Re: OT: Global warming update: Coldest April in 113 years ...

On Apr 15, 5:28 pm, "AEF" <spamsink2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 14, 1:45 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 13, 7:09 pm, "AEF" <spamsink2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 13, 2:20 pm, "Doug Phillips" <dphil...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

No, I don't claim to fully understand QM, and I don't personally know

"... nobody understands quantum mechanics". --RPF (Richard P. Feynman)

anyone who completely understands it, or Chaos Theory for that matter,
or can completely debunk either. If you think Feynman had all of the
answers, then I can't disagree because he was most certainly smarter
than anyone I know. I'll still choose to side with the people who
think we don't have all of the answers.

Yeah, I reference Feynman a lot. That's in part because he's such an
excellent teacher. (Try reading Bohr's rebuttal to Einstein's EPR
paper! Talk about dense!!!)


I watched the first video, and sampled the others. I remember Feynman
from years ago when he was one of the "go-to" guys for those TV shows
like Nova (too long ago to remember which shows) and referenced often
in science publications.

I'd forgotten what a charismatic person he was. How fortunate for
anyone who was his pupil.

Bohr's name seems appropriate. (as does Fine-man's:-)

He also has a Nobel Prize for his work on QED. Also, he's refreshingly
honest. He comes right out and says we can't calculate exactly what
would happen in a given situation. Nature only permits us to calculate
odds he says. He is not afraid tell us what we don't know. About this
he says, "Physics has given up."

There's where I start having problems with QM *theory*. I've never
heard anyone dispute the reality of the experimental results ---
that's the way things happen. It's the *interpretation* of the results
that are debated.

Let me restate my opinion: There is nothing random in the universe.
Now, to repeat my definition of random, I don't mean "statistically"
random, I mean events that have no cause. "Physically" random.

The difference is important. Some QM events are statistically random
because there is no identifiable cause. The randomness lies not with
the event, but with our interpretation of the event. Having spent a
bit more time reading about various experiments and plans (*help, my
brain hurts!*) I still see nothing that contradicts my belief. I see
statistical randomness present only because of our inability to
monitor and *directly* measure the event with sufficient precision.
Oh, the current precision is impressive, but it's still insufficient.

You gave the example of photons reflecting from glass. Allow me look
at that from the chaotic viewpoint. Don't give up on me too soon. I
also might use a word that means something different & specific in
your field, so be patient. I'm trying to use generic -- not jargon --
language. And, most important, you must use your imagination.

First, we won't say "photons and glass"; I don't put them on the same
scale. Glass interacts with light (which is the "forest" where the
photon is the "tree"). The way light interacts with objects is easily
measured and can be directly linked to the object's properties; glass,
diamond, charcoal & gold have different properties and interact with
light differently. Since we can prove this, and we can control our
light source, we can state that the composition of our target material
is the variable we need to define in our experiment. For our
discussion we'll stick with glass. We'll clean and polish it to
optimum surface condition.

Now, we'll measure our glass' reflectivity from a single frequency
light source at a fixed angle of incidence. Our experiments reveal
about 4 percent reflectivity.

We know that photons interact at the atomic/subatomic level; with the
components of glass: Silicon, Oxygen, Boron, Phosphorous, and whatever
else got mixed in to make our fused silica matrix subject. More
specifically, a photon has the highest probability of interacting with
the electrons of those molecules and atoms if it does interact.

Because we are working in mind and theory, we can increase our test
machine's magnification to the point where we can see and track
individual electrons and photons. Looking though our "gun sight" we
adjust until a bound oxygen atom is dead center. We track the
electrons that pass through dead center of our aim to find a precise
regular interval when one passes through from left to right. We start
a clock spinning so that each time the clock reads 12, an electron is
dead center.

Now, we calculate our distance from the target and determine the
"time" when we must fire our photon in order to hit the electron.
Since our hypothetical gun has zero aiming error, and our measurements
are equally precise, we fire and hit an electron dead center (we
think). We measure and record the results to a nearly infinite degree
of accuracy.

Now we move our sight or target to find another atom that closely
matches our parameters, we make needed adjustments, fire, record, move
adjust and repeat our experiment 1000 times.

What do you think chaos theory predicts as the outcome?

The same as QM, actually. The results should show a statistical degree
of "randomness", and the reflectivity will likely be near 4 percent,
but probably slightly higher. Why? Because there are still factors
that we haven't considered.

Now we must ask, is greater accuracy important to our model? If so,
Chaos followers will try to fine-tune their definitions. The electrons
are spinning differently; the other electrons near our target exert
influence; the electrons are at different distances from the nucleus;
etc.

Unfortunately, even our hypothetical equipment is now inadequate so
we'll keep working on our technology. We can either accept the
statistical variance for now or we can add additional variables to our
model and tweak them until we get results predictive of our
experiments. Each advance in precision measurement we make furthers
our understanding and we can better define our variables.

So for now, we'll wrap this exercise up and add it to our model of
Life, The Universe and Everything (with an alarm that sounds when one
of our variables gets more accurately measured).

Is that *really* different from QM? Don't we model a system to the
point of acceptable accuracy, diminishing returns or the limit of
ability. Chaos theory, however, won't accept "physically random"
events. (and its followers are destined to be forever frustrated;-)

Last time I looked, we aren't up to the capability of our imaginary
test equipment, so we can't reject the hypothesis that some causal
factors in our real experiments remain undefined. (Not "hidden",
because that supposes that we know what they are but just can't find
them. If they are known but just hidden, we can model them. More
likely, we don't know what they are so we can say they are unknown or
undefined.) Experiments prove statistical randomness in the QM theory,
but not physical randomness.

Sorry, I ain't going to do the math;-)

I won't get into entanglement now, either, but I'll keep following the
debates. Besides, that phenomenon's questions are not with randomness,
it's just flat-out weird.


I appreciate your interest.


I appreciate your patience with this old chaotic person, and thanks
for the rekindling of some dying embers.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nutcases have destroyed this newsgroup
    ... Since when were photons ... > synonymous with electrons? ... I said *four* particles for a reason, ... > consists of photons which interact with electrons and are subsequently ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What is the shape of photons??
    ... > photons really only interact with electrons? ... > I think that is what current theory states. ... photons ONLY interact with electrons. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: physics for ex-farmers
    ... not interact with the slit itself on the way through. ... the same for electrons and for photons, ... I consider both photons and electrons to ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: physics for ex-farmers
    ... not interact with the slit itself on the way through. ... the same for electrons and for photons, ... I consider both photons and electrons to ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?
    ... probably 'as the center of energy ... Unless the photons are 'the right size' to effect the electron, ... So, how, you ask, do radio photons excite electrons? ... Energy transfer within a transformer is by means of a changing M field, ...
    (sci.physics)