| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"someone2" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2005 05:30:54 PM |
| Object: |
The Atheist Lie |
The atheist lie, I've heard spun by many (though by no means all)
atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't
involve anything other than not believing in God or gods.
If the universe we live in is governed by purely cause and effect, then
given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output. Therefore
your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to change it.
If given an input, there are multiple possible outcomes, then the
universe cannot be governed purely by cause and effect, there must be
effects without causes.
The history of science has shown us, that where randomness(effects
without causes) has been thought to exist, and many religious people
have been tempted to say that God or gods caused the effect (the 'God
of the Gap' argument), the religious people have been shown to be
wrong. Randomness is the atheist 'God of the Gap', and the history of
science has shown the gap is simply the gap created by our ignorance.
Many try to argue that quantum mechanics, shows that there are effects
without causes. This is a lie. How can we ever know that we aren't
simply ignorant as to what those causes are?
If the 'Gap' were actually real, then this is strong evidence of
something outside of the physical plane causing the effect, as the
history of science shows us that an effect does have a cause. There is
no proof that there is a gap however, and that the gap isn't just the
shadow cast by our ignorance under the investigative light of science.
Jean Bricmont, a theoretical physicist in his conclusion to
'Determinism, Chaos, and Quantum Mechanics' (
http://www.fyma.ucl.ac.be/files/Turin.pdf ) (top of page 27) says of
determinism (where effects have a cause):
"To conclude, I would say that not only is a refutation of determinism
essentially impossible, but not the slightest argument in favour of
that idea is to be found in modern physics, whether in chaos theory or
in quantum mechanics."
For those of you that disagree with his conclusion, please, read what
he wrote, and point out where he went wrong.
So, to logically hold the atheist position (that we are purely governed
by the laws which govern the physical plan), you must believe that
either your destiny is fixed (if effects do have causes), and that
there is nothing you can do to change it, or believe in effects without
cause, against the weight of scientific evidence. It is not simply a
case of not believing in God or gods.
To hold the view that there is something other than the physical plane,
is simply a matter of not believing in a fixed destiny, in which there
is nothing you can do to change it, nor believing in (against the
weight of scientific evidence) effects without cause.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a
Symposium", 1941
I must point out, that some atheists, simply do believe that their
destiny is fixed, or in randomness. They are true atheists, who
understand what logically holding the atheist position means.
.
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
01 Apr 2005 03:28:43 PM |
|
|
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> writes:
< snip >
Jean Bricmont, a theoretical physicist in his conclusion to
'Determinism, Chaos, and Quantum Mechanics' (
http://www.fyma.ucl.ac.be/files/Turin.pdf ) (top of page 27) says of
determinism (where effects have a cause):
"To conclude, I would say that not only is a refutation of determinism
essentially impossible, but not the slightest argument in favour of
that idea is to be found in modern physics, whether in chaos theory or
in quantum mechanics."
For those of you that disagree with his conclusion, please, read what
he wrote, and point out where he went wrong.
< snip >
Bohm defies Ockam's Razor by multiplying entities, specifically by
inventing hypothetical entities call "pilot waves". I've seen a
lot of analysis of Bohm's version of quantum mechanics by supporters --
largely about how "elegant" it is and how it solves "paradoxes" in
standard QM -- but I have yet to see anyone propose an experiment
that could determine if pilot waves are anything more than the QM
version of epicycles.
People had a hard time swallowing EPR before it was verified
experimentally, and EPR is a fundamental prediction of QM. If EPR
had proved false, QM would have been dealt a severe blow.
Bohm's pilot waves, on the other hand, are not at all fundamental to QM.
QM obviously works just fine without introducing them. Bohm's theory
is mathematically elegant, but then so is the many-worlds interpretation.
Unless pilot waves can be experimentally verified, then they are extra
baggage, just like multiple branching universes.
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
aa1347, Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
05 Apr 2005 06:06:56 PM |
|
|
"To conclude, I would say that not only is a refutation of
determinism
essentially impossible, but not the slightest argument in favour of
that idea is to be found in modern physics, whether in chaos theory
or
in quantum mechanics."
For those of you that disagree with his conclusion, please, read
what
he wrote, and point out where he went wrong.
< snip >
Bohm defies Ockam's Razor by multiplying entities, specifically by
inventing hypothetical entities call "pilot waves".
Arguably it doesn't, as underlying, the addition of pilot waves, means
that only the positions of electrons are considered to be real. The
additional variables can be thought of as only occurring under
measurement. So arguably with Bohm's Theory there are fewer 'real'
entities. Even if you were to argue that there are more entities under
measurement, as you later on go on to say, the addition of the pilots
wave solves the paradoxes of Quantum Mechanics.
Ockam's Razor, is just a guide as to which theory to take, I could
create examples of where it would be wrong to use Ockam's Razor. Given
the paradoxes of Quantum Mechanics, as Einstein said: "Everything
should be as simple as it is, but not simpler. "
I've seen a
lot of analysis of Bohm's version of quantum mechanics by supporters
--
largely about how "elegant" it is and how it solves "paradoxes" in
standard QM -- but I have yet to see anyone propose an experiment
that could determine if pilot waves are anything more than the QM
version of epicycles.
Well that it solves the 'paradoxes' of Quantum Mechanics sounds reason
enough for adopting it.
People had a hard time swallowing EPR before it was verified
experimentally, and EPR is a fundamental prediction of QM. If EPR
had proved false, QM would have been dealt a severe blow.
Presumably EPR would have been predicted by Bohm's Theory also.
Bohm's pilot waves, on the other hand, are not at all fundamental to
QM.
QM obviously works just fine without introducing them. Bohm's theory
is mathematically elegant, but then so is the many-worlds
interpretation.
Unless pilot waves can be experimentally verified, then they are extra
baggage, just like multiple branching universes.
You say quantum mechanics works just fine without pilot wave, but you
just admitted that there are paradoxes in QM that are solved by the
'pilot wave.
All this though is in a way a side issue.
Randomness, has been shown throughout the history of science to have
been down to our ignorance. So supposing we reach a point where we
can't explain a given behaviour, and so to us there seems to be
randomness. What should we make of it? That there really is randomness,
or that it is probably just a case of us being ignorant as to the cause
of the randomness? The problem with taking the "there really is
randomness" approach, is that throughout the history of science,
people taking this approach would have been shown to have been wrong, a
scientific explanation has been found.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
05 Apr 2005 08:03:17 PM |
|
|
On 5 Apr 2005 16:06:56 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:
Bohm defies Ockam's Razor by multiplying entities, specifically by
inventing hypothetical entities call "pilot waves".
Arguably it doesn't, as underlying, the addition of pilot waves, means
that only the positions of electrons are considered to be real. The
additional variables can be thought of as only occurring under
measurement. So arguably with Bohm's Theory there are fewer 'real'
entities. Even if you were to argue that there are more entities under
measurement, as you later on go on to say, the addition of the pilots
wave solves the paradoxes of Quantum Mechanics.
It also violates Bell's Theorem about the non-existence of local
hidden variables that comes from an analysis of quantum entanglement.
You guys are 25 years behind the times.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
05 Apr 2005 08:09:20 PM |
|
|
Arguably it doesn't, as underlying, the addition of pilot waves,
means
that only the positions of electrons are considered to be real. The
additional variables can be thought of as only occurring under
measurement. So arguably with Bohm's Theory there are fewer 'real'
entities. Even if you were to argue that there are more entities
under
measurement, as you later on go on to say, the addition of the pilots
wave solves the paradoxes of Quantum Mechanics.
It also violates Bell's Theorem about the non-existence of local
hidden variables that comes from an analysis of quantum entanglement.
It does introduce some additional parameters, but does so without
running into any of the contradictions implied by the no hidden
variable theorems.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
06 Apr 2005 07:59:18 AM |
|
|
On 5 Apr 2005 18:09:20 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:
Arguably it doesn't, as underlying, the addition of pilot waves,
means
that only the positions of electrons are considered to be real. The
additional variables can be thought of as only occurring under
measurement. So arguably with Bohm's Theory there are fewer 'real'
entities. Even if you were to argue that there are more entities
under
measurement, as you later on go on to say, the addition of the pilots
wave solves the paradoxes of Quantum Mechanics.
It also violates Bell's Theorem about the non-existence of local
hidden variables that comes from an analysis of quantum entanglement.
It does introduce some additional parameters, but does so without
running into any of the contradictions implied by the no hidden
variable theorems.
I am not sure I understand just what you are driving at.
Quantum Entanglement and Bell's Theorems demonstrate that there can be
no local hidden variables. They do not rule out non-local hidden
variables. That's all I am saying other than Bohm's theories involved
local hidden variables.
It is my personal opinion, one that I cannot support formally, that
what is really going on with QM, including entanglement, is some kind
of time multiplexing. It's as if there are two components to physical
reality but only one of them can manifest itself at one time. After it
has had its 15 nanoseconds of glory, the other component takes over
but it is phase shifted, much like the way electromagnetic energy
shifts back and forth between the electric field and the magnetic
field.
In this speculation, this temporal multiplexing is responsible for all
the strange effects of QM. You can learn more about the X Factor in
entanglement in Arthur Fine's book (op. cit.).
In fact, time multiplexing can be used to transmit one bit of
information that would otherwise not be available using conventional
signalling. It is that extra bit that is responsible for quantum
entanglement.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
06 Apr 2005 11:26:19 AM |
|
|
Quantum Entanglement and Bell's Theorems demonstrate that there can be
no local hidden variables. They do not rule out non-local hidden
variables. That's all I am saying other than Bohm's theories involved
local hidden variables.
No Bohm's theory involved non-local hidden variables.
Below is a rather long extract from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#hv :
John von Neumann, one of the greatest mathematicians of the twentieth
century, claimed to have mathematically proven that Einstein's dream,
of a deterministic completion or reinterpretation of quantum theory,
was mathematically impossible. He concluded that (von Neumann 1932, p.
325 of the English translation)
It is therefore not, as is often assumed, a question of a
re-interpretation of quantum mechanics -- the present system of quantum
mechanics would have to be objectively false, in order that another
description of the elementary processes than the statistical one be
possible.
This claim of von Neumann was almost universally accepted among
physicists and philosophers of science. For example, Max Born, who
formulated the statistical interpretation of the wave function, assured
us that (Born 1949, p. 109)
No concealed parameters can be introduced with the help of which the
indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic
one. Hence if a future theory should be deterministic, it cannot be a
modification of the present one but must be essentially different.
Bohmian mechanics is, quite clearly, a counterexample to the claims of
von Neumann, so something has to be wrong with von Neumann's argument.
In fact, according to John Bell (Mermin 1993, p. 805), von Neumann's
assumptions (about the relationships among the values of quantum
observables that must be satisfied in a hidden-variables theory) are so
unreasonable that the "the proof of von Neumann is not merely false but
foolish!" Nonetheless, some physicists continue to rely on von
Neumann's proof, although in recent years it is more common to find
physicists citing the Kochen-Specker Theorem and, more frequently,
Bell's inequality as the basis of this refutation. We still find, a
quarter of a century after the rediscovery of Bohmian mechanics in
1952, statements such as these (Wigner 1976):
The proof he [von Neumann] published ..., though it was made much more
convincing later on by Kochen and Specker, still uses assumptions
which, in my opinion, can quite reasonably be questioned. ... In my
opinion, the most convincing argument against the theory of hidden
variables was presented by J. S. Bell (1964).
Now there are many more statements of a similar character that could
have been cited. This quotation owes its significance to the fact that
Wigner was not only one of the leading physicists of his generation,
but, unlike most of his contemporaries, he was also profoundly
concerned with the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics and
wrote on the subject with great clarity and insight.
There was, however, one physicist who wrote on this subject with even
greater clarity and insight than Wigner himself, namely the very J. S.
Bell whom Wigner praises for demonstrating the impossibility of a
deterministic completion of quantum theory such as Bohmian mechanics.
Here's how Bell himself reacted to Bohm's discovery (Bell 1987, p.
160):
But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm.
Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into
nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the
indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic
one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox
version, the necessary reference to the 'observer,' could be
eliminated. ...
But why then had Born not told me of this 'pilot wave'? If only to
point out what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it?
More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing
''impossibility'' proofs, after 1952, and as recently as 1978?
.... Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in text books? Should it not
be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing
complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and
indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by
deliberate theoretical choice?
Wigner to the contrary notwithstanding, Bell did not establish the
impossibility of a deterministic reformulation of quantum theory, nor
did he ever claim to have done so. On the contrary, over the course of
the past several decades, until his untimely death in 1990, Bell was
the prime proponent, for a good part of this period almost the sole
proponent, of the very theory, Bohmian mechanics, that he is supposed
to have demolished.
Bohmian mechanics is of course as much a counterexample to the
Kochen-Specker argument for the impossibility of hidden variables as it
is to the one of von Neumann. It is obviously a counterexample to any
such argument. However reasonable the assumptions of such an argument,
some of them must fail for Bohmian mechanics.
Wigner was quite right to suggest that the assumptions of Kochen and
Specker are more convincing than those of von Neumann. They appear, in
fact, to be quite reasonable indeed . However, they are not. The
impression that they are arises from a pervasive error, a naive realism
about operators, that will be discussed below in the sections on
quantum observables, on spin, and on contextuality.
One of the achievements of John Bell was to replace the "arbitrary
axioms" (Bell 1987, page 11) of Kochen-Specker and others by an
assumption of locality, of no action-at-a-distance. It would be hard to
argue against the reasonableness of such an assumption, even if one
were so bold as to doubt its inevitability. Bell showed that any
hidden-variables formulation of quantum mechanics must be nonlocal, as,
indeed, Bohmian mechanics is. But he showed much much more.
....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
06 Apr 2005 02:01:20 PM |
|
|
On 6 Apr 2005 09:26:19 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:
John von Neumann, one of the greatest mathematicians of the twentieth
century, claimed to have mathematically proven that Einstein's dream,
of a deterministic completion or reinterpretation of quantum theory,
was mathematically impossible. He concluded that (von Neumann 1932, p.
325 of the English translation)
Ol' John was quite the genius - father of AI too.
But he suffered a fatal flaw IMO - he subscribed to the Copenhagen
Intepretation.
A lot has transpired since Ol' Joh's early days of QM. We now have
Quantum Entanglement and Bell's Theorems to rely on. They show that
the Copenhagen Interpretation is not valid.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
06 Apr 2005 02:20:50 PM |
|
|
(Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) writes:
A lot has transpired since Ol' Joh's early days of QM. We now have
Quantum Entanglement and Bell's Theorems to rely on. They show that
the Copenhagen Interpretation is not valid.
Not at all. (Ha, I've been studying) Bell's Theorem shows that
the Copenhagen Interpretation is perfectly acceptable. The Copenhagen
Interpretation, the Many-Worlds Hypothesis, and even the Interpretation
from Consistent History all reject your objective realism. The actual
and definite properties of a system do not exist prior to observation.
As Brian Greene puts it, "Quantum mechanics is supported by
every experiment we can do. But it doesn't make sense."
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
06 Apr 2005 02:56:27 PM |
|
|
Not at all. (Ha, I've been studying) Bell's Theorem shows that
the Copenhagen Interpretation is perfectly acceptable. The Copenhagen
Interpretation, the Many-Worlds Hypothesis, and even the
Interpretation
from Consistent History all reject your objective realism. The actual
and definite properties of a system do not exist prior to observation.
As Brian Greene puts it, "Quantum mechanics is supported by
every experiment we can do. But it doesn't make sense."
Hi Elf, though as Bell himself said in reaction to Bohm's Theory (Bell
1987, p. 160):
"But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm.
Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into
nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the
indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic
one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox
version, the necessary reference to the 'observer,' could be
eliminated. ...
But why then had Born not told me of this 'pilot wave'? If only to
point out what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it?
More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing
''impossibility'' proofs, after 1952, and as recently as 1978?
.... Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in text books? Should it not
be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing
complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and
indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by
deliberate theoretical choice? "
In Bohmian mechanics the properties of the system do exist independent
of observation. Why would you deliberately choose to go the route of
"vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism"?
If you are in a studying mood, you might want to look at
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
06 Apr 2005 03:43:24 PM |
|
|
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1112817387.493275.52520@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Not at all. (Ha, I've been studying) Bell's Theorem shows that
the Copenhagen Interpretation is perfectly acceptable. The Copenhagen
Interpretation, the Many-Worlds Hypothesis, and even the
Interpretation
from Consistent History all reject your objective realism. The actual
and definite properties of a system do not exist prior to observation.
As Brian Greene puts it, "Quantum mechanics is supported by
every experiment we can do. But it doesn't make sense."
Hi Elf, though as Bell himself said in reaction to Bohm's Theory (Bell
1987, p. 160):
"But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David
Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be
introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of
which the indeterministic description could be transformed into a
deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity
of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the 'observer,'
could be eliminated. ...
But why then had Born not told me of this 'pilot wave'? If only to
point out what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it?
More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing
''impossibility'' proofs, after 1952, and as recently as 1978?
... Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in text books? Should it not
be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing
complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and
indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by
deliberate theoretical choice? "
In Bohmian mechanics the properties of the system do exist independent
of observation. Why would you deliberately choose to go the route of
"vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism"?
The reference is to the "vagueness, subjectivity and indeterminism" of
the "observer" of the Copenhagen Interpretation. The indeterminism is
that which results from the difficulty of specifying the "observer" and
the "collapse of the wave function" of QM. Bohm's mechanics makes that
calculation explicit, thus removing *THAT PARTICULAR KIND OF
INDETERMINISM*. This is what is meant by "deterministic on configuration
space".
That has nothing to do with the philosophical concept of causal
determinism ala LaPlace.
If you are in a studying mood, you might want to look at
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
Excellent reference. You might want to look at section 9 - "Quantum
Randomness."
"...It is nowadays a rather familiar fact that dynamical systems quite
generally give rise to behavior of a statistical character, with the
statistics given by the (or a) stationary probability distribution for
the dynamics. So it is with Bohmian mechanics, except that for the
Bohmian system stationarity is not quite the right concept, and it is
rather the notion of equivariance that is relevant..."
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
06 Apr 2005 03:52:06 PM |
|
|
Excellent reference. You might want to look at section 9 - "Quantum
Randomness."
"...It is nowadays a rather familiar fact that dynamical systems quite
generally give rise to behavior of a statistical character, with the
statistics given by the (or a) stationary probability distribution for
the dynamics. So it is with Bohmian mechanics, except that for the
Bohmian system stationarity is not quite the right concept, and it is
rather the notion of equivariance that is relevant..."
I think we have been through this one before, and there are certain
assumption made on the distribution of the particles, though as Jean
Bricmont points out, there are assumptions made in statistical
mechanics (quantum mechanics) which are harder to justify.
As a side issue, I have noticed you quote the double slit experiment a
few times. Would you agree with the following:
The two-slit experiment for electrons is (Feynman et al. 1963, p. 37-2)
"a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in
any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics.
In reality it contains the only mystery." This experiment (Feynman
1967, p. 130) "has been designed to contain all of the mystery of
quantum mechanics, to put you up against the paradoxes and mysteries
and peculiarities of nature one hundred per cent." As to the question
(Feynman 1967, p. 145), "How does it really work? What machinery is
actually producing this thing? Nobody knows any machinery. Nobody can
give you a deeper explanation of this phenomenon than I have given;
that is, a description of it." ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
06 Apr 2005 05:40:28 PM |
|
|
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1112820726.952444.129710@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Excellent reference. You might want to look at section 9 - "Quantum
Randomness."
"...It is nowadays a rather familiar fact that dynamical systems quite
generally give rise to behavior of a statistical character, with the
statistics given by the (or a) stationary probability distribution for
the dynamics. So it is with Bohmian mechanics, except that for the
Bohmian system stationarity is not quite the right concept, and it is
rather the notion of equivariance that is relevant..."
I think we have been through this one before, and there are certain
assumption made on the distribution of the particles, though as Jean
Bricmont points out, there are assumptions made in statistical
mechanics (quantum mechanics) which are harder to justify.
Nice doubletalk there. You seem to be more expert at dodging than at
actually understanding what you're talking about. Why don't you just
admit that you don't understand any of it? You wouldn't be the first one
to come here with no real understanding and nothing better than a few
random quotes from scientific literature.
As a side issue, I have noticed you quote the double slit experiment a
few times. Would you agree with the following:
The two-slit experiment for electrons is (Feynman et al. 1963, p.
37-2) "a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to
explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum
mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." This experiment
(Feynman 1967, p. 130) "has been designed to contain all of the
mystery of quantum mechanics, to put you up against the paradoxes and
mysteries and peculiarities of nature one hundred per cent." As to the
question (Feynman 1967, p. 145), "How does it really work? What
machinery is actually producing this thing? Nobody knows any
machinery. Nobody can give you a deeper explanation of this phenomenon
than I have given; that is, a description of it." ?
Yes, I would agree with that. Why? Are you thinking that *you* have the
deeper understanding of the "mystery" that Feynman (nor anyone else)
cannot explain? Bohm and Bricmont can't help you. Their mechanics
doesn't do any better job of explaining the two-slit experiment.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
06 Apr 2005 05:52:40 PM |
|
|
As a side issue, I have noticed you quote the double slit experiment
a
few times. Would you agree with the following:
The two-slit experiment for electrons is (Feynman et al. 1963, p.
37-2) "a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to
explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of
quantum
mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." This experiment
(Feynman 1967, p. 130) "has been designed to contain all of the
mystery of quantum mechanics, to put you up against the paradoxes
and
mysteries and peculiarities of nature one hundred per cent." As to
the
question (Feynman 1967, p. 145), "How does it really work? What
machinery is actually producing this thing? Nobody knows any
machinery. Nobody can give you a deeper explanation of this
phenomenon
than I have given; that is, a description of it." ?
Yes, I would agree with that. Why? Are you thinking that *you* have
the
deeper understanding of the "mystery" that Feynman (nor anyone else)
cannot explain? Bohm and Bricmont can't help you. Their mechanics
doesn't do any better job of explaining the two-slit experiment.
Far be it from me to give an explanation, unlike you I have only an 'O'
Level in physics. I was just going to suggest you look at:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#2s
That was all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
06 Apr 2005 10:02:27 PM |
|
|
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1112827960.226677.282870@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
As a side issue, I have noticed you quote the double slit experiment
a
few times. Would you agree with the following:
The two-slit experiment for electrons is (Feynman et al. 1963, p.
37-2) "a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to
explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of
quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." This
experiment (Feynman 1967, p. 130) "has been designed to contain all
of the mystery of quantum mechanics, to put you up against the
paradoxes and mysteries and peculiarities of nature one hundred per
cent." As to the question (Feynman 1967, p. 145), "How does it
really work? What machinery is actually producing this thing? Nobody
knows any machinery. Nobody can give you a deeper explanation of
this phenomenon than I have given; that is, a description of it." ?
Yes, I would agree with that. Why? Are you thinking that *you* have
the deeper understanding of the "mystery" that Feynman (nor anyone
else) cannot explain? Bohm and Bricmont can't help you. Their
mechanics doesn't do any better job of explaining the two-slit
experiment.
Far be it from me to give an explanation, unlike you I have only an
'O' Level in physics. I was just going to suggest you look at:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#2s
That was all.
I already read that. I doesn't help you. Bohm's mechanics doesn't
explain the "machinery" any more than Feynman's. It only gives a more
definite way of calculating the result, that deals with the "observer
paradox". It calls it "a particle guided by a wave" but that's the
problem with trying to explain this stuff in English. This all makes
perfect sense in Hamiltonians.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
07 Apr 2005 04:09:41 AM |
|
|
I already read that. I doesn't help you. Bohm's mechanics doesn't
explain the "machinery" any more than Feynman's. It only gives a more
definite way of calculating the result, that deals with the "observer
paradox". It calls it "a particle guided by a wave" but that's the
problem with trying to explain this stuff in English. This all makes
perfect sense in Hamiltonians.
Well it sounds like it explains how you get the results that you do
with the double slit experiment, and yet the particle only travels
through one slit.
Quoting from ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#2s ) again:
Compare Feynman's presentation with Bell's (Bell 1987, p. 191):
Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen
that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the
diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle
is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a
particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be
influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced
that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is
attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and
simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and
ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally
ignored.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
07 Apr 2005 06:53:23 AM |
|
|
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1112864981.899375.59010@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
I already read that. I doesn't help you. Bohm's mechanics doesn't
explain the "machinery" any more than Feynman's. It only gives a more
definite way of calculating the result, that deals with the "observer
paradox". It calls it "a particle guided by a wave" but that's the
problem with trying to explain this stuff in English. This all makes
perfect sense in Hamiltonians.
Well it sounds like it explains how you get the results that you do
with the double slit experiment, and yet the particle only travels
through one slit.
It sounds that way when someone tries to explain the whole business in
English.
Quoting from ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#2s ) again:
Compare Feynman's presentation with Bell's (Bell 1987, p. 191):
Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen
that we have to do with a particle?
No, that's not clear.
And is it not clear, from the
diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle
is directed by a wave?
No, that is not clear either. It looks good in English, but you don't do
quantum mechanical calculations in English.
De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a
particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be
influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced
that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is
attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural
and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and
ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so
generally ignored.
Because it's wrong. This is the problem with trying to make metaphysics
out of physics.
Look, you're quoting from one minor source about one obscure
interpretation of a minor theory about physics that has otherwise been
well established in all the major literature for many years. Bohm's
theory is an interesting side track, it's not the main highway that you
seem to think.
And you have gotten completely off the track with this "side note".
Nice job, as if I didn't see it coming.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
07 Apr 2005 09:19:00 AM |
|
|
Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the
screen
that we have to do with a particle?
No, that's not clear.
Why is it not clear? The quantum mechanics explanation also has it
becoming a particle when it hits the screen. The concept there though
is that it is only a particle under observation.
And is it not clear, from the
diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the
particle
is directed by a wave?
No, that is not clear either. It looks good in English, but you don't
do
quantum mechanical calculations in English.
Quantum mechanics has no underlying mechanism, but Bohmian mechanics
does explain the underlying mechanism, and it fits in with the
observations of the two-slit-experiment.
De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a
particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be
influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so
influenced
that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is
attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural
and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and
ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so
generally ignored.
Because it's wrong. This is the problem with trying to make
metaphysics
out of physics.
What has metaphysics got to do with this. It is simply an explanation
of what is going on, by Bohmian mechanics, where the particle goes
through one slit, but the wave that guides the particle goes through
both. No offence Fred, but I don't think you are quite as big in the
world of physics as John Bell was. I would have no objection if you
actually gave reasons for why it was wrong, but you just dismiss it out
of hand.
Look, you're quoting from one minor source about one obscure
interpretation of a minor theory about physics that has otherwise been
well established in all the major literature for many years.
The paper is on the Stanford University site, and the quote was from
John Bell. Quantum mechanics has been well established for years. It
was well established for years that the world was flat, but it wasn't.
John Bell was for a time the sole proponent of Bohmian mechanics. It is
now picking up momentum.
As Richard Feynman said, the two-slit experiment for electrons is
(Feynman et al. 1963, p. 37-2) "a phenomenon which is impossible,
absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has
in it the heart of quantum mechanics".
You agreed with this statement, and yet Bohmian mechanics did explain
it in a classical way.
So even if Bohmian mechanics isn't a complete theory, it does show that
deterministic explanations can be found, which is in line with the
finding of science throughout history, that randomness is due to our
ignorance. Progress is being made to show this is the case with regards
to quantum mechanics.
And you have gotten completely off the track with this "side note".
Nice job, as if I didn't see it coming.
We can get back on track latter, I'm just showing that where people
were saying that it was impossible to explain, science hadn't reached a
brick wall, and explanations are being found.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
07 Apr 2005 11:38:55 AM |
|
|
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1112883540.735602.225260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the
screen that we have to do with a particle?
No, that's not clear.
Why is it not clear? The quantum mechanics explanation also has it
becoming a particle when it hits the screen. The concept there though
is that it is only a particle under observation.
It isn't "only" a particle. It's always and only what it is. The
"wave-particle duality" is an artifact of the language we use to talk
about it.
And is it not clear, from the
diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the
particle
is directed by a wave?
No, that is not clear either. It looks good in English, but you don't
do quantum mechanical calculations in English.
Quantum mechanics has no underlying mechanism, but Bohmian mechanics
does explain the underlying mechanism, and it fits in with the
observations of the two-slit-experiment.
Neither of them have an underlying mechanism. Bohm invented one that
happens to work, but he has no experimental verification of that, any
more than standard QM does. I can make up a perfectly good story to
"explain" the things that Feynman was talking about. The math of either
theory describes the observations of the two-slit-experiment in
exquisite detail.
De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a
particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be
influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so
influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out,
but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so
natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a
clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was
so generally ignored.
Because it's wrong. This is the problem with trying to make
metaphysics
out of physics.
What has metaphysics got to do with this. It is simply an explanation
of what is going on, by Bohmian mechanics, where the particle goes
through one slit, but the wave that guides the particle goes through
both. No offence Fred, but I don't think you are quite as big in the
world of physics as John Bell was.
I'm quite a bit bigger in the world of physics than *YOU* are. You're
quoting things you don't understand, trying to claim knowledge you don't
have, and criticizing work you haven't a clue about.
I would have no objection if you
actually gave reasons for why it was wrong, but you just dismiss it
out of hand.
Oh, you're so full of yourself it isn't even funny. I have explained
things to you until I'm blue in the face. Your usual response to
detailed explanations has been to snip them out and claim that I haven't
done it.
Look, you're quoting from one minor source about one obscure
interpretation of a minor theory about physics that has otherwise been
well established in all the major literature for many years.
The paper is on the Stanford University site, and the quote was from
John Bell. Quantum mechanics has been well established for years. It
was well established for years that the world was flat, but it wasn't.
John Bell was for a time the sole proponent of Bohmian mechanics. It
is now picking up momentum.
As Richard Feynman said, the two-slit experiment for electrons is
(Feynman et al. 1963, p. 37-2) "a phenomenon which is impossible,
absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has
in it the heart of quantum mechanics".
You agreed with this statement, and yet Bohmian mechanics did explain
it in a classical way.
If you think that Bohm's is a classical explanation, you're totally
insane. But I know what you're doing. You've got an agenda and you're
looking for simple sentences that you can take out of context to support
your agenda without having to understand the years and years worth of
mathematical study that went into those simple sentences.
So even if Bohmian mechanics isn't a complete theory, it does show
that deterministic explanations can be found, which is in line with
the finding of science throughout history, that randomness is due to
our ignorance. Progress is being made to show this is the case with
regards to quantum mechanics.
You're so far off the track that I can't even see you from there.
And you have gotten completely off the track with this "side note".
Nice job, as if I didn't see it coming.
We can get back on track latter, I'm just showing that where people
were saying that it was impossible to explain, science hadn't reached
a brick wall, and explanations are being found.
Explanations that are wrong, when taken out of the context of the math
that is behind them. You seem to think that one paragraph, written in
ordinary English, without a single mathematical formula, can explain the
internals of one of the most complicated mathematical theories ever to
be developed.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
07 Apr 2005 04:47:01 PM |
|
|
(Sorry this might show up twice, first post doesn't seem to of have)
Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the
screen that we have to do with a particle?
No, that's not clear.
Why is it not clear? The quantum mechanics explanation also has it
becoming a particle when it hits the screen. The concept there
though
is that it is only a particle under observation.
It isn't "only" a particle. It's always and only what it is. The
"wave-particle duality" is an artifact of the language we use to talk
about it.
In Bohmian mechanics though, isn't this explained by there being a wave
function (that evolves according to the Schrodinger equation) that is
responsible for the motion of a pointlike particle?
And is it not clear, from the
diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the
particle
is directed by a wave?
No, that is not clear either. It looks good in English, but you
don't
do quantum mechanical calculations in English.
Quantum mechanics has no underlying mechanism, but Bohmian mechanics
does explain the underlying mechanism, and it fits in with the
observations of the two-slit-experiment.
Neither of them have an underlying mechanism. Bohm invented one that
happens to work, but he has no experimental verification of that, any
more than standard QM does. I can make up a perfectly good story to
"explain" the things that Feynman was talking about. The math of
either
theory describes the observations of the two-slit-experiment in
exquisite detail.
Well scientific theories can only ever be stories as to how the
underlying mechanism is working. When the story is found to be
inconsistent, then the story is changed. Obviously the story would have
to have a mathematical basis (the model). One story though, Bohmian
mechanics, includes an explanation of an underlying mechanism. If you
can make up a logically consistent story to "explain" the things
that Feynman was talking about, then I suggest you do so, and publish a
paper on it. For he was thinking that no one could give a more in depth
explanation than he did, and that was a statistical description of what
happened.
De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a
particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could
be
influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so
influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel
out,
but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so
natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a
clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it
was
so generally ignored.
Because it's wrong. This is the problem with trying to make
metaphysics
out of physics.
What has metaphysics got to do with this. It is simply an
explanation
of what is going on, by Bohmian mechanics, where the particle goes
through one slit, but the wave that guides the particle goes through
both. No offence Fred, but I don't think you are quite as big in the
world of physics as John Bell was.
I'm quite a bit bigger in the world of physics than *YOU* are. You're
quoting things you don't understand, trying to claim knowledge you
don't
have, and criticizing work you haven't a clue about.
You have a degree in physics as you have lead me to believe, I don't,
so you are correct that you are bigger in the world of physics than I
am. I am quoting things I understand to a point, but I am not claiming
as much knowledge of Bohmian mechanics as John Bell for example. I am
not claiming any knowledge that I don't have, neither am I criticizing
work I haven't a clue about.
It wasn't me that you were disagreeing with though, it was John Bell. I
wasn't quoted out of context either, I quoted it fully as it was quoted
by the Stanford University website. You have said that you read the
site, and so you criticisms were directly aimed against what John Bell
was saying, or the context in which they were put forward on the
website.
I would have no objection if you
actually gave reasons for why it was wrong, but you just dismiss it
out of hand.
Oh, you're so full of yourself it isn't even funny. I have explained
things to you until I'm blue in the face. Your usual response to
detailed explanations has been to snip them out and claim that I
haven't
done it.
What did I snip here?
Look, you're quoting from one minor source about one obscure
interpretation of a minor theory about physics that has otherwise
been
well established in all the major literature for many years.
The paper is on the Stanford University site, and the quote was from
John Bell. Quantum mechanics has been well established for years. It
was well established for years that the world was flat, but it
wasn't.
John Bell was for a time the sole proponent of Bohmian mechanics. It
is now picking up momentum.
As Richard Feynman said, the two-slit experiment for electrons is
(Feynman et al. 1963, p. 37-2) "a phenomenon which is impossible,
absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which
has
in it the heart of quantum mechanics".
You agreed with this statement, and yet Bohmian mechanics did
explain
it in a classical way.
If you think that Bohm's is a classical explanation, you're totally
insane.
I'm not claiming that Bohm's is a totally classical explanation, for
example in Bohmian mechanics the velocities are not independent of
positions, as they are classically, but are constrained by the guiding
equation.
But I know what you're doing. You've got an agenda and you're
looking for simple sentences that you can take out of context to
support
your agenda without having to understand the years and years worth of
mathematical study that went into those simple sentences.
What is wrong with quoting pieces which are written clearly in English,
and don't require an understanding of the years and years worth of
mathematical studies that went into what is being said. What is wrong
with assuming that the people that wrote them know what they are
talking about. For example the clip below:
'Later, on the basis of more or less the same considerations as those
of Schr=F6dinger quoted above, Einstein again concluded that the wave
function does not provide a complete description of individual systems,
an idea he called "this most nearly obvious interpretation" (Einstein
1949, p. 672). In relation to a theory incorporating a more complete
description, Einstein remarked that "the statistical quantum theory
would ... take an approximately analogous position to the statistical
mechanics within the framework of classical mechanics." It is perhaps
worth noting here that Bohmian mechanics, as we shall see, exactly fits
this description.'
You have said that it is proven that there are effects without causes,
but quite clearly, there are many theoretical physicists that say
nothing of the kind has been proven. If you think I, or anybody else,
is going to accept Fred Stone as the all knowing authority, I think
quite clearly you are insane.
So even if Bohmian mechanics isn't a complete theory, it does show
that deterministic explanations can be found, which is in line with
the finding of science throughout history, that randomness is due to
our ignorance. Progress is being made to show this is the case with
regards to quantum mechanics.
You're so far off the track that I can't even see you from there.
Well according to Bohmian mechanics when a particle is sent into a
two-slit apparatus, the slit through which it passes and where it
arrives on the photographic plate are completely determined by its
initial position and wave function. So a plausible cause and effect
solution has been put forward. I would call this progress.
And you have gotten completely off the track with this "side note".
Nice job, as if I didn't see it coming.
We can get back on track latter, I'm just showing that where people
were saying that it was impossible to explain, science hadn't
reached
a brick wall, and explanations are being found.
Explanations that are wrong, when taken out of the context of the math
that is behind them. You seem to think that one paragraph, written in
ordinary English, without a single mathematical formula, can explain
the
internals of one of the most complicated mathematical theories ever to
be developed.
I am not trying to explain Bohmian mechanics mathematically. I am
simply discussing the concepts behind the mathematics, as they are
explained by the people that do understand the mathematics, and what it
means conceptually.
By the way, with regards to over snipping, here again I have not
snipped anything, though obviously I'm not going to keep posting the
total of the whole thread each time. So if I do snip something out that
you feel was still relevant, then just add it back in, I'm not a mind
reader as to what you think is relevant.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist Lie |
07 Apr 2005 04:22:25 PM |
|
|
Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the
screen that we have to do with a particle?
No, that's not clear.
Why is it not clear? The quantum mechanics explanation also has it
becoming a particle when it hits the screen. The concept there
though
is that it is only a particle under observation.
It isn't "only" a particle. It's always and only what it is. The
"wave-particle duality" is an artifact of the language we use to talk
about it.
In Bohmian mechanics though, isn't this explained by there being a wave
function (that evolves according to the Schrodinger equation) that is
responsible for the motion of a pointlike particle?
And is it not clear, from the
diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the
particle
is directed by a wave?
No, that is not clear either. It looks good in English, but you
don't
do quantum mechanical calculations in English.
Quantum mechanics has no underlying mechanism, but Bohmian mechanics
does explain the underlying mechanism, and it fits in with the
observations of the two-slit-experiment.
Neither of them have an underlying mechanism. Bohm invented one that
happens to work, but he has no experimental verification of that, any
more than standard QM does. I can make up a perfectly good story to
"explain" the things that Feynman was talking about. The math of
either
theory describes the observations of the two-slit-experiment in
exquisite detail.
Well scientific theories can only ever be stories as to how the
underlying mechanism is working. When the story is found to be
inconsistent, then the story is changed. Obviously the story would have
to have a mathematical basis (the model). One story though, Bohmian
mechanics, includes an explanation of an underlying mechanism. If you
can make up a logically consistent story to "explain" the things
that Feynman was talking about, then I suggest you do so, and publish a
paper on it. For he was thinking that no one could give a more in depth
explanation than he did, and that was a statistical description of what
happened.
De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a
particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could
be
influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so
influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel
out,
but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so
natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a
clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it
was
so generally ignored.
Because it's wrong. This is the problem with trying to make
metaphysics
out of physics.
What has metaphysics got to do with this. It is simply an
explanation
of what is going on, by Bohmian mechanics, where the particle goes
th | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
