09 Jun 17
8 edits
Originally posted by apathisthidden variables aren't "required to rescue" quantum physics. You clearly understand nothing about quantum physics nor the issues involved and have no idea what you are talking about.
But when hidden variables are required to rescue your system.
11 Jun 17
1 edit
Originally posted by humyOf course not. They are required to rescue determinism from the findings of quantum physics.
hidden variables aren't "required to rescue" quantum physics.
You clearly understand nothing about quantum physics nor the issues involved and have no idea what you are talking about.
If you were confident and sane, you could afford to be polite. If you're nuts or scared, you know, carry on.
11 Jun 17
9 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorrasame here. And no scientist knows what he is talking about. I find it appalling how many times I see a layperson apparently assume he understands science better than scientists do; I see this TOO often.
I know what hidden variable theories are.
I just don't understand what you are talking about.
11 Jun 17
Originally posted by humyI know when to look to the experts. And I always carry a bag of salt. Why don't you?
same here. And no scientist knows what he is talking about. I find it appalling how many times I see a layperson apparently assume he understands science better than scientists do; I see this TOO often.
You feel the need to blatantly lie here.
Some scientists, at the least, know what I'm talking about. This can be fact-checked.
12 Jun 17
3 edits
Originally posted by apathistwhat makes you think we are trying to "rescue" determinism or have any need to? Explain...
Because, as the rest of my post said: They are required to rescue determinism from the findings of quantum physics.
I have never tried to "rescue" determinism and don't know of anyone that has.
12 Jun 17
4 edits
Originally posted by apathistbecause I don't have the delusional arrogance of believing I know better about a subject than most experts on the subject much better qualified in it than myself.
I know when to look to the experts. And I always carry a bag of salt. Why don't you?
.
There are many people much smarter than you and I (many on this forum) who know many things you and I don't; suck it up.
13 Jun 17
Originally posted by apathistI take it you are asking whether the universe is deterministic.
I have trouble believing that, but I'll try.
Is the universe a clockwork, Kazet? There is only on possible way it can unfold?
Our knowledge (both empirical and theoretical) with respect to this issue is inconclusive.
Hidden variable theories have been discredited since Bell's theorem and in particular the experiments confirming it. However, this does not mean that determinism is out of the window - it just means that when you have a particle floating around in space you cannot for instance assign it a definite position and momentum. Determinism doesn't require that this is possible - indeed, we have a deterministic description of non-interacting particles already that appears to work just fine (the Schrödinger equation for non-relativistic massive particles for example).
13 Jun 17
Originally posted by humyAs quantum mechanics developed, it became necessary to base it on probability theory. This confused many scientists, since they believed reality is deterministic. So they proposed the existence of hidden variables. You already know this, so what is your game here?
what makes you think we are trying to "rescue" determinism or have any need to? Explain...
I have never tried to "rescue" determinism and don't know of anyone that has.
Bell ruled out local hidden variables, while non-local hidden variables would bring in some new rather startling problems.
The hidden variable idea exists only because the old-school clockwork-universe crowd was so uncomfortable with the idea that reality is fundamentally probabilistic.
I think it is better to fit theories to reality, rather than the other way around.