ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (10/13/85)
>>>Quantum mechanics is a theory of measurement. As far as I know it only says >>>that there are limitations on the precision to which events can be >>>measured, i.e. there is an uncertainty associated with certain types of >>>measurement. This is not the same as saying that indeterminism is correct, >>>only that we can not measure a system and conclude that it is >>>deterministic. The system may be, but we cannot in practice ascertain >>> that fact. -- Padraig >> Your knowledge is incomplete. First of all, quantum mechanics is a theory >> of how particles behave. There are results from quantum mechanics >> which are not explainable by *any* deterministic theory unless special >> relativity is wrong -- Frank Adams >My statement was based on the replies given to this question that I put >to two Ph.D's in this area of physics. I would be interested in seeing >a reference to the contrary. -- Padraig Houlahan. Padraig is well advised not to accept anyone's interpretation of QM on first hearing, since this subject stretches most commonsense notions to ridiculous extremes; furthermore, there are many possible interpretations, all absurd -- Everett's multiple worlds, Von Neumann's observer created reality (and others) -- and all as enigmatic as Bohr's classical minimalist "Copenhagen interpretation", in which unobserved states simply do not exist. My best advice is to read everything you can understand. Indeterminism is only a minor issue here. Wave/particle complementarity and the instantaneous wave packet collapse puke all over relativity and, apparently, wedge subjective conscousness into science perversely at its basis -- "Does the concept of Being make sense?" d'Espagnat asks. Everything you know is wrong.. QM absolutely will not stay in its microscopic place. Recent experiments, originally dreamt up by Einstein (1935), formalized by Bell (1964), and beautifully executed by Aspect (1982) have finally placed Bohr's voodoo on macroscopic levels: "I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there is no real problem, but I'm not sure, there's no real problem". Causality is macroscopically compromized. There are the popularizers (Dancing Wu Li Masters, etc..) which are OK but probably not what you want since they lack the depth to be very convincing. The best of these I've encountered is Nick Herbert's recent "Quantum Reality" (1985). Bernard d'Espagnat's "In Search of Reality" (1983, Springer-Verlag) is a marvelous text that not only aggressively destroys traditional scientistic delusions, but also nicely organizes the rubble that remains. Few authors of scientific texts aimed at the general audience have ever covered the complexity and ambiguity of QM as rigorously and imaginatively as d'Espagnat. Highly recommended, especially for those with philosophical orientation. David Bohm's 1957 "Causality and Chance in Modern physics" was visionary long after its publication, and may still be. Enrico Cantore's excellent text (ca. 1960) presents excellent explanations of basic QM, its realization in chemistry, and an immense body of careful philosophical analysis. Davies' "Quantum Mechanics" presents the hard mathematical basics in 134 pages as concisely as I have ever seen, for those who prefer straight theory. Bohm's and Jammer's texts are reportedly standard classroom warhorses. Net.physics people might know better -- recommendations and flames requested.. Those who wish away QM weirdness as a microscopic fuzzy scourge on the purity of our macroscopic causally deterministic heaven that might hopefully disappear in the future are urged to check out the April `85 "Physics Today", which explains all you need to determine for yourself that something is wrong somewhere.. ===================================================================== Einstein was a paradoxical figure on the fringe of QM's growth. His seminal 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect was part of QM's birth. Sadly, he is often remembered for his remark "God does not play dice with the Universe". As Pauli wrote to Bohr "Einstein does not consider the concept of determinism to be as fundamental as it is frequently held to be (as he has told me emphatically many times)". What really bothered him about QM was the swiss cheese it made of traditional scientistic reality, as Pascual Jordan recalled "Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me, and asked whether I really believed the moon exists only when I look at it". The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment, first conceived in 1936, was recently confirmed (1982) over macroscopic distances (13 meters) -- Bohr's "spukhafte Fernwirkungen" (uhh.. voodoo) are everywhere. We are therefore faced with a breakdown of our customary ideas of the analysability of each process into various parts, located in definite regions of space and time. -- David Bohm -michael
dbmk1@stc.UUCP (10/16/85)
In article <592@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment, > first conceived in 1936, was recently confirmed (1982) over macroscopic > distances (13 meters) -- Bohr's "spukhafte Fernwirkungen" (uhh.. voodoo) > are everywhere. > Could anyone provide a concise description of this experiment - or tell me where I can find one 'cause I'm getting lost. Regards Derek !seismo!mcvax!ukc!stc!dbmk1 I've heard that re-incarnation is making a come-back.