Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

On Mar 12, 5:16 pm, Doug Phillips <dphil...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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

Hmm, they want $31.50 for this one. I'll pass.


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

I think I read a paper by this dude once. I discussed it with my
graduate advisor and he agreed it's bogus. But this may .. OK, I just
checked it. This one is free. Yeah, I think it's the same author and
it's probably bogus. The other paper I read by him (probably around
2000) deduced that the wave function IS deterministic, but everyone
knows that. My adviser said all he did was re-derive the Bell stuff in
an strange way.

If this were really showing what it claims, I think he would have won
a Nobel prize by now. It's probably bogus.

AEF

[...]
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why field theories are deterministic, but QM isnt?
    ... So - is quantum mechanics deterministic or stochastic? ... the same apparent paradox already occurs in classical ... differential equation. ... probabilities satisfy deterministic ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Rovelli on EPR
    ... The logic of quantum mechanics, ... On page 71, Mackey introduces "Axiom VII", which says: ... could conceivably be used to assign probabilities. ... of things which can be proven about the results of measurements ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Is State Vector Reduction a Process?
    ... If you prepare twice the same system in the same state, and measure the same observable, you may get two different measurement results. ... Quantum mechanics does not explain the origin of these probabilities. ... the probability of finding value a in the state |psi> by using above ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Why field theories are deterministic, but QM isnt?
    ... believed to be better approximation of physics than quantum mechanics ... So why its predecessor which we commonly use - quantum mechanics is ... We can say only about probabilities of quantum choices - but in fact ... the past - we call it entanglement: if two photons have been created ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Darwinism Disproven
    ... > - Bob Divinchio, PhD in Quantum Mechanics ... Same old shit as always. ... at least the bogus "reasoning" is something new ...
    (talk.origins)