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

Groups > sci.physics > #521105 > unrolled thread

Einstein’s Parable of Quantum Insanity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Einstein’s Parable of Quantum Insanity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 13:37 -0500
    Re: Einstein’s Parable of Quantum Insanity gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-14 15:35 -0500
    Re: Einstein’s Parable of Quantum Insanity "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-09-14 21:06 -0700
    Re: Einstein's Parable of Quantum Insanity Michael Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2015-09-19 05:40 -0700

#521105 — Einstein’s Parable of Quantum Insanity

Einstein’s Parable of Quantum Insanity
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150910-einstein-insanity/


> “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting
> different results.”
>
> That witticism — I’ll call it “Einstein Insanity” — is usually
> attributed to Albert Einstein. Though the Matthew effect may be
> operating here, it is undeniably the sort of clever, memorable
> one-liner that Einstein often tossed off. And I’m happy to give him
> the credit, because doing so takes us in interesting directions.
>
> First of all, note that what Einstein describes as insanity is,
> according to quantum theory, the way the world actually works. In
> quantum mechanics you can do the same thing many times and get
> different results. Indeed, that is the premise underlying great
> high-energy particle colliders. In those colliders, physicists bash
> together the same particles in precisely the same way, trillions upon
> trillions of times. Are they all insane to do so? It would seem they
> are not, since they have garnered a stupendous variety of results.
>
> Of course Einstein, famously, did not believe in the inherent
> unpredictability of the world, saying “God does not play dice.” Yet
> in playing dice, we act out Einstein Insanity: We do the same thing
> over and over — namely, roll the dice — and we correctly anticipate
> different results. Is it really insane to play dice? If so, it’s a
> very common form of madness!
>
> We can evade the diagnosis by arguing that in practice one never
> throws the dice in precisely the same way. Very small changes in the
> initial conditions can alter the results. The underlying idea here is
> that in situations where we can’t predict precisely what’s going to
> happen next, it’s because there are aspects of the current situation
> that we haven’t taken into account. Similar pleas of ignorance can
> defend many other applications of probability from the accusation of
> Einstein Insanity to which they are all exposed. If we did have full
> access to reality, according to this argument, the results of our
> actions would never be in doubt.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#521137

On 9/14/2015 1:37 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Einstein’s Parable of Quantum Insanity
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150910-einstein-insanity/
>
>
>> “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting
>> different results.”


no, that is Rocky the lying Squirel

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

#521223

<swormley1@gmail.com> "Sam Wormley" cut, pasted & wrote:
> Einstein’s Parable of Quantum Insanity
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150910-einstein-insanity/
>> “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting
>> different results,” which is what Einstein Dingleberries do in
>> their;religiously fanatical worship[ of Albert's Sphincter.
>> That low-witticism — I’ll call it “Einstein Insanity” — is usually
>> attributed to Albert Einstein. Though the Matthew effect may be
>> operating here, it is undeniably the sort of clever, memorable
>> one-liner that Einstein often tossed off. And I’m happy to give him
>> the credit, because doing so takes us in interesting directions.
>>
>> First of all, note that what Einstein describes as insanity is,
>> according to quantum theory, the way the world actually works. In
>> quantum mechanics you can do the same thing many times and get
>> different results. Indeed, that is the premise underlying great
>> high-energy particle colliders. In those colliders, physicists bash
>> together the same particles in precisely the same way, trillions upon
>> trillions of times. Are they all insane to do so? It would seem they
>> are not, since they have garnered a stupendous variety of results.
>>
>> Of course Einstein, famously, did not believe in the inherent
>> unpredictability of the world, saying “God does not play dice.” Yet
>> in playing dice, we act out Einstein Insanity: We do the same thing
>> over and over — namely, roll the dice — and we correctly anticipate
>> different results. Is it really insane to play dice? If so, it’s a
>> very common form of madness!
>>
>> We can evade the diagnosis by arguing that in practice one never
>> throws the dice in precisely the same way. Very small changes in the
>> initial conditions can alter the results. The underlying idea here is
>> that in situations where we can’t predict precisely what’s going to
>> happen next, it’s because there are aspects of the current situation
>> that we haven’t taken into account. Similar pleas of ignorance can
>> defend many other applications of probability from the accusation of
>> Einstein Insanity to which they are all exposed. If we did have full
>> access to reality, according to this argument, the results of our
>> actions would never be in doubt.
>
hanson wrote:
Parable of not, this tripe above is by far not a as cogent as what you
posted in your all time best tripe for SR & GR in
.         <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>             .
for which you must be given credit, kudos & at least 5 attaboys!
Taken care Sam! -- hanson
> -- 
>
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.
> 

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

#521986 — Re: Einstein's Parable of Quantum Insanity

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 2:37:28 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Einstein's Parable of Quantum Insanity
> > https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150910-einstein-insanity/
> 
> 
> > "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting
> > different results."
> >
> > That witticism -- I'll call it "Einstein Insanity" -- is usually
> > attributed to Albert Einstein. Though the Matthew effect may be
> > operating here, it is undeniably the sort of clever, memorable
> > one-liner that Einstein often tossed off. And I'm happy to give him
> > the credit, because doing so takes us in interesting directions.
> >
> > First of all, note that what Einstein describes as insanity is,
> > according to quantum theory, the way the world actually works. In
> > quantum mechanics you can do the same thing many times and get
> > different results. Indeed, that is the premise underlying great
> > high-energy particle colliders. In those colliders, physicists bash
> > together the same particles in precisely the same way, trillions upon
> > trillions of times. Are they all insane to do so? It would seem they
> > are not, since they have garnered a stupendous variety of results.
> >
> > Of course Einstein, famously, did not believe in the inherent
> > unpredictability of the world, saying "God does not play dice." Yet
> > in playing dice, we act out Einstein Insanity: We do the same thing
> > over and over -- namely, roll the dice -- and we correctly anticipate
> > different results. Is it really insane to play dice? If so, it's a
> > very common form of madness!
> >
> > We can evade the diagnosis by arguing that in practice one never
> > throws the dice in precisely the same way. Very small changes in the
> > initial conditions can alter the results. The underlying idea here is
> > that in situations where we can't predict precisely what's going to
> > happen next, it's because there are aspects of the current situation
> > that we haven't taken into account. Similar pleas of ignorance can
> > defend many other applications of probability from the accusation of
> > Einstein Insanity to which they are all exposed. If we did have full
> > access to reality, according to this argument, the results of our
> > actions would never be in doubt.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

I agree with Einstein on this.

I believe the universe is intrinsically deterministic and that the probabilistic interpretation of "quantum theory" is an attempt to model its unmanageable complexity. It also can be used to gloss over an insufficiency of context (unaccounted for aka "hidden" variables) in order to produce usable results.

The inaccuracies and deficiencies of our current not-so "standard model" are probably due its modeling of complex particle systems as solid point particles and the resultant neglect of energy modes (e.g. additional vibration and pulsation modes). Obviously resolving smaller scale features requires higher frequencies (energies). I don't believe we are at Democritus's indivisible particle yet unless you want to consider the photon as the charge and mass quantum.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web