- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: scerir <scerir.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:46:51 +0200

Saibal Mitra

*> This all assumes that photons, electrons, etc. are real. We don't know that.
*

*> If you were Einstein, and you were faced with Bell's result, you could have
*

*> concluded that the nonexistence of local hidden variables implies that
*

*> elementary paricles don't exist. They are mere mathematical tools to compute
*

*> the outcome of experiments. The real underlying theory of Nature could be
*

*> still be deterministic. Recently 't Hooft has shown how QM can emerge out of
*

*> a deterministic theory. In this case QM has to be interpreted according to
*

*> the Copenhagen interpretation.
*

Nice question. Einstein wrote a beautiful paper (1927) "Does Schroedinger's

Wave Mechanics Determine the Motion of a System Completely or Only

in the Sense of Statistics?" but it is still unpublished! It's an interesting

hidden variables theory!

References:

-J.T. Cushing, Quantum Mechanics, Un. Chicago Press, 1994,

pages 128-129, and 139-140, and 251.

-D. Howard, "Space-Time and Separability", in "Potentiality,

Entanglement and Passion-at-a-Distance", R.S.Cohen +

M.Horne + J.Stachel (eds.), Kluwer A.P., 1997

-J. Stachel, "Feynman Paths and Quantum Entanglement",

in "Potentiality, Entanglement and Passion-at-a-Distance", R.S.Cohen +

M.Horne + J.Stachel (eds.), Kluwer A.P., 1997.

Anyway I think that Einstein would say something like ...

' This statistical interpretation is now universally accepted as

the best possible interpretation for quantum mechanics, even

though many people are unhappy with it. People had got used

to the determinism of the last century, where the present

determines the future completely, and they now have to get used

to a different situation in which the present only gives one information

of a statistical nature about the future.

A good many people find this unpleasant; Einstein has always

objected to it. The way he expressed it was: 'The good God does

not play with dice'. Schroedinger also did not like the statistical

interpretation and tried for many years to find an interpretation

involving determinism for his waves. But it was not successful

as a general method. I must say that I also do not like indeterminism.

I have to accept it because it is certainly the best that we can do

with our present knowledge. One can always hope that there will

be future developments which will lead to a drastically different

theory from the present quantum mechanics and for which

there may be a partial return of determinism. However, so long

as one keeps to the present formalism, one has to have this

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

indeterminism. '

from P.A.M. Dirac, The Development Of Quantum Mechanics,

Conferenza Tenuta il 14 Aprile 1972, Roma

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1974

[page 6]

Received on Fri Jul 12 2002 - 06:44:16 PDT

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:46:51 +0200

Saibal Mitra

Nice question. Einstein wrote a beautiful paper (1927) "Does Schroedinger's

Wave Mechanics Determine the Motion of a System Completely or Only

in the Sense of Statistics?" but it is still unpublished! It's an interesting

hidden variables theory!

References:

-J.T. Cushing, Quantum Mechanics, Un. Chicago Press, 1994,

pages 128-129, and 139-140, and 251.

-D. Howard, "Space-Time and Separability", in "Potentiality,

Entanglement and Passion-at-a-Distance", R.S.Cohen +

M.Horne + J.Stachel (eds.), Kluwer A.P., 1997

-J. Stachel, "Feynman Paths and Quantum Entanglement",

in "Potentiality, Entanglement and Passion-at-a-Distance", R.S.Cohen +

M.Horne + J.Stachel (eds.), Kluwer A.P., 1997.

Anyway I think that Einstein would say something like ...

' This statistical interpretation is now universally accepted as

the best possible interpretation for quantum mechanics, even

though many people are unhappy with it. People had got used

to the determinism of the last century, where the present

determines the future completely, and they now have to get used

to a different situation in which the present only gives one information

of a statistical nature about the future.

A good many people find this unpleasant; Einstein has always

objected to it. The way he expressed it was: 'The good God does

not play with dice'. Schroedinger also did not like the statistical

interpretation and tried for many years to find an interpretation

involving determinism for his waves. But it was not successful

as a general method. I must say that I also do not like indeterminism.

I have to accept it because it is certainly the best that we can do

with our present knowledge. One can always hope that there will

be future developments which will lead to a drastically different

theory from the present quantum mechanics and for which

there may be a partial return of determinism. However, so long

as one keeps to the present formalism, one has to have this

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

indeterminism. '

from P.A.M. Dirac, The Development Of Quantum Mechanics,

Conferenza Tenuta il 14 Aprile 1972, Roma

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1974

[page 6]

Received on Fri Jul 12 2002 - 06:44:16 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST
*