Radioactive decay and the myth of randomness
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Can we predict the outcome of a tossed coin?
Next: group of formal differences vs. Grothendieck group
From: James Burns on 16 Nov 2009 12:24 tg wrote: > > Yeah, option 3, and I also think you have been over-consuming > caffeinated beverages or something. I always wonder about people who > can't read through a couple of short paragraphs before rambling on > with a reply that is nowhere near the point. All-righty, then. I'll give you the Reader's Digest version below. And here is the executive summary of the Reader's Digest version: You're wrong. Jim Burns I wrote: > tg wrote: > >> I'm fascinated by JJ's ability to elicit responses >> with his language which closely approaches quantum >> randomness. However, there is a reasonable underlying >> language/philosophical question. > > I agree that these questions about quantum randomness > and others like them are reasonable. But the program of > consulting our intuition about their answers has expired, > has ceased to be: it is an ex-program. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Importance_of_the_theorem
From: tg on 16 Nov 2009 12:37 On Nov 16, 12:24 pm, James Burns <burns...(a)osu.edu> wrote: > tg wrote: > > > > > Yeah, option 3, and I also think you have been over-consuming > > caffeinated beverages or something. I always wonder about people who > > can't read through a couple of short paragraphs before rambling on > > with a reply that is nowhere near the point. > > All-righty, then. I'll give you the Reader's Digest version > below. > > And here is the executive summary of the Reader's Digest version: > You're wrong. > Makes my point. You can't make a clear statement of what I'm wrong *about*, so you either throw up a lot of chaff and do a lot of hand- waving, or do the indignation dodge. If someone can describe an experiment to test my proposed conjecture, I'm listening. -tg > Jim Burns > > I wrote: > > tg wrote: > > >> I'm fascinated by JJ's ability to elicit responses > >> with his language which closely approaches quantum > >> randomness. However, there is a reasonable underlying > >> language/philosophical question. > > > I agree that these questions about quantum randomness > > and others like them are reasonable. But the program of > > consulting our intuition about their answers has expired, > > has ceased to be: it is an ex-program. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Importance_of_the_theorem
From: James Burns on 16 Nov 2009 12:49 tg wrote: > On Nov 16, 12:24 pm, James Burns <burns...(a)osu.edu> wrote: > >>tg wrote: >> >> > >> > Yeah, option 3, and I also think you have been over-consuming >> > caffeinated beverages or something. I always wonder about people who >> > can't read through a couple of short paragraphs before rambling on >> > with a reply that is nowhere near the point. >> >>All-righty, then. I'll give you the Reader's Digest version >>below. >> >>And here is the executive summary of the Reader's Digest version: >>You're wrong. >> > > > Makes my point. You can't make a clear statement of what I'm wrong > *about*, so you either throw up a lot of chaff and do a lot of hand- > waving, or do the indignation dodge. > > If someone can describe an experiment to test my proposed conjecture, > I'm listening. >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Importance_of_the_theorem > > > -tg > > >>Jim Burns >> >>I wrote: >> >>>tg wrote: >> >>>>I'm fascinated by JJ's ability to elicit responses >>>>with his language which closely approaches quantum >>>>randomness. However, there is a reasonable underlying >>>>language/philosophical question. >> >>>I agree that these questions about quantum randomness >>>and others like them are reasonable. But the program of >>>consulting our intuition about their answers has expired, >>>has ceased to be: it is an ex-program. >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Importance_of_the_theorem > >
From: Herman Rubin on 16 Nov 2009 14:20 In article <hdns88$77r$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >Herman Rubin wrote: >> In article <hdkfq3$kp3$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >> John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>> *Anarcissie* wrote: >>>> On Nov 13, 11:16 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: >>>>> In article <hdjs2g$tb...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >>>>> John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: ................ >>>> It was my understanding that the hidden-variable thing had >>>> been pretty well disposed of a long time ago. >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory >> The hidden variable theory is not compatible with the properties >> of the wave function usually used in quantum mechanics. >>>> Of course, I suppose it could be like the gods. We don't >>>> see any, but there might be one under the bed when we're >>>> not looking. Same with hidden variables, I imagine. >>> A hidden variable is the only possibility in QM. If there is nothing >>> there then there is no outcome. If there is something there then it is >>> hidden. >> Observed outcomes behave like probability. >Then you assert that appearance itself has degrees of appearance. I >already said that this was not an adequate response. >> If hidden variables >> would explain the situation, there would be a joint distribution >> of position and momentum. It is easy to give examples where >> this joint distribution does not exist, since probabilities have >> to be non-negative. >If position and momentum are not players on the field, then how does one >assert something? Many have tried to come up with a good answer. I gave a simple counterexample to the possibility of a joint distribution more than 50 years ago; all one has to do is to consider the wave function of one of them as constant on a finite interval. This lack of a joint distribution is a problem in understanding, but not a problem in computation. A similar problem is that of the multi-slit experiment. If one knows which slit, the distribution is totally unlike the very useful observed distribution. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin(a)stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
From: spudnik on 16 Nov 2009 15:15
apparently the only factor that effects the decay of a given atomic state (a-hem) is that of proximity to other decaying states, as in critical mass; sort of a bosonic aspect of fermions? sure wish, someone'd bury that stinky cat of Schoredinger ('s joke .-) > > > Perhaps a better answer would be to point out > > > that the way physics proceeds, the way science > > > proceeds is to generalize alleged laws to the > > > utmost extent ("Energy is conserved everywhere > > > in the universe.") and then wait for contradictions > > > to pour in from the experimentalists. ("But, wait! > > > I've got some radium that behaves very oddly.") > > > Is there some contradiction, some troubling > > > experimental result that makes it necessary to > > > suppose there is this 'hidden variable'? > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Importance_of_the_theorem > > The idea of a hidden variable is a grammatical consequence of any > > quantum theory, as I argued. > Alas, the universe disagrees. thus: saw the latest rendition of Rubik's Hexahedron at a store; it is just a vari-colored light in the center of each face, which apparently uses an acceleraometer to orient itself (with respect to thee .-) > Let me try a ring rotating around the equator(XY plane)at > 360 degs/t and a 2nd ring rotating (pole to pole, XZ plane) > at 180 degs/t, then the *ratio* of the rings rates of > rotation is 2:1 and no CS transformation can change that > ratio. thus: nice, constructive analysis; wouldn't an approach via the Fermat point of a trigon, be useful? (L'Ouvre: http://wlym.com .-) > In terms of convex hulls we are finding the largest line segment contained > in it and then finding the midpoint of the line segment perpendicular to the > largest line segment that runs through the largest line segment's midpoint. --Cap'n Trade & Warren Buffet, together again? Rep. Waxman's God-am bill, doesn't institute a tarrif, instead! |