provided no mathematical objections to the papers you have no desire to learn you have no real interest except to try to sound right in front of others and yet you set yourself up to look extremely ignorant and unable to read even the simplest of physical research why do you do that? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > On May 6, 12:00 am, "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 187 lines] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar I didn't see any Bohmian interpretation. > how do you calculate cross sections for the many-worlds > interpretation? > the consistent histories interpretation? > grw? > what about the quantum logic interpretation? > causal sets interpretation? How about the stochastic electrodynamics (with Lorentz invariant radiation) interpretation? I think that is a real strong contender as an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation (and all those others). > > how do you calculate cross sections for the many-worlds > > interpretation? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think that is a real strong contender as an alternative to the > Copenhagen interpretation (and all those others). I cat sitted for Lotemtz' cat for a couple of weeks back in 1967 when he went on tour. > the uncertainty principle says that you cannot empirically know the > location and momentum of nature in the particle realm for certain 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. That uncertainty is very, very small. > many unethical scientists have equated uncertainty with randomness and > propagated an uncorrect philosophy called quantum mechanics Can you name one? The uncertainty principle says nothing about randomness or probability or statistics. > if you are uncertain, this is NOT random, in fact it means that you > CANNOT even know if the population of particles is random, a random > population is determinate and has statistical properties 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 between quantum mechanics and quantum physics? > all nature in the particle realm, ALWAYS, results in the cause and effect > models we see in the classical realm, in fact, ALL, interpretations of > quantum mechanics reduce supposed particle behavior to classical behavior Again, you clearly do not know what you are talking about. If quantum physics were a farce, nuclear decay would not be possible, the laser in your CD and DVD players would not work, and we could not use spectroscopy. Only someone who knows next to nothing about quantum physics (I'm giving you credit for spelling "quantum" correctly) would make the statements that you just made. We have already covered this subject. But rather than engage in a < |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message