God doesn't play dice: cause and effect
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Links and snippets. DEMONSTRATING THAT GAGALOGY IS GOING WELL & KICKING .... and light years indeed from the superior intelligence found in True Geology
Next: Direct observation of Born-Oppenheimer approximation breakdown in carbon nanotubes
From: sadovnik socratus on 9 May 2010 14:35 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: David Bernier on 2 Jun 2010 03:18 David Bernier wrote: > spudnik wrote: >> and, thinking of Gauss's characterization of Fermatttt primes, >> I'd say, God uses archimedean& catalan dice *if God wants to do, so* >> -- >> just like the D&D nerds ... unless God uses Pierpont primes! >> >>> Thinking of photons as baseballs is likely to lead to confusion. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement > > > You seem to be keen on diversions ... > > Concerning quantum entanglement, I just read about something > known as Hardy's Paradox (after L. Hardy): > > < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy's_paradox > , > > "Direct observation of Hardy's paradox by joint weak measurement with an > entangled photon pair", > Yokota, Yamamoto, Koashi and Imoto, > < http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/11/3/033011/ > > > and a not so technical account, "Quantum Cakes" here: > > < > http://research.physics.illinois.edu/qi/photonics/papers/QuantumCakes.pdf > > > If the Appendix of Kwiat and Hardy's "The mystery of the quantum cakes" > were a bit more detailed, I think I'd have a better chance at > understanding. If someone understands Hardy's paradox well, I'd > be pleased to read about it. > > > > They write: > > << However, even allowing for the auxillary assumptions [...] oops... "auxiliary" /\
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%?
From: spudnik on 2 Jun 2010 15:05 the introduction sounded good; I'll read it, later. http://research.physics.illinois.edu/qi/photonics/papers/QuantumCakes... thusNso: ladies & germs, nature abhors a refractive index equal to 1.0000..., and I thank Pascal for his dyscovery of it, and damn Einstein for his damn "photon" reification of Newton's God-am corpuscle -- so, let's get on with it! thusNso: Michelson and Morely did not get no results, as has been amply demonstrated by follow-on researchers, and documented by "surfer" herein. Minkowsi's silly statement about time & space --then, he died-- has been hobbling minds, ever since; it is just a phase-space, clearly elaborated with quaternions (and the language of "vectors" that Hamilton created thereby .-) thusNso: clearly, NeinStein#9 doesn't know what *mathematica* is; it's not just a "visualization programme" from the Wolframites! http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html Dear Editor; The staff report on plastic bags, given when SM considered a ban, before, refused to list the actual fraction of a penny, paid for them by bulk users like grocers & farmers at markets. Any rational EIR would show that, at a fraction of a gram of "fossilized fuel (TM)" per bag, a) they require far less energy & materiel than a paper bag, and b) that recycling them is impractical, beyond reusing the clean ones for carrying & garbage, as many responsible folks do. As I stated at that meeting, perhaps coastal communities *should* ban them -- except at farmers' markets -- because they are such efficient examples of "tensional integrity," that they can clog stormdrains by catching all sorts of leaves, twigs & paper. But, a statewide ban is just too much of an environmental & economic burden. --Stop British Petroleum's capNtrade rip-off; tell your legislators, a tiny tax on carbon could achieve the result, instead of "let the arbitrageurs/hedgies/daytrippers make as much money as they can on CO2 credits!" http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 2 Jun 2010 19:23
well, I've got to say, it's hard to see a cake as a wave. y'know, a three-dimensional wave, like the 2D wave that is made, when dropping a stone in the water. thusNso: ladies & germs, nature abhors a refractive index equal to 1.0000..., and I thank Pascal for his dyscovery of it, and damn Einstein for his damn "photon" reification of Newton's God-am corpuscle -- so, let's get on with it! thusNso: Michelson and Morely did not get no results, as has been amply demonstrated by follow-on researchers, and documented by "surfer" herein. Minkowsi's silly statement about time & space --then, he died-- has been hobbling minds, ever since; it is just a phase-space, clearly elaborated with quaternions (and the language of "vectors" that Hamilton created thereby .-) thusNso: clearly, NeinStein#9 doesn't know what *mathematica* is; it's not just a "visualization programme" from the Wolframites! http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html Dear Editor; The staff report on plastic bags, given when SM considered a ban, before, refused to list the actual fraction of a penny, paid for them by bulk users like grocers & farmers at markets. Any rational EIR would show that, at a fraction of a gram of "fossilized fuel (TM)" per bag, a) they require far less energy & materiel than a paper bag, and b) that recycling them is impractical, beyond reusing the clean ones for carrying & garbage, as many responsible folks do. As I stated at that meeting, perhaps coastal communities *should* ban them -- except at farmers' markets -- because they are such efficient examples of "tensional integrity," that they can clog stormdrains by catching all sorts of leaves, twigs & paper. But, a statewide ban is just too much of an environmental & economic burden. --Stop British Petroleum's capNtrade rip-off; tell your legislators, a tiny tax on carbon could achieve the result, instead of "let the arbitrageurs/hedgies/daytrippers make as much money as they can on CO2 credits!" http://wlym.com |