Comments by "" (@TheDavidlloydjones) on "Is This What Quantum Mechanics Looks Like?" video.

  1. Jeremy Yarbro Jeremy, What you say is correct, but a wee bit limited, surely? There is clearly something we don't understand here. Something we don't know. Bel's very amazing good work shows us that we can eliminate what we call "hidden variables" as the source of what we don't know, but that gives us only the small consolation of there being one less class of things, as defined by our limited knowledge, about which we don't know what we don't know. That still leaves some unknown territory, I think you'll agree? E.O. Wilson's good comment, in his semi-biographical "Consilience," is to the effect that we don't need bigger more expensive experiments in physics because our problems are epistemologicical. Here we have an example of that. We haven't even defined the class of things we don't know, now that we've gotten "hidden variables" out of the way. Cheers, -dlj.
    2
  2. Chip Cooper Chip, Yes, quite. The point is that "hidden variables" is a phrase which implies a given way of looking at things: you have these objects, or fields, or whatever, and you plug variables into your model, and you get a result which reality confirms, thus affirming the consequent of your theory. This is not a proof, and to suppose it a proof is a fallacy, but it is a comfort. In that sense of the phrase "hidden variables," Bell has shown to everybody's satisfaction that no, there aren't any, and no proof involving them can make sense. Now you are talking about variables that are not known, i.e. in a sense hidden, and clearly there is something unknown going on. It's just that your unknowns are not the hidden variables of the current way of thinking. They're like Rumsfeld's Chinese Fortune Cookie, unknown unknowns. And don't take it for granted that they're variables. :-) -dlj.
    2
  3. Everyone is a winner. The whole show is a free lunch. -dlj.
    1
  4. Chip Cooper Chip, I thought that we both agreed that there are huge, and as yet undefined, areas about which we are ignorant. Now tell me, from a logical point of view, what could possibly not validate that? :-) -dlj.
    1
  5. ***** So if somebody asks you what time it is you have to know how fast they are travelling before you can answer the question? Funny, Newton's version is good enough for us to give an answer just by looking at our watches. But if you want to be all Einsteinian about it, be my guest... -dlj.
    1
  6. Chip Cooper "While you're funny, his correct reply to this question would be, "Not at this scale."" Chip, The subject of the discussion was not how to tell an enquirer the time of day*. The subject of the discussion was whether or not there is one and only one correct way of looking at any particular situation or phenomenon. As for stirring up trouble on the Net, I'm not sure bots, or even human intervention, are called for. Isn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics good enough for you? Cheers, -dlj. * Since the asker's speed as a fraction of c is in question, I'd guess that it's location might be, too. If the asker is Alderbaranian, who are we to say it's size and mass? -d.
    1
  7. deBroglie => de-broy
    1