If you could have any question answered - what would it be?

Satan. soul. pact.

Must be.

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

First. 'how, at the end of a purely physical chain of causes and effects do sensations arise' - Well the problem is they ain't 'purely physical' according to some interpretations of quantum theory.

Second. 'anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics doesn't understand it!' - This (and other similar) statements (which have been made from time to time by various people since the earliest days of quantum theory)have been used (ad nauseum)by people such as the arch obfusticators Dennett & Dawkins to belittle the influence of QT on any of the their crude materialist arguments. The quote is misleading. The actual science or mathematics of QT is unproblematic - it is well understood and not at all contraversial. Tis the interpretations of what it all means that causes the heated debate.

Hmm,

Not sure that this is correct. Here's a quote from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by David Griffiths(in spite of the title, it's not exactly bedtime reading). This is the first paragraph of the preface:

" Unlike Newton's mechanics or Maxwell's electrodynamics, or Einstein's relativity, quantum theory was not created - or even definitively packaged- by one individual, and it retains to this day some of the scars of its exhilarating but traumatic youth. There is no general consensus as to what its fundamental principles are, how it should be taught, or what it really "means". Every competent physicist can "do" quantum mechanics, but the stories we tell ourselves about what we are doing are as various as the tales of Scheherazade, and almost as implausible. Neils Bohr said "If you are not confused by quantum physics, then you haven't really understood it"; Richard Feynman remarked, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"."

This is a well respected text which is used at many Universities and Neils Bohr and Richard Feynman are well respected physicists; possibly they are wrong and you are right - but I doubt it.

Trev

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:
Mike Dudley admits defeat and scarpers (avoiding the question and lobbing some insults on his way - as usual)

Sniper the last word freak talks b*llocks, liking to dish it out, but not take it...


As usual.

Sniper talks b*llocks - if true you should be able to refute the physics professors whom I quoted as I have done little else but quote them. If you can succesfully refute them I will buy you any piece of Naim equipment you chose and propose you for a Nobel Prize.


'Sniper the last word freak' - How many times does someone have to get in the last word to be considered 'a last word freak'? Three at least I would think. Give me examples of the sort of last word freakery you mean - anything on the lines of your 'So what' above will do and again, if you can do this I will buy you any piece of Naim equipment you desire.

'liking to dish it out, but not take it' would an example of this involve getting personal and hurling insults like you do? The day I can't take anything you say is the day I report you to the mods. The day I report you to the mods is the day I will buy you any piece of Naim gear you desire.

You need to considerably up your game to be interesting Mike.

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

First. 'how, at the end of a purely physical chain of causes and effects do sensations arise' - Well the problem is they ain't 'purely physical' according to some interpretations of quantum theory.

Second. 'anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics doesn't understand it!' - This (and other similar) statements (which have been made from time to time by various people since the earliest days of quantum theory)have been used (ad nauseum)by people such as the arch obfusticators Dennett & Dawkins to belittle the influence of QT on any of the their crude materialist arguments. The quote is misleading. The actual science or mathematics of QT is unproblematic - it is well understood and not at all contraversial. Tis the interpretations of what it all means that causes the heated debate.

Hmm,

Not sure that this is correct. Here's a quote from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by David Griffiths(in spite of the title, it's not exactly bedtime reading). This is the first paragraph of the preface:

" Unlike Newton's mechanics or Maxwell's electrodynamics, or Einstein's relativity, quantum theory was not created - or even definitively packaged- by one individual, and it retains to this day some of the scars of its exhilarating but traumatic youth. There is no general consensus as to what its fundamental principles are, how it should be taught, or what it really "means". Every competent physicist can "do" quantum mechanics, but the stories we tell ourselves about what we are doing are as various as the tales of Scheherazade, and almost as implausible. Neils Bohr said "If you are not confused by quantum physics, then you haven't really understood it"; Richard Feynman remarked, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"."

This is a well respected text which is used at many Universities and Neils Bohr and Richard Feynman are well respected physicists; possibly they are wrong and you are right - but I doubt it.

Trev

David Griffiths is correct. Neils Bohr is correct. Richard Feynman is correct. I am correct. NB and RF are referring to the seeming paradoxical results of certain quantum experiments (such as the double split experiment).

Again, I stress and this is not in any way contradicted by DG in your quote It is the the 'meaning' (the exact word DG uses)that causes the debate. 'Every competent physicist can "do" quantum mechanics' is just as i said - the equations are well understood and unproblematic. 'but the stories we tell ourselves about what we are doing are as various as the tales of Scheherazade, and almost as implausible' again, this is what I said and relates to interpretation not equations. In fact there are at least 7 main interpretations as to meaning and some of them are implausible in the extreme. So all the above are right. I see no contradiction only confirmation.

Why is the job centre always full of unrealistic jobs?

quote:

'Every competent physicist can "do" quantum mechanics' is just as i said - the equations are well understood and unproblematic. 'but the stories we tell ourselves about what we are doing are as various as the tales of Scheherazade, and almost as implausible' again, this is what I said and relates to interpretation not equations.

Sniper,

Aren't all the idealist quotes in your long post the interpretation? They're certainly not equations?

Doesn't this mean that they're opinions held by scientists, rather than science? And doesn't the observation that the maths keeps working no matter what the opinions about the nature of reality the physicist doing it holds suggest that there is something about reality that remains unchanged whatever we believe?

The reason the statements you quote seem more philosophical (even religious in some cases) than scientific may be because they aren't science at all - just some very smart men moving out of their specialism to try to make sense of the curious place to which that specialism has taken them?

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

First. 'how, at the end of a purely physical chain of causes and effects do sensations arise' - Well the problem is they ain't 'purely physical' according to some interpretations of quantum theory.

Second. 'anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics doesn't understand it!' - This (and other similar) statements (which have been made from time to time by various people since the earliest days of quantum theory)have been used (ad nauseum)by people such as the arch obfusticators Dennett & Dawkins to belittle the influence of QT on any of the their crude materialist arguments. The quote is misleading. The actual science or mathematics of QT is unproblematic - it is well understood and not at all contraversial. Tis the interpretations of what it all means that causes the heated debate.

Hmm,

Not sure that this is correct. Here's a quote from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by David Griffiths(in spite of the title, it's not exactly bedtime reading). This is the first paragraph of the preface:

" Unlike Newton's mechanics or Maxwell's electrodynamics, or Einstein's relativity, quantum theory was not created - or even definitively packaged- by one individual, and it retains to this day some of the scars of its exhilarating but traumatic youth. There is no general consensus as to what its fundamental principles are, how it should be taught, or what it really "means". Every competent physicist can "do" quantum mechanics, but the stories we tell ourselves about what we are doing are as various as the tales of Scheherazade, and almost as implausible. Neils Bohr said "If you are not confused by quantum physics, then you haven't really understood it"; Richard Feynman remarked, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"."

This is a well respected text which is used at many Universities and Neils Bohr and Richard Feynman are well respected physicists; possibly they are wrong and you are right - but I doubt it.

Trev

David Griffiths is correct. Neils Bohr is correct. Richard Feynman is correct. I am correct. NB and RF are referring to the seeming paradoxical results of certain quantum experiments (such as the double split experiment).

Again, I stress and this is not in any way contradicted by DG in your quote It is the the 'meaning' (the exact word DG uses)that causes the debate. 'Every competent physicist can "do" quantum mechanics' is just as i said - the equations are well understood and unproblematic. 'but the stories we tell ourselves about what we are doing are as various as the tales of Scheherazade, and almost as implausible' again, this is what I said and relates to interpretation not equations. In fact there are at least 7 main interpretations as to meaning and some of them are implausible in the extreme. So all the above are right. I see no contradiction only confirmation.

Just a couple of points (well maybe more than a couple):

1. In your response, you presume to know what Neils Bohr and Richard Feynman were referring to when you (probably)don't really know.

2. You say in the post that I originally responded to that the quotes of the nature of the ones originated by Bohr and Feynman have been used ad nausem by people such as Dennett and Dawkins. I am aware that Dawkins has stated that he doesn't understand quantum theory - but as far as I am aware, he as never denigrated or cast doubt over the validity of quantum theory. It's simply outside his field of research.

3. You claim 7 (at least) interpretations of quantum theory - but exactly which parts of it are you referring to? What do you think quantum theory is exactly? As my quote stated "there is no general consensus as to what its fundamental principles are".

4. The double slit experiment is not a "quantum experiment" as you put it. It's simply an experiment. The resultant patterns are very simply explained if you consider light as a wave. It's only when you consider light as photons that things get tricky. NB - I am not suggesting that the QT explanation is wrong, I'm just being pedantic.

5. If you try to apply quantum theory to everything, you WILL go crazy!

6. I can't quite understand that you seem to consider that other people using Feynman or Bohr's quotations are guilty of obfuscation when you say that the quotations themselves are correct.

7. We're agreed that in the end it is all down to interpretation. You select your interpretations - but others may be just as valid.

Trev

quote:

Originally posted by David Scott?:
[QUOTE]'Every competent physicist can "do" quantum mechanics' is just as i said - the equations are well understood and unproblematic. 'but the stories we tell ourselves about what we are doing are as various as the tales of Scheherazade, and almost as implausible' again, this is what I said and relates to interpretation not equations.

Sniper,

quote:

Aren't all the idealist quotes in your long post the interpretation? They're certainly not equations?

Yes, of course they are interpretations and not equations. Goes without saying methinks.

quote:

Doesn't this mean that they're opinions held by scientists, rather than science?

No. They are theories that account for all of the scientific evidence. That is what a scientific theory is. Other people think there are other theories that equally account for the evidence but they are wrong in my view.

quote:

And doesn't the observation that the maths keeps working no matter what the opinions about the nature of reality the physicist doing it holds suggest that there is something about reality that remains unchanged whatever we believe?

Good point. But what is this reality to which you refer? Saying that maths remains the same means reality remains the same does not work unless you think maths IS reality? Maths is meaningless unless meaning is imputed to it.

quote:

The reason the statements you quote seem more philosophical (even religious in some cases) than scientific may be because they aren't science at all - just some very smart men moving out of their specialism to try to make sense of the curious place to which that specialism has taken them.

(I have put some words in bold.)

I agree the quotes seem more philosophical than scientific when divorced from their scientific context (which I do not provide for reasons of space, bandwidth, time and effort)but they fall short of being religious I think. It is true (to a degree)that the quotes are indeed from people 'moving out of their specialism to try to make sense of the curious place to which that specialism has taken them' but you use that seemingly harmless word 'just' which means in context 'nothing other than' and here I take issue. There are no scientific theories without interpretation (e=mc3 means what in and of itself?) And you use the words 'at all' which means you think the scientists whom I quote are refering to things wholly different to science - of course they are not. It is the subtle use of words like these that allow Dennett and Dawkins to get away with so much obfuscation. The quotes I supplied are consistent with more formulised scientific theory based on experimental evidence and it does at times take the scientist into more philosophical areas which they are not necessarily trained to excel in and this is part of the problem and why there are so many interpretations. However, if one ruthlessly sticks to interpreting the scientific evidence free from prejudice one sees the physicists whom I quote are people of scientific integrity whose work is conducted with rigor and honesty and I believe they are right.

quote:

But what is this reality to which you refer? Saying that maths remains the same means reality remains the same does not work unless you think maths IS reality? Maths is meaningless unless meaning is imputed to it.

Perhaps what I mean is that if the maths retains its relationship with observed events whatever the beliefs of the person using it, that may indicate that the 'behaviour' of the physical world is unaffected by our theories.

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sniper:

First. 'how, at the end of a purely physical chain of causes and effects do sensations arise' - Well the problem is they ain't 'purely physical' according to some interpretations of quantum theory.

Second. 'anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics doesn't understand it!' - This (and other similar) statements (which have been made from time to time by various people since the earliest days of quantum theory)have been used (ad nauseum)by people such as the arch obfusticators Dennett & Dawkins to belittle the influence of QT on any of the their crude materialist arguments. The quote is misleading. The actual science or mathematics of QT is unproblematic - it is well understood and not at all contraversial. Tis the interpretations of what it all means that causes the heated debate.

Hmm,

Not sure that this is correct. Here's a quote from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by David Griffiths(in spite of the title, it's not exactly bedtime reading). This is the first paragraph of the preface:

" Unlike Newton's mechanics or Maxwell's electrodynamics, or Einstein's relativity, quantum theory was not created - or even definitively packaged- by one individual, and it retains to this day some of the scars of its exhilarating but traumatic youth. There is no general consensus as to what its fundamental principles are, how it should be taught, or what it really "means". Every competent physicist can "do" quantum mechanics, but the stories we tell ourselves about what we are doing are as various as the tales of Scheherazade, and almost as implausible. Neils Bohr said "If you are not confused by quantum physics, then you haven't really understood it"; Richard Feynman remarked, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"."

This is a well respected text which is used at many Universities and Neils Bohr and Richard Feynman are well respected physicists; possibly they are wrong and you are right - but I doubt it.

Trev

David Griffiths is correct. Neils Bohr is correct. Richard Feynman is correct. I am correct. NB and RF are referring to the seeming paradoxical results of certain quantum experiments (such as the double split experiment).

Again, I stress and this is not in any way contradicted by DG in your quote It is the the 'meaning' (the exact word DG uses)that causes the debate. 'Every competent physicist can "do" quantum mechanics' is just as i said - the equations are well understood and unproblematic. 'but the stories we tell ourselves about what we are doing are as various as the tales of Scheherazade, and almost as implausible' again, this is what I said and relates to interpretation not equations. In fact there are at least 7 main interpretations as to meaning and some of them are implausible in the extreme. So all the above are right. I see no contradiction only confirmation.

Just a couple of points (well maybe more than a couple):

quote:

1. In your response, you presume to know what Neils Bohr and Richard Feynman were referring to when you (probably)don't really know.

Very presumptious of you. I am very widely read in this area. I know the context the quote was taken from. Also I DO understand quantum theory both in terms of equations and interpretations which I know inside out and back to front sufficently to be able to correspond with the physicists I quote especially Professor Stapp and I know exactly how people get confused by quantum theory and how to resolve the interpretation problems.

quote:

2. You say in the post that I originally responded to that the quotes of the nature of the ones originated by Bohr and Feynman have been used ad nausem by people such as Dennett and Dawkins. I am aware that Dawkins has stated that he doesn't understand quantum theory - but as far as I am aware, he as never denigrated or cast doubt over the validity of quantum theory. It's simply outside his field of research.

Dawkings has other tactics rather than attacking quantum theory head on. He likes to attack anying that smacks of conciousness being primary in the universe an example is a follows: 'Another convergence has been alleged between modern physics and Eastern philosophy. The argument goes essentially as follows. Quantum physics … is deeply mysterious and hard to understand. Eastern mystics have always been deeply mysterious and hard to understand. Therefore Eastern mystics must have been talking about quantum physics all along'. All well and good except hard as I have tried I have not found any Eastern mystics who say anything like this.

quote:

3. You claim 7 (at least) interpretations of quantum theory - but exactly which parts of it are you referring to? What do you think quantum theory is exactly? As my quote stated "there is no general consensus as to what its fundamental principles are".

I do not know what he means by "there is no general consensus as to what its fundamental principles are" - some clarification is needed and he is not here to clarify so I will give you a brief run down of the current contenders for the interpretation prize.

In his book Quantum Reality Nick Herbert identifies eight different
interpretations, or views, concerning what quantum theory really means.
The eight views identified by Herbert are:

• Copenhagen interpretation part 1 – there is no deep quantum
reality, it’s all a fiction. Herbert attributes this view to Niels Bohr:

‘Bohr does not deny the evidence of his senses. The world around
us is real enough, but it floats on a world that is not real. Everyday
phenomena are themselves built not out of phenomena but out of an
utterly different kind of being.’

• Copenhagen interpretation part 2 – reality is created by
observation: ‘What we see is undoubtedly real … but these
phenomena are not really there in the absence of observation’

• Reality is an undivided wholeness – this is the view that David
Bohm presented in his significant book Wholeness and the Implicate
Order: ‘The inseparable quantum interconnectedness of the whole
universe is the fundamental reality.’

• Many worlds interpretation – According to Herbert: ‘Of all the
claims of the New Physics none is more outrageous than the
contention that myriads of universes are created upon the occasion
of each measurement act.’

• Quantum logic – the world is non logical or has a different logic to
humans: ‘the quantum revolution goes so deep that … to cope with
the quantum facts we must scrape our very mode of reasoning, in
favour of a new quantum logic.’

• Neo realism – the world must be real, quantum physics is wrong. In
other words the quantum world is just like the everyday world.

• Consciousness creates reality: ‘only an apparatus endowed with
consciousness … is privileged to create reality.’

• The world consists of potentials and actualities – ‘The duplex
world of Werner Heisenberg … the unmeasured world is merely
semireal and achieves full reality status during the act of
observation…’

professors Rosenblum and Kuttner, in their more recent work Quantum Enigma, give
nine, briefly and simplistically described they are:


• Copenhagen: Quantum theory is a convenient way of speaking
about reality as we experience it. The entities described are weird
but as we don’t see them we need not worry about this. The only
reality worth bothering with is everyday reality, which we definitely
know is real. This is the ‘interpretation’ that one of the founding
fathers of quantum theory, Neils Bohr, bullied some of his
colleagues into believing.

• Extreme Copenhagen: The viewpoint developed by Bohr’s son and
his colleague Ole Ulfbeck. According to this view quantum theory
is a convenient fiction. In actuality atoms and their quantum
components do not exist.

• Decoherence: The everyday world of big objects overwhelms the
vulnerable tiny world of the quantum realm and forces it to behave
properly. Remember these views are not mere opinion - they have maths to support their claims.

• Many Worlds: At every moment in time countless numbers of new
realities are springing into existence. An inhabitant of one universe
at one moment in time is, unknowingly and unceremoniously, rent
into countless copies, existing within a vast number of newly created
‘parallel universes’ in the next moment. These copies are relentless
projected into the multitude of new ‘parallel’ realities constantly
being created by the quantum process of the ‘multiverse’.

• Transactional: Reality is produced by a two way quantum
interaction which takes place both forwards and backwards in time.

• Bohm: David Bohm is usually described as a maverick physicist
because of his unconventional views. In his early phase he
suggested that quantum particles were guided by quantum waves.
Later he suggested that reality consisted of a complex interlinking
network of enfolded ‘orders’ of consciousness.

• Ghiraldi, Rimini and Weber: Quantum waves are unstable and
because of this every hundred million years or so a wave will turn
into particle and this causes other waves to also turn into particles.

• Ithaca: Only quantum correlations are real.

• Quantum Logic: We need a new logic to describe things.
Generally speaking all of these views are considered to be mutually
exclusive, they are considered to be inherently real interpretations of reality.

quote:

4. The double slit experiment is not a "quantum experiment" as you put it. It's simply an experiment. The resultant patterns are very simply explained if you consider light as a wave. It's only when you consider light as photons that things get tricky. NB - I am not suggesting that the QT explanation is wrong, I'm just being pedantic.

professors Rosenblum and Kuttner clearly disagree with you and
state that the fact of wave-particle duality implicates consciousness:

'The physical reality of an object depends on how you choose to
look at it. Physics had encountered consciousness but did not yet
realize it'.

The attribution of the wave-particle duality as a fundamental characteristic of
quantum phenomena is necessary because it is the only way that the
behavior of ‘particles’ taking part in the double slit experiment can be
accounted for. In this experiment when quantum particles are not directly
observed by a consciousness they behave like waves, which means that they
spread out over a significant volume, but when observed they turn into
particles. So the fact that consciousness determines the appearance of the
phenomena in these quantum experiments indicates that that it must clearly
be involved in some way.

quote:

5. If you try to apply quantum theory to everything, you WILL go crazy!

I would not dream of it.

quote:

6. I can't quite understand that you seem to consider that other people using Feynman or Bohr's quotations are guilty of obfuscation when you say that the quotations themselves are correct.

It is a question of context.

quote:

7. We're agreed that in the end it is all down to interpretation. You select your interpretations - but others may be just as valid.

It is all as you say down to interpretation (of scientific evidence) but having researched it for the last 10 years I think my interpretion is right but I'm open to anything new that sheds light on this terrain.

Sniper,

Your responses appear to me to be becoming logically confused. Please provide references for the context in which Bohr and Feynman made their quotations and also for the context of your quote from Dawkins - to which you have applied your own interpretation.

On the third point, you say that you do not know what Griffiths means when he says "there is no consensus as to what its fundamental principles are", and then you proceed to give numerous examples as to why he is correct.

On the fourth point, I would simply repeat that an experiment is just an experiment. You can apply a quantum explanation of course but I would dispute the assertion that this is linked with consciousness.

(I have omitted the quotations because the posts were becoming too long).

Trev

Apologies for the second post, but I have just looked up Nick Herbert because I wasn't familiar with his work.

He seems to operate in the area of "fringe" science and his attempts to mix science and faith do not sit comfortably together.

I had a look at his Blog and website and he appears to be somewhat eccentric. It seems to lend some credence to my assertion (in jest) that too much quantum theory will send you crazy. I'm sure he was a "proper" physicist at some point (in the same way that David Icke was a "proper" politician - before he discovered the lizard people).


I will not participate further in this debate.

Always a good idea to use reliable sources - peer reviewed, established theory.

Religious entryism from fringe apologists disguised as "physics" still doesn't cut it.

Sudden sense of deja-vu...

"Sudden sense of deja-vu"...

Indeed.

Re the original question -

Where does Lord Mandelson of Everywhere keep the negatives?

Cheers,
OW

Does Stan have the right to have babies

If not, why not

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:
Sniper,

Your responses appear to me to be becoming logically confused. Please provide references for the context in which Bohr and Feynman made their quotations and also for the context of your quote from Dawkins - to which you have applied your own interpretation.

On the third point, you say that you do not know what Griffiths means when he says "there is no consensus as to what its fundamental principles are", and then you proceed to give numerous examples as to why he is correct.

On the fourth point, I would simply repeat that an experiment is just an experiment. You can apply a quantum explanation of course but I would dispute the assertion that this is linked with consciousness.

(I have omitted the quotations because the posts were becoming too long).

Trev

Again you are confused by quantum theory (the equations) and quantum theory (the interpretations)if you know the terrain (and you obviously do not - your comments re. the double slit experiment prove this beyond a doubt)you know exactly what the 'if you think you understand quantum physics you dont understand quantum physics' means. There is only one set of equations - used on a daily basis by jobbing physicists the world over and responsible for the most precise experiments known to man but there are many interpretations which are hotly debated. It would take me some time to look up the quotes and type out the context and I can't be bothered as you have shown (as per your comments on the double slit experiment that you prefer your opinion to that of professors such as Richard Feyman - a man revered as a genius). I do not know what Griffiths means by "there is no consensus as to what its fundamental principles are" and nor does a colleague of mine. Nor does the person who wrote the product despcription for Griffith's book on Amazon - 'Fundamental principles are covered'. How?

Richard Feynman,one of the most significant physicists of the twentieth century, compared the accuracy of quantum experiments to measuring the distance between New York and Los Angeles to the precision of the width of one human hair! Not bad for a bunch of people who don't understand quantum physics.

The miniscule scale of these quantum experiments is staggering. For instance it is possible to fit in the order of 100000 atoms across the width of a human hair and the scale of the quantum experiments that have been
conducted, which involve the constituents of atoms, are at an order beneath this. The breathtaking scale and precision of experiments which delve beneath the sphere of atomic ‘particles’ into the realm of deeper quantum
phenomena has been constantly refined to ever more unimaginable and mind warping tiny scales of accuracy. Physicist Robert Oerter describes the accuracy required for these investigations as that ‘you would need to shoot a gun and hit a Coke can – if the can were on the moon'! How do these confused guys manage to handle the experiments if they don't understand quantum physics? Again the science (if by science you mean experiments and equations)are well understood but there is still a great
deal of perplexity, and even controversy, within the physics community
concerning the ontological status of quantum phenomena.

quote:

but I would dispute the assertion that this is linked with consciousness

Go ahead and dispute it - I look forward to it.

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:
Apologies for the second post, but I have just looked up Nick Herbert because I wasn't familiar with his work.

He seems to operate in the area of "fringe" science and his attempts to mix science and faith do not sit comfortably together.

I had a look at his Blog and website and he appears to be somewhat eccentric. It seems to lend some credence to my assertion (in jest) that too much quantum theory will send you crazy. I'm sure he was a "proper" physicist at some point (in the same way that David Icke was a "proper" politician - before he discovered the lizard people).


I will not participate further in this debate.

You are admitting defeat then? Very wise. I have not quoted Nick Herbert when he is in 'mixing faith with science' mode I merely included his list of interpretations. If you have looked at his website you have done more than me. Compare his list with any other and you will not find them dissimilar - do some googling if you are interested – it’s not my job to educate you. I note you do not mention the list by professors Rosenblum and Kuttner, why is that? Your attempt to scorn my views (which are the views of highly respected physics professors which you have not refuted) by comparing Nick Herbert with David Icke show you to be a person of little intelligence and low cunning - no wonder you have scarpered in the manner of Mike Dudley. If you do not really know what you are talking about don't stick your neck out too far – that’s my advice - you will inevitably be contradicted, feel embarrassed and then scarper lobbing gratuitous insults on the way and generally lowering the tone.

If you think consciousness is not implicated in quantum experiments you might want to read Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness by Professor Bruce Rosenblumand Fred Kuttner- presumably they are beyond needing to read Griffith's introduction to quantum physics.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
Always a good idea to use reliable sources - peer reviewed, established theory.

Religious entryism from fringe apologists disguised as "physics" still doesn't cut it.

Sudden sense of deja-vu...

No one has mentioned anything about religion. All I did was include a list of interpretations (which are all established theories)by a man with a phd in physics. The list is valid. As is the other list I provided. His other work may not be - but it is at least peer reviewed. Try to keep up.

(Sniper)

It is all as you say down to interpretation (of scientific evidence) but having researched it for the last 10 years I think my interpretion is right but I'm open to anything new that sheds light on this terrain.[/QUOTE]

Could you expand on the 'researched it' part please? Are you qualified to research this topic? Have you any physics qualifications at all?

Regards, Paul.

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:
Apologies for the second post, but I have just looked up Nick Herbert because I wasn't familiar with his work.

He seems to operate in the area of "fringe" science and his attempts to mix science and faith do not sit comfortably together.

I had a look at his Blog and website and he appears to be somewhat eccentric. It seems to lend some credence to my assertion (in jest) that too much quantum theory will send you crazy. I'm sure he was a "proper" physicist at some point (in the same way that David Icke was a "proper" politician - before he discovered the lizard people).


I will not participate further in this debate.

You are admitting defeat then? Very wise. I have not quoted Nick Herbert when he is in 'mixing faith with science' mode I merely included his list of interpretations. If you have looked at his website you have done more than me. Compare his list with any other and you will not find them dissimilar - do some googling if you are interested – it’s not my job to educate you. I note you do not mention the list by professors Rosenblum and Kuttner, why is that? Your attempt to scorn my views (which are the views of highly respected physics professors which you have not refuted) by comparing Nick Herbert with David Icke show you to be a person of little intelligence and low cunning - no wonder you have scarpered in the manner of Mike Dudley. If you do not really know what you are talking about don't stick your neck out too far – that’s my advice - you will inevitably be contradicted, feel embarrassed and then scarper lobbing gratuitous insults on the way and generally lowering the tone.

Sniper,

You are becoming increasingly irrational. I have not insulted you in any way. I know I said I would not participate further, but your posts have annoyed me sufficiently to respond.

1. The Quantum Enigma book is interesting but its authors admit that it is controversial. It is in the realms of philosophy rather than science and there is no evidence in real terms to support it. It is claimed that consciousness is implicated, but where is the proof?

2. Regarding the double slit experiment, there are two versions of this and you do not make it clear as to which you are referring. The double slit experiment was devised by Thomas Young in 1803 and as such it predates the development of quantum theory by a considerable margin. It was devised to determine whether light was a wave or a particle (as in Newton's corpuscular theory). It was much later when single photons or other particles were used that the experiment raised questions about the nature of small particles.

3. I am not embarrassed in the slightest - but you should be. An apology would not be out of place. Your comments about my intelligence are insulting and have no foundation.

4. Your list of interpretations is not in dispute, but the type of books you read are suspect. Also as I stated in a previous post, the multitude of different interpretations simply confirm the lack of consensus about quantum theory.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
If time travel becomes possible in the future, why hasn't anybody traveled back to here, from it?

How would you know?

quote:

Originally posted by maxbertola:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
If time travel becomes possible in the future, why hasn't anybody traveled back to here, from it?

How would you know?

Yes. They could be tourists, treating us like a theme park...

(I'm still "here" - obviously, not "scarpered in the manner of" - er, myself. Apparently. Enjoying the Sniper/Trevp ding dong.)

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:
If you think consciousness is not implicated in quantum experiments you might want to read Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness by Professor Bruce Rosenblumand Fred Kuttner- presumably they are beyond needing to read Griffith's introduction to quantum physics.

Sniper,

The expected audience for these books is somewhat different. "The Quantum Enigma" falls into the genre of popular science (nothing wrong with this - many scientists make money by this route), whereas "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" is a serious educational textbook.