Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

On Mar 11, 1:14 pm, Doug Phillips <dphil...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 11, 2:16 pm, koeh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bob

Koehler) wrote:
In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Doug Phillips <dphil...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

You are confusing quantum mechanics math with reality. If you mean
that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is not concerned with
resolving apparent randomness, then you are correct. You might want to
look into the de Broglie-Bohm theory, more recently called Bohmian
Mechanics.

Quantum mechanics math vs. reality? You think reality differs?

I believe that reality does consist of probabilities, but QM math is
vague by design and accepts those probabilities as "good enough"
because in most cases they are.

QM math is not vague. The wave functions are well determined and so
are the probabilities for the various outcomes therefrom.


If you believe that Schrodinger's Cat was really both 1/2 alive and
1/2 dead, then you are welcome to that belief. If you believe that the
cat is either dead or alive and the experiment simply illustrates a
measurement problem, then you're getting closer to what I believe.

I, for one, do not believe the cat is half dead or half alive. The cat
is a macroscopic object. But when a particle (be it a photon,
electron, or what have you) passes through a microscopic double slit
when the appartus is set up in a way that produces an interference
pattern, it is as if it passes through both slits at the same time.
Such superpositions of even atoms have been achieved within the last
few years or so (maybe even a decade or more -- time passes so fast as
you age!).


I suggest reading what John Bell has said about some of the problems
with QM. If you want to advance further beyond the world of dead-
scientists, then read some of the work being done by people who are
still alive and with whom you can actually discuss this.

OK. Can you suggest specific references?


You're not too far from Rutger's, are you (or am I thinking of someone
else)? Look up Sheldon Goldstein or one of his contemporaries and
discuss it with them if you feel qualified.

You mean pay him a visit?


You might find that Schrodinger's, Einstein's, Bell's, de Broglie's,
Bohm's (and other "non-conformist") thoughts are being taken more
seriously these days. You'll just have to look into it yourself. I'm
not going to get into a battle of dead-scientists.

Really? I don't see how in light of increasingly better experiments,
in particular, the GHZ experiment.

AEF
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
    ... has to do with quantum mechanics. ... he calls it a gravitational field instead of space, ... >>whether an LED is on or off, or whether a cat is alive or dead. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Measurement in QM FAQ question
    ... "To understand Schrödinger's cat one must understand what a strange ... Quantum mechanics is not like that. ... "Probabilities occur all the time in science because we almost never ... confirms it, or otherwise, in the mind of the observer. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Rovelli on EPR
    ... cat is alive or dead" and saying "The cat is some peculiar mixed state ... of being alive or dead". ... I maintain that quantum mechanics is simply ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Entanglement (was Podkletnov) revisited?
    ... interpretation is incoherent. ... is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. ... things like "The cat is alive relative to Alice". ... Can a cat be alive relative to one real person and dead relative ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
    ... >instances of Nick seeing the cat respectively dead and alive are the ... what the observer remembered or whether the cat was ... Whatever the result of the measurement to detect superposed ...
    (sci.physics.research)