At 9:19 PM -0700 4/30/98, Stephen Speicher wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Bill Arnett wrote:
>
>> At 5:41 PM -0700 4/30/98, Stephen Speicher wrote:
>> >, but also reject the principles underlying both quantum
>> >mechanics and relativity. Note that I said _principles_
>>
>> What principles are we talking about here? AFAIK, modern phyiscs is based
>> solely on the facts at hand, mathematics and the notion that one should
>> accept the simplest possible explanation of the facts.
>>
>
>The current standard theory, of quantum mechanics for instance, is both
>nonlocal and indeterministic. The facts are to seen in experiments of
>the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) type, or the Aspect experiment.

Yes. Those are FACTS. They are not in dispute. You and I may not like it
but the world at the subatomic level simply is not deterministic. Any
adequate theory must take the FACT into account.

>The
>current theory explanation of these experiments leads to the contradictions
>which have become enshrined as the 'weirdness' of quantum mechanics.

I don't think so. QM is perfectly consistent. A bit weird, I agree, but
it works.

>When
>the theory explains experimental facts by resorting to acausal behavior,
>when effects occur with no physical means, when the state of matter is
>characterized as indeterminate, it is then time to realize that the
>contradictions of a wave-particle existence is nonsensical.

If you have a better explanation, lets hear it. But for now QM is the best
explanation of the FACTS that we have. That it is an "unsatisfactory" or
"weird" explanation is a statement about the human mind not the real world.

>The original
>poster, Bob Duncan, had it right. The tenacity with which modern _theories_
>of physics holds on to contradictory ideas is nothing short of religiousity.

Again, there is nothing contradictory that I know of. The high regard for
QM within the scientific community is due to its stunning success at
predicting the outcomes of real experiments. The Internet with which we
are having the conversation would not be possible without the subtle
understanding of solid state physics that is based on QM.

Quite the opposite of religious tenacity, I think most scientists are a
little uncomfortable with QM. They would really *like* something better.
But they accept QM because it works and nothing better is available.

---
Bill Arnett "Science is a way of trying
San Jose, CA USA not to fool yourself." -- Feynman

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: [OT]: Address for Jim Kendrick, Rick Keil
Next message: RE: [M]: [OT] Hubble Deep Field, Heapy Chris CG
Next message in thread: RE: [M]: [OT] Hubble Deep Field, Heapy Chris CG
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: [OT] Hubble Deep Field, Stephen Speicher