Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ?

From	will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ?
Date	2018-06-07 21:58 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<pfc9pp$c2m$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <lW0SC.95685$7H4.16796@fx12.iad> <pfa878$tpb$1@dont-email.me> <qY6SC.264824$Hv4.175285@fx39.iad> <pfavqk$l3t$1@dont-email.me> <tDgSC.143884$wG5.60553@fx02.iad>

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 07 Jun 2018 16:32:02 -0400, benj wrote:

> On 6/7/2018 6:01 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> Wrote in message:
>>> On 6/6/2018 11:19 PM, Libor Striz wrote:
>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> Wrote in message:
>>>>> On 6/6/2018 6:38 PM, will wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you are asking if math is more real than reality (which is a very
>>>>> popular view at present) the answer indeed is no.
>>>>
>>>> But if he is asking
>>>>
>>>> "Is a crazy theory with correct predictions better than a logical and
>>>> understandable theory with wrong  predictions ?",
>>>>
>>>> then the answer  indeed is yes.
>>>>
>>>> Craziness of theories must match craziness of  observable reality.
>>>>
>>>> It applies to QM and SR alone, as well as to both combined.
>>>
>>> Which is correct. Which means when the assumptions of your math do not
>>> match the observations of reality, you need a new math, not some
>>> fantasy to explain your mathematical reality.
>>>
>> Learn to read properly,
>> an advice you often provide to others.
> 
> Good advice for everyone.
> 
>> There is no my math nor my mathematical reality.
> 
> You misinterpret. I do not mean "your math" as in your personal
> mathematics, but "your math" referring to one considering the
> traditional theories of physical science.
> 
> Point is simple. If your measurements (reality) does not agree with your
> theories (math) then the theories are wrong.
> 
> If your measurements do not agree with the basic assumptions of one's
> (OK?) math then One's (OK?) math is wrong and one needs a new kind of
> math with different assumptions.
> 
>> There are tons of  experimental evidence from nuclear physics to
>>   relativistic quantum chemistry.
> 
> Lots of measurements are good, but that only makes theories correct if
> it agrees with theory.

Benji: We are conflicting ... and I will try I explain the conflict. I am 
willing ( trying ) to reject the word/concept measurement as a single 
physical object. You can say lots about a measurement, but there is no 
number or function that maps to a measurement; it's a complex bit of non-
linear stuff.  It's a process with no single/unique/concrete outcome.  
Just think of all the parts to a light-scattering machine. The only true  
physical objects are such entities as mass, speed,  time(?) ... and 
product quantities like Youngs Modulus, momentum  temperature etcetc ... 
we extract these physical values from an experiment ( non object ) by use 
of POINTERS & digit-readouts & a few  other exotics perhaps. This is the 
POV of classical physics, where we say "I have measured an electrons 
magnetic moment using a solenoid ..." or whatever. The pointer output of 
a measurement maps onto an external reality ... which I believe 
Copenhagen rejects for QM analysis. So again my question ... as you say 
BOHM and MANY WORLDS hold to a realist physics: is it possible otherwise 
to have both QM and realistic physics W/O the measurement concept ?  Or 
am I mixing up something basic and spewing nonsense ?

Thread

Can  quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-06 18:07 +0000
  Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 18:14 +0000
    Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-06 22:38 +0000
      Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 17:43 -0700
        Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-07 22:07 +0000
          Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 17:12 -0700
            Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-08 14:49 +0000
      Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 22:39 -0400
        Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-07 05:19 +0200
          Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 05:31 -0400
            Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-07 12:01 +0200
              Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 16:32 -0400
                Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-07 21:58 +0000
                Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 04:12 -0700
                Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-08 14:38 +0000
                Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-08 02:41 +0200
  "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-06 11:47 -0700
    Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 19:00 +0000
      We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-06 12:25 -0700
        Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:35 -0400
          Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:52 -0700
            Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 18:15 -0700
            No truth, Nothing to aspire to ? Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-06 18:21 -0700
              Re: No truth, Nothing to aspire to ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 22:47 -0400
                NO TRUTH. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-06 20:28 -0700
                Re: NO TRUTH. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 05:32 -0400
                Harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-07 11:18 -0700
                Re: Harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 16:42 -0400
                Ben Jacoby takes _pride_ in his randomness, I don't. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-07 14:15 -0700
                Re: Ben Jacoby takes _pride_ in his randomness, I don't. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 02:20 -0400
                Worshiping Ignorance. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-07 23:36 -0700
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 11:42 -0400
                " I can choose to do the opposite of what I prefer " -- Ben Jacoby. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-08 10:17 -0700
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 01:58 +0000
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 19:55 -0700
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 21:37 +0000
                EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 14:51 -0700
                Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-06-09 22:01 +0000
                To a retard, _everything_ is "random". Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 15:11 -0700
                Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:13 -0700
                Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:52 -0700
                Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 22:54 +0000
                People are forever MisQuoting Einstein; I correct them. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 16:40 -0700
                Re: People are forever MisQuoting Einstein; I correct them. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:15 +0000
                Putting words in Einstein's mouth. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 17:42 -0700
                Re: Putting words in Einstein's mouth. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:59 +0000
                God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 18:28 -0700
                Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 01:42 +0000
                Mark Twain was a determinist. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 20:16 -0700
                Re: Mark Twain was a determinist. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-10 12:48 -0400
                Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-10 10:51 -0700
                Re: Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 11:02 -0400
                Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-09 19:37 -0700
                Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 22:59 -0400
                Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 03:51 +0000
                Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-10 12:50 -0400
                Mark Twain, Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by nerds Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-10 11:01 -0700
                Re: Mark Twain, Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by nerds benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 11:06 -0400
                Re: Putting words in Einstein's mouth. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-11 07:02 -0500
                Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 22:28 -0400
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:53 -0700
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:41 -0700
                If the truth is your enemy... Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 00:14 -0700
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-06-09 06:52 -0400
        Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 21:22 +0000
          I feel rich, very rich. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-06 14:39 -0700
      Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:32 -0400
    Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:30 -0400

csiph-web