Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Particle Position



At 08:48 PM 5/10/99 -0600, Arnulfo Castellanos Moreno wrote:
Ron Ebert wrote:

"Bell's inequality is violated in experiments. This could not happen
assuming locality and hidden variables. And it doesn't help to assume
non-locality and hidden variables, because then the hidden variables become
moot, as potentially any influence anywhere in the universe could affect
the value of the dynamic attributes instant to instant."

But maybe the final answer has not been find. There are another point of
views like:

Pascazio S. 1988, in: "Quantum Mechanics versus Local Realism. The
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox, F. Selleri, ed." Plenum, New York,
chapter 13.

And

Santos E. Phys. Rev. A46, 1992, pag. 3646.

So that as DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA wrote"

"That they are not to decide the various descriptions of
history or of economic theory or of philosophy." in Physics is the same.

and from David L. Bridges:

Without commiting myself to any particluar position with respect to the work
of David Bohm, I observe that in fact it may help immensely to assume
non-locality and hidden variables. One can sleep better knowing that,
without contradicting any experiment, one is free to think of "particles" as
little grains with both instantaneous position and instantaneous momentum.
Why should we believe in locality in the first place?

and signs: <David (an agnostic on issues not resolvable by experiment)>

John Mallinckrodt said it best:

The terms "particle" and "wave" are certainly loaded and, therefore,
problematic, but I don't think substituting "stuff" helps make matters
much clearer. It seems to me that the primary lesson of quantum physics
is that measurements are everything. We know the world *exclusively*
through measurements and measurements happen *only* when something--even
if "only" our state of awareness--"changes." We are playing at
metaphysics when we interpret the patterns that we see in our measurements
as implying specific underlying physical "things" like particles, waves,
blue whales, or any other kind of "stuff."

and I agree with the rest of John's comments, which I've snipped.

The trouble with interpretations like Bohm's, Everett's many worlds, and
even Copenhagen, is that they are all non-falsifiable. No one can think of
any way to devise an experiment which could demonstrate that any one of
these interpretations is false. There is no way to distinguish among them,
and they have no predictive power beyond the standard results of quantum
theory. To assume any of them is to reify quantum theory to no good purpose
other than to make us feel good by returning "common sense" to QM. The job
of science is to find out how the universe really is, not how we would like
it to be. Unless and until someone comes up with a falsifiable
interpretation, the best we can say is what quantum theory already tells us
- the dynamic attributes are indeterminate before measurement.


Ron Ebert
ron.ebert@ucr.edu
-----------------
"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything
upon insufficient evidence."
-- William Kingdon Clifford