From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:49:32 -0500 Archived: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 17:34:55 -0500 Subject: Re: Quantum Mechanics Difficult To Grasp? Too Bad >Source: newscientist.com >http://tinyurl.com/7xdcfxh >10 November 2011 >Quantum Mechanics Difficult To Grasp? Too Bad >Celeste Biever, deputy news editor >Books >A REALITY that would be impossible to imagine, even for the >possessor of the most tortured and surreal imagination." This >does not refer to a horror film, or a war veteran's >recollections, but to the world revealed by science, according >to physicists Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. >To those uncomfortable with quantum theory's picture of wavelike >particles that are simultaneously everywhere, their message in >The Quantum Universe is clear: tough. Scientists are, they tell >us, "not mandated to produce a theory that bears any relation to >the way we perceive the world at large", although you might >comfort yourself with the thought that even Einstein found >quantum mechanics disturbing. >This is a comprehensive account of how quantum mechanics works >and why it must be real. But while it may make you feel more at >ease with the subject, it will not further your understanding in >a philosophical sense: the authors warn that attempting to >ascribe such significance is a practice best left to charlatans >and mystics. "Scientists are... 'not mandated to produce a theory that bears any relation to the way we perceive the world at large'". In this case, I am happy to align myself with Einstein's view. Scientists who believe that statement are primarily applied mathematicians, not physicists. Quantum mechanics works well as a computational model, perhaps because the model was extended incrementally to accommodate new observations. Like a hill-climbing search algorithm, this method can get stuck in a local maximum. The local maximum has been escaped in the past by positing a non-physical concept such as quantum entanglement, and the search goes on. The end result of the search depends very much on initial conditions and the constraints on the search. The result is a credit to people's imaginations, but should be seen as only one way to understand reality. What is needed is a good a priori theory that can stand or fall based on fundamental experimental predictions. It is usually the case that predictions of new particles are generally not fundamental enough to matter. For example, if the Higgs particle is not found, I doubt that the standard model will be rejected. Perhaps people were just as certain of the truth of Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe in those days as these authors are of quantum theory. Novel theories such as Sarg's BSM-SG theory already exist that describe reality at the atomic level and lower, and may not require the abstract concepts of quantum mechanics. The challenge is to compare predictions of such novel theories with those of quantum theory that have not yet been accommodated. But resources to do this are hard to come by. It's easier to ignore the heretics. William Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp