"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Tue Sorensen on 6 Mar 2010 18:24 On 6 Mar., 21:24, Greg Goss <go...(a)gossg.org> wrote: > Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Don't get this. Don't you believe in an objective universe? > > You're saying that the cat has to be either alive or dead, even before > someone looks in the box? That's what Schroedinger thought, too. Yep, I'm most definitely saying that. Even if the basic principle is sound (which I'm undecided on), Schroedinger's Cat is a blown-up illustration of a quantum principle which wouldn't work as intended in an actual set-up. The scale is far too big. - Tue
From: Tue Sorensen on 6 Mar 2010 18:25 On 6 Mar., 21:22, Greg Goss <go...(a)gossg.org> wrote: > Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Which is precisely why I claim that QM is bad science. It has just > >decided that the rabbit hole doesn't go any deeper, and stopped trying > >to go further. > > I've been told that Schroedinger wasn't trying to illustrate QM with > his famous cat, but that his model was intended to show how absurd the > proposed principles would be. > > If that's true, he's probably be intensely frustrated that his example > is one of the first illustrations you run into whenever discussing QM. You ain't lying. - Tue
From: Erik Max Francis on 6 Mar 2010 18:28 Tue Sorensen wrote: > On 5 Mar., 23:35, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: >> Tue Sorensen wrote: >>> Isn't that exactly what EMR is, though? Superpositional lightspeed >>> waves that only rarely, under certain circumstances, act as particles? >> Um, no. Presuming by "EMR" you mean electromagnetic radiation, it just >> consists of photons, which are elementary particles which always travel >> at c. >> >>> I think EMR qualifies as "energy" too. I know it's difficult to put >>> into equations, but essentially I think we have to operate with such a >>> thing as free-floating energy, and electromagnetic radiation is the >>> main form of it. After all, perhaps the most cental process in all the >>> universe - stellar fusion - concerns vast quantities of matter being >>> transformed into energy (and hence comprises a major illustration of E >>> = mc2). I think the proper way of comprehending the universe is to >>> understand how matter and energy behave in relation to each other, not >>> just in Einstein's equation but concretely in the physical universe. >> It's not clear what you're confused about here, but it's clearly something. > > I doubt not that! :-) Perhaps some humility about dictating how the Universe must work is called for, then. >> Photons contain energy, yes. (They're very simple particles; they don't >> contain much else.) Other particles also contain energy, and >> arrangements of particles, given certain fields, can also contain energy >> within them. This is all well-known; you're acting like we don't >> understand how fusion works. > > What I guess I am getting at is that, since matter is something > concrete, energy should be, too, rather than just being potential, > kinetic, momentum, Joules, etc. I am searching for an "energy medium" > of sorts - a carrier medium of pure energy. And I think we have it in > EM waves. I realize that "pure energy" in the spatial universe as we > know it will most often turn into particles, and that the quantum/ > superpositionality properties of energy prevents it from being > concrete like matter, but I will still claim that electromagnetic > radiation in itself, in its wave form, when the wave function is > maintained/uncollapsed, must correspond to "energy" (and only after > the collapse of the wave function do we get particles, because that's > when the given quantum of energy "shrinks"/collapses into material > definition). After all, going by E = mc2, what takes place in stars is > the fusion of hydrogen into helium (etc.), leading to a massive > release of energy, i.e. EMR; light in diverse wavelengths being > emitted from the star, i.e. matter having turned into energy. Correct? > > I think there is a reluctance in current science to define energy > properly, and acknowledge its nature in the form of EMR. It is as if > we refuse to accept "energy" as an extant and real phenomenon in > itself (the way we see matter), preferring to look at it only as > particles or kinetic momentum. And this seems to be because of the way > energy is treated in the equations and the math. To me, this way of > treating energy is obsolescent. We need a better way of talking about > and defining energy, also in the math. That is my impression, at > least. This screed doesn't really make much sense. Energy is a fundamental concept in physics, and the only one seeming to have trouble understanding it is you -- even by your own admission. That you used the phrase "potential, kinetic, momentum, Joules" indicates serious disorganization and lack of understanding of what those words even mean. Perhaps you should try learning some physics before dictating that physics needs major modifications? If you're the only one struggling to understand something, perhaps the problem isn't in what you're having difficulty understanding. -- Erik Max Francis && max(a)alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis Where are they? -- Enrico Fermi, 1901-1954
From: Tue Sorensen on 6 Mar 2010 18:29 On 6 Mar., 04:40, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > : Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> > : If QM believes in true randomness, then I disagree with it, along with > : Albert E. Everything follows laws. Otherwise the universe couldn't work. > > So... basically you're prejudiced, and impervious to > evidence and reasoning. Good to know. If things don't follow laws, they can't obey principles of reasoning, either. Evidence is frequently incomplete. It's silliness to believe anything else. - Tue
From: Tue Sorensen on 6 Mar 2010 18:32
On 6 Mar., 04:38, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > : Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> > : Well, you know, it's going to be my little contribution to the > : scientific terminology one day! > > Typically, to contibute new scientific terminology, one has to > at least vaguely understand current scientific terminology. > Which does not seem to be the case here. Not letting a small thing like that stop me... <g> - T! |