Implications of Quantum Physics

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Azazel
eh? I never said that the universe is necessarily deterministic ( though it does converge to the determinstic on the macroscopic level ). I just think usually, a statistical model is used for things we don't know the exact mechanism of, or don't want/need to know.

What the **** are you on about?

If our universe is non-deterministic then by definition there are some results which are only possible to predict by way of probabilities.

[KrazyHorse]

Quantum mechanics is not a statistical theory. It is a probabilistic theory. There is an enormous difference.

[Elok]

I never have understood what principle that cat demonstrates, or why said principle required such a long and complicated example to demonstrate it. You'd think that, if the principle were prevalent enough in nature to require that it be understood by anyone, there would be more common examples available to illustrate it than a demented possible-euthanasia schematic.

[Ted Striker]

E = MC Striker

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Unfortunately it doesn't work, dude.

Stop whining and accept the evidence...

What's wrong with just looking at it as a set of statistical choices. I mean...I guess I don't know the evidence.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That particles do not carry a so-called hidden variable around with them that will tell them ahead of time what value of quantum observables to display to an observer.

a) there's no experimental reason as yet to postulate the existence of additional variables

b) the naive hidden variable approach ends up contradicting fundamental quantum results (as I've demonstrated here)

c) even slightly more clever hidden variable theories (like the one that was proposed by Einstein et al) have been disproven by use of Bell's theorem and the associated experimental evidence

RE b and c, I don't know the evidence. Re intro and a: It's not that they carry around info of what face to present. Just that they are in that state according to a likelihood.

[Ted Striker]

YOU PRANCE AROUND IN YOUR FAGGETY WHITE LITTLE UNIFORM!!!


YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

however, a true explanation,l fully describing the phenomenae and results that quantum mechanics predict very well hasn't been established

yes it has

If we'll look at statistical mechanics as a whole, the statistical predictions are very correct, but go hand in hand with a deterministic model, really

Quantum mechanics is different from statistical mechanics. Why are you attempting to state without evidence that a deterministic model is necessary?

It's not nesesary and he didn't state that it was. Just that it fit fine.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Determinism is dead. It has been for 60 years. I'm not willing to revive it unless you can show me why I should...

please. Do it for me.

[Ted Striker]

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
YOU PRANCE AROUND IN YOUR FAGGETY WHITE LITTLE UNIFORM!!!


YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!

DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED!!!

[Ted Striker]

YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I ORDERED THE CODE RED!!!!!!


*spit coming out of mouth*

[TCO]

you dropped your hat...

[KrazyHorse]

If a propagating single electron had a definite position at all times (and this position was merely not known to us) then how could it could interfere with itself in a double-slit experiment?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO


It's not nesesary and he didn't state that it was. Just that it fit fine.

No it doesn't....

Trust me, physicists didn't drop the deterministic view without a fight.