Hi all,
I'm new to this list, but would like to give my inputs on QM.
Aloha,
-rv,
>---------------------
>PIRSIG:
>In classical science it was supposed that the world always works in terms
of
>absolute certainty and that ^cause^ is the more appropriate word to
describe
>it. But in modern quantum physics all that is changed. Particles ^PREFER^
>to do what they do. (Lila, Chap. 8, emphasis added)
>PLATT:
>PREFER presupposes CHOICE. Bertrand Russell confirms Pirsig^s insight.
>He said, ^So far as quantum theory can say at present, atoms might as
well
>be possessed of free will, limited, however to one of several possible
>choices^.
>--------------------
as far as I know there is no theories that dare burden an electron or an
atom
with such thing as free will; they don't prefer either, but only acts due
to interactions with other particles, fields or even themselves in some
cases.
>Quantum physics has not changed the most appropriate word from 'cause' to
>'prefer' this is absolute nonsense. Quantum physics (in this context)
says nothing
> more than that we cannot have a complete
>scientific picture of the world because we cannot (in principle and
practice)
>measure it. As Stephen Hawking says,
I believe this has nothing to do with QM. Scientists already have this
concept of
not being able to measure with exact precision; an example is the number
pi, or
simply the concept of derivative in its limit form. The number pi the
ratio of the
circumference with the diameter. But we can never make those two
measurements
with exact precision. Otherwise, we would be able to predict pi with exact
precision.
This has been proven mathematically for the case of pi, that it can't be
expressed as a ratio
of two numbers. In QM it is possible to measure
some observables with exact precision if those observables are eigenvalues
of defined
eigenstates. One can perform as many time the experiment as one wishes,
measurements
of those eigenvalues will always be the SAME measurements.
Also, we have to be careful saying that "we cannot (in principle and
practice) measure it"
For the practice case, probably. But for the principle case, QM doesn't
say we can't, QM just says
That there are SOME characteristics of a particle that we can't observe
with exact
precision . This is very different: if those two operators, which
represent our observables
commute with each other, it is perfectly possible to measure them
simultaneously, the
Heisenberg uncertainty does NOT apply and therefore there is no
uncertainty in the measurement.
>"We can still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events
>completely for some
>supernatural being who could observe the present state of the universe
without
>disturbing it." (A
>Brief History of Time 1988 pg 55)
I do not see the link between the above claim and the idea that this is
supposed to backup.
>"Since the universe contains some deterministic and some
non-deterministic
>systems it means that
>parts of it are unpredictable (even without quantum theory). However, it
does
>not mean that they are
>not governed by deterministic processes - in fact this characteristic is
often
>referred to as
>deterministic chaos. The point is that all measurements have some error
>associated with them."
>(Frontiers; Twentieth Century Physics 2000 pg 421)
I completely agree with this.
>The scientific view is that non-deterministic systems evolve, out of
underlying
>deterministic
>processes. Furthermore, if they are not observed they behave
deterministically.
>Of course there is
>no empirical evidence for this but it has been proved mathematically with
>Schrodingers equation,
>which I can't write out here due to lack of special characters, and it is
the
>accepted position of
>almost every physicist. There is no 'preference,' the particles just do
it in
>the same way as my x
>key produces an x on the screen whenx I prxessx itxx.
>" Furthermore, if they are not observed they behave deterministically."
????
I wish there would be more explanation/backup for this one.
As far as the Schrodinger's equation goes, I don't see how either the time
dependent
or non-dependent one can prove mathematically anything. Schrodinger's
equation is at
QM what is second Newton's law for classical systems. It has never been
proven, and does
Not prove anything either. It is only used to describe a system, which is
most of the time
unsolvable analytically unless clever approximation are made. Hence, for
every system, the
Schrodinger's equation will be different (potential energy varies
according to the number or
elements, and their dependence with the rest of the system).
Trying to match science to metaphysics or philosophy is great but one has
to be very careful
with interpretation of QM, especially due to the fact that our vocabulary
is not well adapted to
the concepts underlying this theory. There is a good book that deal with
this issue by Dr. Stenger
("The Unconscious Quantum"), or QM from Heisenberg.
Aloha,
-rv,
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:37 BST