Links With Your Coffee Friday
- Quantum randomness may not be random - alt.philosophy | Google Groups
I'm one of those who has never felt comfortable with the idea of Quantum randomness and there are at least some of like mind. They, unlike me are scientists and though their ideas are unproven they are being taken seriously.
Where does this randomness come from? Before quantum theory, physicists could believe in determinism, the idea of a world unfolding
with precise mathematical certainty. Since then, however, the weird probabilistic behaviour of the quantum world has rudely
intruded, and the mainstream view is that this uncertainty is a fundamental feature of everything from alpha particles to Z bosons.
Indeed, most quantum researchers celebrate the notion that pure chance lies at the foundations of the universe.However, a sizeable minority of physicists have long been pushing entirely the opposite view. They remain unconvinced that quantum
theory depends on pure chance, and they shun the philosophical contortions of quantum weirdness. The world is not inherently random,
they say, it only appears that way. Their response has been to develop quantum models that are deterministic, and that describe a
world that has "objective" properties, whether or not we measure them. The problem is that such models have had flaws that many
physicists consider fatal, such as inconsistencies with established theories.Until now, that is. A series of recent papers show that the idea of a deterministic and objective universe is alive and kicking. At
the very least, the notion that quantum theory put the nail in the coffin of determinism has been wildly overstated, says physicist
Sheldon Goldstein of Rutgers University in New Jersey. He and a cadre of like-minded physicists have been pursuing an alternative
quantum theory known as Bohmian mechanics, in which particles follow precise trajectories or paths through space and time, and the
future is perfectly predictable from the past. "It's a reformulation of quantum theory that is not at all congenial to supposedly
deep quantum philosophy," says Goldstein. "It's precise and objective - and deterministic."If these researchers can convince their peers, most of whom remain sceptical, it would be a big step towards rebuilding the universe
as Einstein wanted, one in which "God does not play dice". It could also trigger a search for evidence of physics beyond quantum
theory, paving the way for a better and more intuitive theory of how the universe works. Nearly a century after the discovery of
quantum weirdness, it seems determinism may be back. - Ode To John “Maverick” McCain » Mad Kane's Political Madness
- The Reading Experience: Stories About People
- http://www.jamiolsworld.com/ (Cartoon fun)
- Birds team up to solve food puzzle - life - 27 March 2008 - New Scientist
- Megan McArdle (March 27, 2008) - Where is Darwin when you need him?
Tweet
Comments
Re: The quantum determinism article.
The Universe doesn't owe it to us to be intuitive. Any assumptions of anthropocentrism (at least beyond the limitations of the so-called Anthropic Principle) have no place in science.
My work is in software, so it is partly through that lens that I often view physics and cosmology: The Universe runs on information, the speed of light is a sort of bandwidth limitation... and the probabilistic features of physics are remotely similar to compression artifacts.
Considering physics and cosmology from this perspective it becomes conceivable that things could be, in a way, both probabilistic and deterministic, in that it may be possible to figure out an equation that accurately describes how probabilistic "data" in the Universe is extrapolated or permutated into something (temporarily) deterministic once observed or interacted with. In other words, if probabilistic physics is evidence of "compression" within the "informational fabric" of space-time, it is possible that this compression is lossless
This could also explain why probabilistic functions "collapse" (eg. electromagnetic waves into photons) when observed; the Universe needs to determine the exact "data" in order to "pass" it to a separate information processor (a mind) with its own subjective interior (a consciousness).
This is all highly conjectural (and arguably quite philosophical) of course. IANAPhysicist.
I totally concur/disagree.
Somewhat.
An Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Google ad on OGM !?!?
It's pornographic.
David Bohm was trying to tell them that, what, 30 years ago? But did anyone listen? No, Bohm was too tofutti a scientist to rate with the big boyz, so he got stuffed into the New Age closet with Capra and the other new science freaks (and that spaceman Mitchell and his kooky IONS spirit-flashbacks in the Apollo capsule).
So "implicate order" got filed under "tree-hugging lunacy"; Bohm died; and chaos lived.
Then Bushspeak took over: the mathematics that was made to show that all seeming chaos is concealed order got changed from "nonlinear dynamics" to "chaos theory." You can just hear Dick Cheney in all this:
"60% of Americans believe that the universe is not governed by randomness."
"So?...We will not let fluctuations in the opinion polls alter our firm belief in chaos."
For those who would like an explanation of part of quantum theory, there is this lecture on youtube. "The Double Slit Experiment".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgnuib0z0vI&feature=related
It does seem contrived. To me, philosophical implications have nothing to do with the reality of a theory. If something makes one philosophically uncomfortable (as opposed to uncomfortable due to previous experience with similar theories), so be it. Eistein was notoriously uncomfortable with Quantum Mechanics, and he was proved wrong. This theory seems to have come out of people being uncomfortable, from what I understand. Does it resolve previously unexplained experiment results or observed phenomena? It seems from the article that it doesn't do away with anything unexplained that QM can't do, only it takes away the discomfort of randomness.
QM was in part so big and so awesome because it's hugely unintuitive and weird and yet it's the most accurate scientific theory in history. To overthrow that would be absolutely extraordinary. You know what Sagan said about extraordinary claims.
I had a colleague who used to quote E B Wilson as saying something like, "You never understand quantum mechanics, you just get used to it." I would turn that around and say that what you think is 'intuitive' about classical mechanics - in particular, its deterministic flavor, is only a consequence of having gotten used to it in your everyday life.
I don't think this is true at all. Knowledgeable physicists may regard Bohm's views regarding QM's indeterminism as outdated or irrelevant, but I never got the impression that Bohm had ever been "stuffed into the new age closet" by people whose opinions matter in this regard - other physicists. See, for example, the completely respectful tone of his Wikipedia entry or any decent discussion of the EPR paradox. David Bohm is, and always has been, regarded by other physicists as completely reputable scientist - they don't generally elect New Age frauds as Fellows of the Royal Society.
Ah, you know what I mean -- he hung out with Krishnamurti and the Dalai Lama. Now in my world, there are many wonderful things you can do in life, few of which are as good as spending time with either of the above two philosophers (others may call them spiritual leaders; I consider them philosophers).
I've got 3 of Bohm's books and he's always in my top 5 when I talk about the great science writers.
"The Universe runs on information" No no no no no,
So sorry, but, it runs on qualia, NOT quantia (which are a sort of shadow), you got your tongue tapes twisted, not garbled, but backwards, but anyway...
re: well-tempoed clo-clo-clock*, quantime ran, dumbness, what, i, want, to, know, is, what about julian barbour? is he fool of caca?
or what?
julian barbour?
is he a full, or a hero(n) who dares to tread...?. .
.
.
*"if we could just join hands," more "dada", fewer datums. just one-dering
Discussion of why Obama's Foreign Policy is more progressive than anyone in years
Magnolia: From that article you linked to:
This is one of things that Obama has been saying that most resonates with me. It is this atmosphere of fear which is now driving the U.S. to accept torturing "detainees" and which is now driving Americans to accept the loss of privacy.
George Bush spoke today about the "rule of law" and "human rights", and yet he refuses to follow the rule of the Geneva Convention as concerns torture and human rights. And how does he get away with this? He speaks of "ideology", and yet it is his ideology of "fear" which he uses to influence Americans which allows him to spy on us and suspend habeas corpus and torture detainees against the rule of the Geneva Convention.
re: Google Ads
It can be a major pain-in-the-@$$ to block certain ads from AdSense, especially when the advertiser is using dozens of unique urls.
Give Norm a break. Google sees the word "McCain" and it serves McCain ads. Ditto "expelled" for "evolution".
Consider this: if you click these ads, but don't buy anything, both Norm and Google earn a few cents, and eventually, McCain's online advertising budget is lost to a group of people who would never vote for him anyway.
If you are still offended, try the AdBlock plugin for Firefox:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/10
A regex like so should eliminate these ads:
"/.bullshit?./"
i meant to (re)say qualia, beating a neither-dead-nor-not-dead cat, horse, from quantia, not it from bit.
Had I gone to (G)ossip Fourier college, would I know how to say it...
Darwin, Dreams, Data, Euclid (takes the fifth in,) bon clef, great key, (infinite-dimensioned, sp...time)...
eternal return of penrose triangle...
TX 14142? But there is no such zip code, cipher. This is two ab surd. Must be your devil's staircase wit.
Post a comment