God doesn't play dice: cause and effect
in [Relativity]
|
From: sadovnik socratus on 9 May 2010 14:34 God doesn't play dice: cause and effect (causality and dependence) Einstein said "God doesn't play dice" because he didnt accept the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory. 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 wasnt 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. # But other group of scientists didnt agree with them. Their leaders, Bohr and Heisenberg, said in micro world we must refuse to describe particles behaviour to the smallest detail. Here is enough to use Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle. Most scientists agreed with them saying: There isnt better interpretation quantum physics than Heisenbergs . From time to time somebody tried to give new interpretation and explanation quantum situation (more concrete ) but without success. And at last Feynman said: I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. And somebody agreed with him saying, we cannot understand, but we can accustomed to it. Yes, they accustomed to the paradoxical quantum micro world and now, developing it, they created new paradoxes ( quarks, dark matter/ energy, string theory, new particles, new dimensions and new symmetries . . .and etc) # I try to understand the situation. 1. We have dualistic particle as a math point. 2. We have two kinds of space: a) Minkowski ( -4D) and a its shadow - b) separate independent space and independent time (3D+t) 3. The dualistic particle/wave point can move from one point to other, or (maybe) from one space (-4D) to another (3D+t). # This situation was known from 1908 but it still is unsolved. Is this situation hard puzzle ? Isnt clear that we need to know: dualism of particle,(-4D ) and its shadow (3D+ t) to solve this puzzle problem ? But these categories of being scientists try no debate now. Why? Maybe they are busy solving other problems . . . and . . . .. . . create new paradoxes . . .. . . . . . I dont know. # I remember that about 50 years ago I have read one interesting book. Maybe this book will help me to understand the situation. I must reread it again. Where is it? Here it is: Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus: The Praise of Folly. ===============. All the best. Socratus.
From: BURT on 9 May 2010 15:16 On May 9, 11:34 am, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > God doesn't play dice: cause and effect > (causality and dependence) > > Einstein said "God doesn't play dice" because he didnt accept > the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory. 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 wasnt 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. > # > But other group of scientists didnt agree with them. > Their leaders, Bohr and Heisenberg, said in micro world we must > refuse to describe particles behaviour to the smallest detail. > Here is enough to use Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle. > Most scientists agreed with them saying: There isnt better > interpretation quantum physics than Heisenbergs . > From time to time somebody tried to give new interpretation > and explanation quantum situation (more concrete ) but without > success. And at last Feynman said: I think I can safely say > that nobody understands quantum mechanics. And somebody > agreed with him saying, we cannot understand, but we can > accustomed to it. > Yes, they accustomed to the paradoxical quantum micro world > and now, developing it, they created new paradoxes ( quarks, > dark matter/ energy, string theory, new particles, new dimensions > and new symmetries . . .and etc) > # > I try to understand the situation. > 1. > We have dualistic particle as a math point. > 2. > We have two kinds of space: > a) Minkowski ( -4D) and a its shadow - > b) separate independent space and independent time (3D+t) > 3. > The dualistic particle/wave point can move from one point > to other, or (maybe) from one space (-4D) to another (3D+t). > # > This situation was known from 1908 but it still is unsolved. > Is this situation hard puzzle ? > Isnt clear that we need to know: dualism of particle,(-4D ) > and its shadow (3D+ t) to solve this puzzle problem ? > But these categories of being scientists try no debate now. > Why? > Maybe they are busy solving other problems . . . and . . . > . . . create new paradoxes . . .. . . . . . I dont know. > # > I remember that about 50 years ago I have read one interesting > book. Maybe this book will help me to understand the situation. > I must reread it again. > Where is it? Here it is: > Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus: The Praise of Folly. > ===============. > All the best. > Socratus. Science knows only the odds. God knows every outcome. Mitch Raemsch
From: Bill Hobba on 9 May 2010 21:26 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 > # > But other group of scientists didn�t agree with them. > Their leaders, Bohr and Heisenberg, said in micro world we must > refuse to describe particle�s behaviour to the smallest detail. > Here is enough to use Heisenberg�s Uncertainty Principle. > Most scientists agreed with them saying: �There isn�t better > interpretation quantum physics than Heisenberg�s �. > From time to time somebody tried to give new interpretation > and explanation quantum situation (more concrete ) but without > success. And at last Feynman said: �I think I can safely say > that nobody understands quantum mechanics.� And somebody > agreed with him saying, we cannot understand, but we can > accustomed to it. > Yes, they accustomed to the paradoxical quantum micro world > and now, developing it, they created new paradoxes ( quarks, > dark matter/ energy, string theory, new particles, new dimensions > and new symmetries . . .and etc) > # > I try to understand the situation. > 1. > We have dualistic particle as a � math point�. > 2. > We have two kinds of space: > a) Minkowski ( -4D) and a its shadow - > b) separate independent space and independent time (3D+t) > 3. > The dualistic particle/wave point can move from one point > to other, or (maybe) from one space (-4D) to another (3D+t). > # > This situation was known from 1908 but it still is unsolved. > Is this situation hard puzzle ? > Isn�t clear that we need to know: dualism of particle,(-4D ) > and its shadow � (3D+ t) to solve this puzzle � problem ? > But these categories of being scientists try no debate now. > Why? > Maybe they are busy solving other problems . . . and . . . > . . . create new paradoxes . . .. . . . . . I don�t know. > # > I remember that about 50 years ago I have read one interesting > book. Maybe this book will help me to understand the situation. > I must reread it again. > Where is it? Here it is: > Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus: �The Praise of Folly.� > ===============. > All the best. > Socratus. >
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 11 May 2010 14:20 sadovnik socratus wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 11:34:24 -0700: > 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. 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. And all of them were wrong. > 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. > # > But other group of scientists didn't agree with them. Their leaders, > Bohr and Heisenberg, said in micro world we must refuse to describe > particle's behaviour to the smallest detail. Here is enough to use > Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Most scientists agreed with them > saying: 'There isn't better > interpretation quantum physics than Heisenberg's '. > From time to time somebody tried to give new interpretation > and explanation quantum situation (more concrete ) but without success. > And at last Feynman said: 'I think I can safely say > that nobody understands quantum mechanics.' And somebody > agreed with him saying, we cannot understand, but we can > accustomed to it. > Yes, they accustomed to the paradoxical quantum micro world > and now, developing it, they created new paradoxes ( quarks, > dark matter/ energy, string theory, new particles, new dimensions > and new symmetries . . .and etc) > # > I try to understand the situation. > 1. > We have dualistic particle as a ' math point'. 2. > We have two kinds of space: > a) Minkowski ( -4D) and a its shadow - b) separate independent space and > independent time (3D+t) 3. > The dualistic particle/wave point can move from one point to other, or > (maybe) from one space (-4D) to another (3D+t). # > This situation was known from 1908 but it still is unsolved. Is this > situation hard puzzle ? > Isn't clear that we need to know: dualism of particle,(-4D ) > and its shadow – (3D+ t) to solve this puzzle – problem ? But these > categories of being scientists try no debate now. > Why? > Maybe they are busy solving other problems . . . and . . . . . . create > new paradoxes . . .. . . . . . I don't know. # > I remember that about 50 years ago I have read one interesting book. > Maybe this book will help me to understand the situation. I must reread > it again. > Where is it? Here it is: > Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus: 'The Praise of Folly.' ===============. > All the best. > Socratus. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: PD on 11 May 2010 15:42
On May 9, 1:34 pm, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > God doesn't play dice: cause and effect > (causality and dependence) > > Einstein said "God doesn't play dice" because he didnt accept > the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory. 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 wasnt 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. > # > But other group of scientists didnt agree with them. > Their leaders, Bohr and Heisenberg, said in micro world we must > refuse to describe particles behaviour to the smallest detail. > Here is enough to use Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle. > Most scientists agreed with them saying: There isnt better > interpretation quantum physics than Heisenbergs . > From time to time somebody tried to give new interpretation > and explanation quantum situation (more concrete ) but without > success. And at last Feynman said: I think I can safely say > that nobody understands quantum mechanics. And somebody > agreed with him saying, we cannot understand, but we can > accustomed to it. > Yes, they accustomed to the paradoxical quantum micro world > and now, developing it, they created new paradoxes ( quarks, > dark matter/ energy, string theory, new particles, new dimensions > and new symmetries . . .and etc) > # > I try to understand the situation. > 1. > We have dualistic particle as a math point. > 2. > We have two kinds of space: > a) Minkowski ( -4D) and a its shadow - > b) separate independent space and independent time (3D+t) > 3. > The dualistic particle/wave point can move from one point > to other, or (maybe) from one space (-4D) to another (3D+t). > # > This situation was known from 1908 but it still is unsolved. > Is this situation hard puzzle ? > Isnt clear that we need to know: dualism of particle,(-4D ) > and its shadow (3D+ t) to solve this puzzle problem ? > But these categories of being scientists try no debate now. > Why? > Maybe they are busy solving other problems . . . and . . . > . . . create new paradoxes . . .. . . . . . I dont know. > # > I remember that about 50 years ago I have read one interesting > book. Maybe this book will help me to understand the situation. > I must reread it again. > Where is it? Here it is: > Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus: The Praise of Folly. > ===============. > All the best. > Socratus. Rather that sitting back and "trying to understand" the whole thing, it might be best to look at the following sequence of papers: 1. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47 777 (1935). 2. J. S. Bell, On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447 (1966). 3. A. Aspect et al., Experimental Realization of Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell's Inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91 (1982). This way, you can see for yourself what nature has revealed about herself in experiment. |