Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #389853 > unrolled thread

Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-12 10:04 -0500
    Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-12 18:56 -0500
    Re: Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-14 20:42 -0400
      Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:47 -0500
        Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-15 18:01 -0400
          Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 08:45 -0500
            Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-16 10:31 -0700
              Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 14:34 -0700
                Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-16 16:25 -0700
                  Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 18:47 -0700
                    Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-17 13:35 -0700
                      Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-17 13:37 -0700
                      Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-17 17:52 -0400
                        Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-08-18 13:23 -0400
                          Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 10:25 -0700
                      Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-18 22:17 -0700
                        Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-19 11:04 -0700
                          Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-20 15:18 -0700
                Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-18 20:09 -0700
                  Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-18 20:17 -0700
                    Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-18 20:29 -0700
          Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:34 -0500
            Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 20:49 -0400
              Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-18 20:25 -0500
                Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 23:22 -0400
                  Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-19 10:10 -0500
                    Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-08-19 08:35 -0700
        Re: Reduce your meds. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-17 11:02 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#390336

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 9:17:12 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote:
>
> > There are geometries that will lead directly to advancement. We don't
> > have to beat around the bush here. Human advancement it primarily
> > dependent on how we manipulate nature. This has been going on for
> > millions of years. To deny this fact is to deny our existence.
> 
> I often ask myself, "are we smart enough to survive for more millions of
> years? I often think that our true isolation (the fact that we are stuck
> on this planet with no vision for our future) will implode us and we will
> kill each other to the point where "advancement" stops. Hmmm. Makes me
> further attempt to define who we are. I know this sounds like a cliché-
> maybe I'm caught in a never ending cliché.

Don't worry, be happy.  Be the best you can be.  Be an example for others
to follow.  Be a mentor.  We'll make it if enough people did this, and a
lot of people ARE doing this.

Do your best.
Be prepared.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390311

On 8/15/2016 5:01 PM, benj wrote:
> On 8/15/2016 9:47 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/14/2016 7:42 PM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>>> I tend to disagree about the "constituents of our world" (or universe)
>>> bowing to statistics (a human mathematical invention).
>>
>> Every theory, including Newtonian, deterministic mechanics, is a human
>> invention. I don't think it's a question of nature "bowing to" a human
>> idea. I think it's a question about whether the human idea is a good
>> description of how nature works. And, from what I know of the scientific
>> method, the ONLY way we can determine whether the description is good or
>> not is whether experiment supports the idea. I don't think there is
>> anything nasty or repellent about statistics where we should say, "But
>> this simply cannot be a good description of nature."
>>
> The problem, Boinker, isn't that people use statistics to obtain some
> measure of knowledge where before there was total ignorance. The problem
> comes when one starts saying that such probabilities are ALL that it is
> possible for humans to know. How can any human make such a statement?
> What possible basis could one have to justify it. Superpowers are the
> only possible way one could know such a thing.

So this is where Bell's theorem is interesting. What Bell showed is that 
you can tell whether there are hidden variables at work, even without 
knowing what the hidden variables are. There will be a measurable 
difference between certain outcomes if quantum mechanics is right and 
there are no hidden variables at work, and if quantum mechanics is wrong 
and there are hidden variables at work regardless of type. This is very 
non-intuitive, where one is inclined to say "How could one say anything 
at all about outcomes due to hidden variables, unless you know what 
those variables are?" But Bell's theorem stands nonetheless, and this is 
precisely why it is is one of the most important advances in science of 
the 20th century.

>
> Those scientists who take this view should just use the short form: I'm
> a moron.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390316

On 8/18/2016 6:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/15/2016 5:01 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 8/15/2016 9:47 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 8/14/2016 7:42 PM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>>>> I tend to disagree about the "constituents of our world" (or universe)
>>>> bowing to statistics (a human mathematical invention).
>>>
>>> Every theory, including Newtonian, deterministic mechanics, is a human
>>> invention. I don't think it's a question of nature "bowing to" a human
>>> idea. I think it's a question about whether the human idea is a good
>>> description of how nature works. And, from what I know of the scientific
>>> method, the ONLY way we can determine whether the description is good or
>>> not is whether experiment supports the idea. I don't think there is
>>> anything nasty or repellent about statistics where we should say, "But
>>> this simply cannot be a good description of nature."
>>>
>> The problem, Boinker, isn't that people use statistics to obtain some
>> measure of knowledge where before there was total ignorance. The problem
>> comes when one starts saying that such probabilities are ALL that it is
>> possible for humans to know. How can any human make such a statement?
>> What possible basis could one have to justify it. Superpowers are the
>> only possible way one could know such a thing.
>
> So this is where Bell's theorem is interesting. What Bell showed is that
> you can tell whether there are hidden variables at work, even without
> knowing what the hidden variables are. There will be a measurable
> difference between certain outcomes if quantum mechanics is right and
> there are no hidden variables at work, and if quantum mechanics is wrong
> and there are hidden variables at work regardless of type. This is very
> non-intuitive, where one is inclined to say "How could one say anything
> at all about outcomes due to hidden variables, unless you know what
> those variables are?" But Bell's theorem stands nonetheless, and this is
> precisely why it is is one of the most important advances in science of
> the 20th century.

Boinker, I lknow you can't understand the English you just wrote, but in 
fact you just proved my premise that where there was total ignorance, 
proabability can provide some measure of knowledge, but not complete 
understanding.

The Thing about Bell's theorem is that it indicates that either QM is 
true or SR is true, but BOTH cannot be true. So there goes the TOE 
unless of course, Nature does not agree with
Bell.

However since you believe in "spooky action at a distance" that 
obviously means you  believe in ghosts. Does HVAC know you believe in 
ghosts? I wonder if HVAC knows he believes in ghosts too?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390319

On 8/18/16 8/18/16   7:49 PM, benj wrote:
> Boinker, I lknow you can't understand the English you just wrote, [...]

Odd Bodkin is much better at this than you are, because he described it 
reasonably well without saying anything flat-out wrong; your claims here are all 
flat-out wrong.


> The Thing about Bell's theorem is that it indicates that either QM is true or SR
> is true, but BOTH cannot be true.

This is NOT true. You obviously do not know what Bell's theorem actually says.

Clearly you are excessively lazy, as 2-3 minutes with Google would show you how 
comprehensively wrong you are.


> So there goes the TOE unless of course, Nature
> does not agree with
> Bell.

There are now several independent experiments that test Bell's theorem and/or 
EPR-like correlations, and confirm QM.


> However since you believe in "spooky action at a distance" that obviously means
> you  believe in ghosts.

Why do you make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point?


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390335

On 8/18/2016 9:25 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/18/16 8/18/16   7:49 PM, benj wrote:
>> Boinker, I lknow you can't understand the English you just wrote, [...]
>
> Odd Bodkin is much better at this than you are, because he described it
> reasonably well without saying anything flat-out wrong; your claims here
> are all flat-out wrong.

Clearly Odd is much smarter than I am and certainly knows his science. 
He's got all the establishment dogma down cold. You are a believer too, 
I presume. I'm really not so hot at making wooden toys.

>> The Thing about Bell's theorem is that it indicates that either QM is
>> true or SR
>> is true, but BOTH cannot be true.
>
> This is NOT true. You obviously do not know what Bell's theorem actually
> says.
>
> Clearly you are excessively lazy, as 2-3 minutes with Google would show
> you how comprehensively wrong you are.

Obviously you have all the hand-waving fantasy down and think you know 
it all. Oh sure, you can "explain" how information isn't really 
transmitted by "spooky action at a distance" And some how that makes 
sense to you that only the particles "know" things that they can't tell 
you and me. You think this is science?

I'm glad to see a man of such faith who has all his dogma down cold and 
knows how to stamp out heresy when he hears it. Next you can explain the 
mystery of the "trinity" to me.

>> So there goes the TOE unless of course, Nature
>> does not agree with
>> Bell.
>
> There are now several independent experiments that test Bell's theorem
> and/or EPR-like correlations, and confirm QM.

So this means SR is totally wrong, right? Gentlemen, Start your hands 
waving! Bell's theorem implies that causality is absolute and "free 
will" does not exist (shades of Rolf!) Yet causality also "proves" that 
two simultaneous events separated by ANY distance cannot cause each 
other. Clearly all you true believers after being totally jerked around 
by fantasy are now all wandering around in circles with dazed looks on 
your faces.

>> However since you believe in "spooky action at a distance" that
>> obviously means
>> you  believe in ghosts.
>
> Why do you make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point?

Um because as near as I can tell THIS is they way you and Boinker and 
everybody else of any import does "modern" physics today.

Never forget that physics and science is ALWAYS decided by rhetorical 
combat and in that arena Odd always wins. You should aspire to the level 
of debating skills B oinker possesses. That is the mark of the true 
scientist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390377

On 8/18/16 8/18/16 - 10:22 PM, benj wrote:
> Never forget that physics and science is ALWAYS decided by rhetorical combat

You don't have a clue.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390383

Einstein Dingleberry "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
"benj" <nobodyxx@gmail>  wrote:
>> Never forget that physics and science is ALWAYS decided by rhetorical 
>> combat
>
Einstein Dingleberry T Roberts wrote:
> You don't have a clue.
>
hanson wrote:
TR, do finish you sentence and say:
=== Benj, "You don't have a clue, how TRUE it is what you said" ===
>
All you have to do is to look at the bottom of the barrel,
starting with s.p. and work yourself up into industrials
physics, (wherein you managed to get yourself fired from),
up into the phys. mass media and the phys. R&D labs.
>
Physics, like all sciences, are social enterprises,
which are ruled by what Benj just said. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390196 — Re: Reduce your meds.

On 8/17/16 8/17/16 - 7:05 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Quantum "Mechanics" should be called Quantum "Statistics"
> because it models mere correlations, not cause and effect.

Not true. It provides a dynamical model for the mechanics of atomic systems. 
There certainly are causal effects included. Your ignorance is showing.


 > [... further nonsense based on ignorance]

(The "example you give for "entanglement" is a CLASSICAL example; quantum 
entanglement is much more subtle.)

You need to LEARN something about the subject before attempting to write about it.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web