Prev: The biggest glaring hole in physics
Next: The end of GR ??!!
From: sadovnik socratus on 12 May 2010 07:32
Cause & Effect: Determinism & Probability.
1.
Classical physics.
Between cause & effect the determining principle acts.
Is this principle correct?
The classical experiments say: it is correct.
2
Quantum physics.
Between cause & effect only probabilistic or
statistical principle acts.
Is this principle correct?
The quantum experiments say: it is correct.
3.
Why are they, both, correct?
Where their unity?
===========.
Socratus.
From: PD on 12 May 2010 08:44
On May 12, 6:32 am, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>      Cause & Effect:  Determinism & Probability.
> 1.
> Classical physics.
> Between cause & effect the determining principle acts.
> Is this principle correct?
> The classical experiments say: it is correct.
> 2
> Quantum physics.
> Between cause & effect only probabilistic or
> statistical principle acts.
> Is this principle correct?
> The quantum experiments say: it is correct.
> 3.
> Why are they, both, correct?
> Where their unity?
>    ===========.
> Socratus.

There is something called the correspondence principle.
What it says is that quantum mechanics, at a scale much larger than
Planck's constant, begins to mimic all the observed behaviors we
associate with classical physics.

It's important to remember what classical determinism says. It is NOT
a statement so much about underlying cause and determined effect. What
it is, is a statement about observation: If a physical system is
prepared in the identical state twice, then the *observed* outcome
will be the same. This doesn't say anything about deterministic cause
and effect relationships. For the most part, it can be shown that
quantum mechanics will produce this behavior, which is the basis for
the correspondence principle.

Some people have noted exceptions, the most popular and famous of
which is Schrodinger's cat.

PD
From: eon on 12 May 2010 14:49
On May 10, 3:26 am, Bill Hobba <bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 10/05/2010 4:34 AM, sadovnik socratus wrote:> God doesn't play dice: cause and effect
> > (causality and dependence)
>
> > Einstein said "God doesn't play dice" because he didn’t accept
> > the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory.
>
> >
>
> Thats not quite true. He didn't have a problem with that - his real
> objection lay in the EPR paradox.
>
> > He thought
> > that behind the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory some
> > real process is hidden. This real process makes the situation
> > probabilistic. Thinking so - Einstein wasn’t alone.
> > P. Langevin told, that to speak about crash of unity between
> > cause and effect is ‘ intellectual lechery’. And Lorentz,
> > de Broglie, Schrodinger believed that the situation in the
> > micro world can be explained in details. All of them considered
> > that the particles and fields exist in real space and time and they
> > can move from one point to another. And this situation is possible
> > to describe not only probabilistically but in details too.
>
> Sure - if you like that we have some modern interpretations that restore
> that type of thing if its what you prefer eg Quantum State Diffusion:http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2001/HPL-2001-7.pdf
>
> The issue is we cant find experiential support one way or the other - it
> is simply a philosophical preference. Scientists aren't too worried by
> that sort of thing since they are more concerned with experiment.
>
> Thanks
> Bill

you are so error

they hate experiments
From: eon on 12 May 2010 14:57
On May 12, 2:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 6:32 am, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Cause & Effect: Determinism & Probability.
> > 1.
> > Classical physics.
> > Between cause & effect the determining principle acts.
> > Is this principle correct?
> > The classical experiments say: it is correct.
> > 2
> > Quantum physics.
> > Between cause & effect only probabilistic or
> > statistical principle acts.
> > Is this principle correct?
> > The quantum experiments say: it is correct.
> > 3.
> > Why are they, both, correct?
> > Where their unity?
> > ===========.
> > Socratus.
>
> There is something called the correspondence principle.
> What it says is that quantum mechanics, at a scale much larger than
> Planck's constant, begins to mimic all the observed behaviors we
> associate with classical physics.
>
> It's important to remember what classical determinism says. It is NOT
> a statement so much about underlying cause and determined effect. What
> it is, is a statement about observation: If a physical system is
> prepared in the identical state twice, then the *observed* outcome
> will be the same. This doesn't say anything about deterministic cause
> and effect relationships. For the most part, it can be shown that
> quantum mechanics will produce this behavior, which is the basis for
> the correspondence principle.
>
> Some people have noted exceptions, the most popular and famous of
> which is Schrodinger's cat.

which is so error

they mismatch macro and quantum objects
in same equation

good bye


>
> PD

From: Igor on 2 Jun 2010 13:19
On Jun 2, 3:26 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> The amount of probability--
> is the amount of our   IGNORANCE    !!!
> ATB
> Y.Porat

So we'll put you down for 100%?

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: The biggest glaring hole in physics
Next: The end of GR ??!!