Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

On Mar 11, 8:03 pm, AEF <spamsink2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.



I'll reply here, once, against my better instincts, and hope to
address most of the questions/points you directed at me in this thread
(and the rest of your post which content I've left intact at the
bottom.)

I don't claim any special understanding or adherence to any of the
ideas presented by the following references. Most have been debated
elsewhere and google should find some of the discussions. You might
already be completely familiar with all of them, anyway, but it seems
you're not from what you've said -- or if you are maybe you have
previously dismissed them as garbage.

Papers regarding GHZ

http://eprintweb.org/S/article/quant-ph/0007102

http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/un/Unnikrishnan/21

There are of course other papers suggesting how hidden-variables could
exist within the GHZ experiment, and I don't know whether the above
are the best or not. Following this stuff is much harder than it once
was (it isn't like riding a bicycle, I guess) and I really don't have
that time to waste.

Related reading:

Science Daily article

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060209184415.htm

which references this paper on Canonical Typicality:

http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/can.pdf

and Bohmian Mechanics;

first, an intro with some J.S.Bell quotes:

http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/quote.html

the links at the bottom lead to here:

http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/qts/qts.html

and here

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#hv

Sheldon Goldstein seems to be the most staunch supporter and prolific
writer on the subject. The last I knew he was still alive. Whether
this theory describes how things really work or not, who knows? The
point is that there are other possibilities that can agree with
experimental results as well as QM, but disagree with some basic
assumptions of QM.

A point I do agree with you on is that for all practical purposes, QM
has so far proven to be "close enough." So, until QM fails, any other
work is just science done for the sake of gaining understanding -- and
who cares about that;-)

Can we please put this to rest here in c.o.v.? I would have sent this
to you off-line but I don't know if you ever check your spamsink
address or if it's even real. I check my throw-aways (like this one)
weekly or so to clean them out; if I do find real messages there, I
read and usually respond if I notice them and recognize the subject/
author and it isn't just a flame.

<==NO NEW CONTENT HAS BEEN ADDED BELOW THIS LINE===>


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: Quadrature
    ... my head around the mechanics of what the handles do when you use ... John D'Errico wrote: ... The best material model of a cat is another, ...
    (comp.soft-sys.matlab)
  • Re: Charles trent
    ... I've seen a honda they have on a CAT C and was thinking of having a go at fixing its problems. ... Mechanics are simple. ...
    (uk.rec.cars.misc)
  • Re: Interesting comparison
    ... whitter on incessantly about the minutea of the mechanics of the ... argument and drag up dead issues at every oportunity. ... as a trivial matter and a "dead issue". ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Charles trent
    ... I've seen a honda they have on a CAT C and was thinking of having a go ... at fixing its problems. ... Mechanics are simple. ...
    (uk.rec.cars.misc)
  • Re: What do mechanics do? [was: How long doe it take to learn to read?]
    ... agree on who the real geniuses are (sometimes not till after they're dead, ... word for what mechanics do. ... "machinist," depending on what is being done. ... It's what your father wasn't, according to your mother, when you are standing between her and the television. ...
    (alt.usage.english)