Re: Which universe are we in? (tossing tennis balls into spinning props)
At 03:27 PM 7/15/02 +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Optimizzin Al-gorithym wrote:
And while QM can't help you with a particular atom, it also doesn't say that its impossible that knowledge of internal states of the atom wouldn't help you predict its fragmentation.
Yes it does.
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Ring a Bell?
The uncertainty principle says that there is a limit on the information about position and change in position that you can collect. It does not rule out internal states. For instance, you could generate particles with a certain property which you do not have to measure to know that they have that property. It is a logical mistake to think that because you can't see it in 2002, you can't ever measure it, or it doesn't exist. When something appears 'random', it is because of (wholly normal) ignorance on our part. Sometimes 'randomness' is used to shut off analytic machinery, much like 'God' (this latter idea is Minsky's).
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
The uncertainty principle says that there is a limit on the information about position and change in position that you can collect. It does not rule out internal states.
Yes it does, it says that any time you measure a system it WILL be in an unknown state after the measurement. No if's, no but's. It effects photons (which I challenge you to demonstrate has 'charge') as well as electrons and protons. It's universal. It's about measuring, not about what is being measured. The 2nd also comes into play because any mechanism you use to 'manipulate' that internal state must also effect that state in a negative way. You're screwed two ways from Sunday. -- ____________________________________________________________________ When I die, I would like to be born again as me. Hugh Hefner ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 03:27 PM 7/15/02 +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Optimizzin Al-gorithym wrote:
And while QM can't help you with a particular atom, it also doesn't say that its impossible that knowledge of internal states of the atom wouldn't help you predict its fragmentation.
Yes it does.
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Ring a Bell?
The uncertainty principle says that there is a limit on the information about position and change in position that you can collect. It does not rule out internal states. For instance, you could generate particles with a certain property which you do not have to measure to know that they have that property.
It is a logical mistake to think that because you can't see it in 2002, you can't ever measure it, or it doesn't exist. When something appears 'random', it is because of (wholly normal) ignorance on our part. Sometimes 'randomness' is used to shut off analytic machinery, much like 'God' (this latter idea is Minsky's).
Oh dear. QM does rule out internal states. I didn't think I would have to explain why I capitalised "Bell", but perhaps it was a bit too subtle. Google "Bell" and "inequalities", and go from there. The uncertainty principle was generally considered to rule out internal states long before Bell, though. Since around 1930, I think. Whether QM/the uncertainty principle is wrong is a different question. -- Peter Fairbrother ps Are you a PFY (or a PFO), or is your name really Variola?
On Tuesday, July 16, 2002, at 10:39 AM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Oh dear. QM does rule out internal states.
I didn't think I would have to explain why I capitalised "Bell", but perhaps it was a bit too subtle. Google "Bell" and "inequalities", and go from there.
I disagree. Bell's Inequality is not dependent on QM...it's a mathematical statement about the outcomes of measurements where stochastic processes play a role. The fact that QM is strongly believed to involve stochastic processes is why Bell's inequality shows up prominently in QM. However, we cannot then use B.I. to prove things about QM. A more persuasive proof of why hidden variables are not viable in QM is the work done on extending some theorems about Hilbert spaces. Namely, Gleason's theorem from the mid-50s, later extended by Kochen and Specker in the 1960s. The Kochen-Specker Theorem is accepted as the "no go" proof that hidden variables is not viable.
The uncertainty principle was generally considered to rule out internal states long before Bell, though. Since around 1930, I think. Whether QM/the uncertainty principle is wrong is a different question.
Until K-S and related proofs, Bohm's internal states model (hidden variables) was not considered to be ruled out. I recommend a recent book, "Interpreting the Quantum World," by Jeffrey Bub, 1997. He summarizes the various interpretations of quantum reality and explains the K-S theorem reasonably well. The Asher Peres book on QM is also good. But, as I said, I accidentally beamed the message into this world. Those interested in discussing quantum reality and things like that should look into lists oriented in this direction. I don't think most list members here have the interest or the background, so discussions would be swamped by failures to communicate, abuses of language, and tangent rays. --Tim May "They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." --Rep. Ron Paul, TX, on how few Congresscritters saw the USA-PATRIOT Bill before voting overwhelmingly to impose a police state
participants (4)
-
Jim Choate -
Major Variola (ret) -
Peter Fairbrother -
Tim May