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]

[Phys-L] Re: Some Ramblings On Randomness and Casualty



In a message dated 7/12/2005 12:25:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jsd@AV8N.COM writes:

Some possibly-helpful remarks:

1) Whether or not QM conflicts with classical notions of
causality is very sensitive to just how you codify the
classical notion.
1a) QM does not require (or allow, so far as we know)
the non-causal transmission of _information_.
1b) QM does require _correlations_ at spacelike separations.
Lots of theory (starting with Bell) rules out a wide
class of hidden-variable theories and other attempts at
common-sense explanations for these correlations. Lots
of experiments (starting with Aspect et al.) confirm
that these correlations are present. I'm not saying it is
100% certain that no classical mechanism for establishing
such correlations can be found ... but everyone who has
attempted to find one has failed (sometimes without
realizing how badly they have failed).
Most people consider these correlations to be "spooky".
I'm not sure they should be called "lawless". We have a
pretty clear idea of what happens, even if we don't have a
ball-and-stick model of how it happens.

2a) Most QM predictions uphold the correspondence principle.
The classical behavior emerges in the appropriate limit, just
as geometric optics emerges as a limiting case of physical
optics.

2b) On the other hand, there are some aspects of QM that are
completely and unalterably non-classical.
For example: consider the spin of the electron. Classical
particles can be spinless, while electrons cannot, and there
is no middle ground.



=============

Thank you for your comments. However, what I am proposing is very limited
and model independent with the exception of the Bohm model.

I am only trying to make two points.

1) The fundamental constituents of reality , let's say particles , do have
objective properties independent of measurement BUT these properties are NOT
the classical properties which they do not posses.The classical objective
properties are emergent and not fundamental.

2) The Determinism of nature is not undermined by quantum theory as is often
said , though we are limited to only knowing the probabilities for
individual events at the quantum scale. However, these probabilities are themselves
deterministic and lead to classical determinism on the macro scale.

The first point is a different take on QT I think while the second point
should not be controversial. This is all I am trying to say. These are
interpretive metaphysical assertions , hence propose no new physics.

Bob Zannelli
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l