Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

On Mar 17, 8:45 am, davi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <4e7e482c-d37b-4084-8cec-1ce8dcc42...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, AEF <spamsink2...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

Hello,

Comments interspersed below. Sorry for the delay, but it took me a
long time to write this. I have tried to be as clear as possible while
still not spending too much time on it. The better thing to read is
Feynman's The Character of Physical Law and his Lectures on Physics
book.

Abstract: I'm showing how I'm basing my convictions on not just QM,
but on the wave-particle duality, the de Broglie relation, the results
of a vast array of experiments, one of which is described here in
detail. Nevertheless, QM is so amazingly successful for such a huge
range of phenomena, that there must be something very right about it.
All this leads me to conclude that Nature, at the level of atoms and
below, is intrinsically probabilistic, even if QM is eventually
superseded by a better theory.

It's a little long. Please be patient as it takes a little while to
explain it properly.

Enjoy.

AEF

On Mar 13, 11:01 am, davi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <42e3bcd3-a7d0-4fd6-badf-bc7623f68...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, AEF <spamsink2...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

On Mar 12, 8:11 am, davi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <d605f298-85d8-491f-aeb7-3ba58aa7a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, AEF <spamsink2...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

On Mar 11, 1:19 pm, billg...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
In article <ueEuesurz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
koeh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bob Koehler) writes:

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'll bet a lot of people do. When science requires faith than religion
in order to accept that which can neither be observed nor satisfactorily
proven I think more and more people will see the difference.

I assume you meant "When science requires *more* faith..."

Scientists have faith in the scientific method which requires
evidence. Religious people have what James Randi calls "blind
faith"[1]. That makes all the difference in the world.

[1] Seehttp://www.randi.org/jr/072503.html(Mostlyagood article,
but I disagree with his opinion of the Wizard of Oz.)

As far as using local hidden variables to restore determinism that
only "appears" probabilistic, the experimental evidence ruling these
out is more compelling than ever. Many, many experiments have been
done and QM always, always wins.

This is a strawman since there are non-local hidden variable theories.

We're not talking about the
possibility of experimental error clouding the results. The skeptics
who complained that the early experiments could still allow local
hidden variables because of events missed by detectors because said
detectors were not 100% efficient. OK. But the efficiencies have been
greatly improved and the room for determinism has been all but wiped
out. Then there is the GHZ paradox which largely sidesteps the issue.
There is simply no way to explain the results of GHZ experiments using
local hidden variables.

These experiments rule out local realistic theories.
This just leaves two choices

1) non-locality

or

2) non-realism

But what about Feynman's argument?

All these things combined (which includes stuff I don't have time to
document here) leads me to believe that there is almost certainly no
way out.

To my mind the latter doesn't actually make much sense. If the wave function

What makes sense is not as important as experimental results. See, you
know the drill (Beginning of Chapter 6 and parts of Chapter 7).

doesn't actually have a physical existence and a particle doesn't have any
properties until you measure them then how are entangled particles actually
linked. (If the wave function does physically exist then it's collapse will be
a non-local effect so such versions of the Copenhagen interpretation are
non-local).

I think the realism quandary is a red herring. QM tells you what you
will observe and that is what you observe.

The problem I have is that such an interpretation is just

"thats the way it is"

which to me isn't a scientific statement. With non-local interpretations there
is at least some possibility that in the future it might be possible to explain
the non-locality. If you just take it thats "thats the way it is" then you are
in effect giving up on trying to find an explanation.

I think more than non-locality is involved. There's still intrinsic
probability to consider. There's also the issue of the subtle
difference between locality and separability, but I have to review the
Don Howard paper Einstein on Locality and Separability first. I have a
barely legible .pdf of a .tif of a fax (or other scan) of it.


As to what's "scientific", please read Chapter 6 of The Character of
Physical Law and get back to me. (Parts of Chapters 1 and 7 are also
relevant.) You will find the answer to that in this book. Obviously
I'm not going to quote entire chapters of the book. But I'll say this
here: How does gravity work? Think about it. Any two masses, no matter
how far apart, attract each other. Isn't that kind of amazing? You say
there is a field that permeates all of space. Just what is this field
made of and how is it generated by mass? How can it be like that? But
we grow up with gravity from day 1 and it becomes so familiar we think
of it as being totally normal. So what mechanism could be behind this?
At the classical level, physics has indeed given up.

I wasn't going to respond to this but felt I had to respond to the above.

I have no problem with you responding. If you want to continue via
email, drop me a note at the spamsink2001 address. If you don't, then
stop. It's up to you.

If by the classical level you mean excluding relativity then you are correct in
the sense that noone is looking for a mechanism - but that is because Newtonian
theory has been superseded.

If however by classical level you just mean excluding QM then that is rubbish.
The mechanism for Gravity is well understood - the curvature of space-time.
How mass/energy causes space-time to curve is well described by GR.
Why mass/energy has that effect on space-time isn't explained but undoubtedly
requires a better understanding of the structure of space-time.

Well, if you insist on disagreeing to agree, that's okay. What is the
mechanism by which mass curves space-time? I meant that there will
always be a level at which you will say, "Well what is that? What
mechanism generates that?" Either there are an infinite number of
layers, or there exists a bottom layer. Either you think it's infinite
or that we simply haven't reached bottom yet. Either way, you will
always be left with a mystery as to the nature of the lowest known
level.

[Note that there are two possible meanings of "how" here: (1) In what
manner is it curved? That's akin to asking: "What is the magnitude and
direction of the force produced at this point in space by a given
distribution of mass?" or, in GR terms: "What curvature is produced at
this point by a given distribution of mass?" Then there's (2) "How
does mass achieve this result? These are different questions. GR
answers question (1), but not question (2). The "force as a result of
virtual particle exchange" paradigm answers question (2), except you
are then left with question (2) for that!]


In QM, it is
thought that it is the exchange of virtual gravitons that causes the
attraction, just like it is the exchange of virtual photons that
carries the electromagnetic force.

Quantum Gravity theorems are still extremely speculative eg Loop quantum
gravity, String theory. The existence/non-existence of the graviton and
it's properties would help either support these speculations or refute them.

The graviton does not fit into the QM standard model.

Irrelevant. It is thought by most physicists that all fundamental
forces arise from the exchange of virtual particles. I don't know of
any reason that the virtual-particle mechanism is restricted to the
Standard Model.

Physicists are looking for real gravitons in, e.g., the LIGO
expriment. If one is found, it will likely be big news (well, for
physicists at least). I don't think you need a Quantum Gravity theory
first. In fact, QM and GR are incompatible as is. The resolution of
this, of course, is one of the greatest mysteries in physics today.
The answer should prove exciting indeed!

Anyway, AFAIK, no one knows any mechanisms behind the spooky
correlations we see in QM experiments, or the generation of virtual
particles out of nothing (but it is known how they generate forces!).
We may never know, and if you ever do, it will probably just be
another layer to ask the same question about. I brought up gravity to
show that it seems normal only because we grow up with it from day 1
and we'd likely thing the same of intrinsic probability if we grew up
from day 1 experiencing that.


But these virtual photons -- or
gravitons -- materialize out of nowhere, travel between particles to
carry the force, and then disappear (thanks to a variation of the
uncertainty principle, a violation of conservation of energy is
allowed if it occurs over a short enough interval of time, and this
allows virtual particles to have their fleeting existences). And
you're still stuck with trying to find a mechanism for the virtual
particles. Good luck. We don't grow up experiencing QM at all, so it
seems really strange. But we are not to tell Nature how She's got to
be. [Until we detect actual gravitons, the existence of virtual
gravitons remains speculation. However, most physicists, AFAIK,
believe they must exist.]

So you're always going to reach a point at which you say, "But what is
that? What is the mechanism behind that?" I think with QM we've hit
rock bottom.

Here we disagree. Since QM is undoubtedly incomplete it is much much too early
to say we have reached rock-bottom. If you give up looking for mechanisms and
just accept that "that is the way it is" then you might as well join Boob and
put it all down to God's mysterious actions.

Well, no need for insults! Just my opinion. You'd have to say the same
about Feynman. Please. I just think it is very unlikely that a
"reasonable" way will ever be found to "explain" what today appears to
almost certainly be "intrinsic probability in nature". "Boob" says his
stuff is 100% certain without giving any reasonable logic behind it. I
give valid logic and solid scientific evidence in support of my ideas
whereas "Boob" claims to do that, but as you well know, doesn't. Some
things are pretty certain: There are eight "major planets" orbiting
our Sun. Ordinary matter is made of atoms. Do you think these things
will be superseded some day? The evidence in favor of these two things
is overwhelming! I think Feynman's argument (combined with all the
experimental evidence) is very compelling. I don't accept it on faith.
I studied his argument and it seems quite valid to me. Sometimes you
can rule things out. A theory can be proved to be wrong, but you can't
prove a theory to be right. Feynman's argument falls into the former
case. He rules out hidden variable theories. No, it's not at the level
of a mathematics proof such as proving that the square roots of non-
perfect squares are irrational numbers, or that pi is transcendental,
or that a real number squared cannot be negative, etc., but I think
it's pretty damn good. Don't compare me to "Boob"! That "theory" or
conjecture is without doubt easily proved false!

Did you see part 1 of the video at www.feynman.com? It's free! Let me
know if you ever do. And wake me when someone gets deeper. I meant
that we most likely can't go deeper to see what happens between
observations. If you can know where the particle is after passing the
double-slit, or beam splitter A, or what have you, it cannot
contribute to an interference pattern. If you get an interference
pattern, you cannot know which way the particle went because if it
went only one way it couldn't contribute to an interference pattern.
Even Einstein admitted that arguments like this are logically self-
consistent. From Cropper's "The Quantum Physicists" when discussing
the EPR paradox: "Einstein did not hesitate to say that he accepted
the logical force of [Bohr's] argument and its possible validity; yet
he still had reservations".

Look, this is just my opinion after years of pondering the problem and
considering various experiments and reading various books and seeing
how things have developed over time. We disagree. That's okay. There's
no need to get all worked up about it!


Note. All the interpretations agree on what you will observe so in that sense
it doesn't matter. However interpretations can give insight into how to produce
a more complete theory and as I have pointed out QM is not the final theory of
everything.

[I'm not basing my claims solely on QM. I still think a more accurate
theory will still not be able to get rid of the intrinsic
probabilistic nature of things. See below.]

And how will you test it? As for QM being "final", I think certain
aspects will survive. Note that Ehrenfest's theorem shows how quantum
mechanics goes over into classical mechanics at the macroscopic level.

Any future theory of everything will have to incorporate all the results of
QM experiments at least as approximate results just as GR incorporates
Newtonian theory.
That doesn't mean that the mechanisms of the theory will necessarily be
identical. We can see this by looking at the case of Gravity.
In Newtonian theory gravity is a mysterious force acting at a distance.
In GR it is the result of matter/energy curving spacetime.

But you will still have the wave-particle duality which is what causes
all these problems in the first place, just like you'll still have the
idea that oridnary matter is made of atoms, or are you expecting that
to be superseded one day, too? And I forgot in all these discussions
to mention tunneling! I think the Bohmian theory will not be able to
handle that to a satisfactory degree because the particle cannot be
observed within the pentrated barrier. There will be a gap in the
Bohmian "path" of the particle. Einstein wrestled with tunneling, too,
in the form of alpha decay. The wave function for the alpha particle
grows outside the nucleus and shrinks inside until the alpha particle
is observed which implies that there is no definite moment of decay
independent of the measurement! (See "Albert Einstein: Philosopher-
Scientist" edited by Arthur Schilpp, pp. 667ff, for Einstein's
description of the problem and his views, but I wonder what Einstein
would think if he were alive today to see all the knew experimental
results and entanglement and such.)

If you can, in prinicple, determine the path of a particle through an
interference appartus, it cannot contribute to an interference pattern
and vice versa. This means you cannot predict ahead of time which path
the particle will be found in when you check which path it's in. I
cannot see how you can ever get around this.

If you watch part 1 of the video or read The Character of Physical Law
(at least chapter 6 thereof) and let me know what you think (via
email).

Respond to this if you want but I won't be responding any further.

OK.

[...remainder of quoted post omitted as it contains nothing new...]

AEF
.

Relevant Pages

  • Non-equilibrium stat mech for Dummies
    ... induced gravity dependent on partial vacuum coherence. ... observations nor any of the high energy physics particle observations. ... Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum ...
    (sci.math)
  • Non-equilibrium stat mech for Dummies
    ... induced gravity dependent on partial vacuum coherence. ... observations nor any of the high energy physics particle observations. ... Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Non-equilibrium stat mech for Dummies
    ... induced gravity dependent on partial vacuum coherence. ... observations nor any of the high energy physics particle observations. ... Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Curing Einsteins Disease (is Copyrighted)
    ... So, Einstein can't lay claim to relativity, ... that physicists take the lazy way out... ... destruction-causing effects of falling objects, ... from gravity a greater force than a slower object of the same mass. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Curing Einsteins Disease (is Copyrighted)
    ... So, Einstein can't lay claim to relativity, ... that physicists take the lazy way out... ... destruction-causing effects of falling objects, ... from gravity a greater force than a slower object of the same mass. ...
    (sci.physics)