Tim Shoppa wrote:
> Clayton Weaver wrote:
> > I was reading Chaitin's paper on computational complexity and wondering
> > about this in the context of the mentioned probabilistic nature of
> > the Schrodinger equation.
> > Is this not merely curve-fitting, an approximation of a chaotic transform
> > where we do not know what parameters of the quantum environment may in
> > fact determine the behavior that the Shrodinger equation gives us
> > probabilities for?
>> I think what you're asking is "Are there inner mechanics of the
> particle/phenomena that we don't understand yet, and these
> give rise to our probabilistic model?" This is called a "hidden
> variable" hypothesis, and has been the subject of much research.
> "Hidden variables" are actually ruled out in many phenomena because we
> can do an EPR-type experiment on the phenomena where two particles
> are perfectly correlated despite being separated by such a distance
> that there's no way for the "hidden variables" in one to have affected
> the "hidden variables" in the other without exceeding the speed of
>> If you want to know more about EPR-type experiments, do a web
> search for "spooky action at a distance". Yep, that's a key
> phrase in this business. You have to be careful with the language
> used, as when one chooses words to map the mathematics to
> perceived reality, the words inevitably show the bias of the
> speaker :-).
>> > Is it really valid to attribute to the phenomena itself
> > a non-deterministic attribute of the mathematics we have applied to it?
>> Where to draw the dividing line between "math" and "reality" is
> indeed difficult. Are "waves" reality? I think so. Are "photons"
> reality? I think so too, I've watched individual pulses coming
> out of photomultiplier tubes.
yeah, but such doesn't necessarily mean that there's anything 'discrete'
in-there. it could mean that there's a detector that responds in a threshold
it's my view that the qualitative differences of 'atomic' emission and
absorption spectra indicate the latter, for instance, because what have been
referred to as 'atoms' are actually spherical standing waves of energy
'trapped' in 'compression'-'expansion' harmonic interaction with a surrounding
extreme-fluid. 'emission' happens during 'expansion' and 'absorption' happens
'emission' and 'absorption' are only vectoring within what's actually
continuous energy-flow dynamics.
the problem has been that detectors have been engineered to only respond to
energy-flow in particular directions like, 'normal', and into, rather than
omnidirectional, and both into and out-of.
they are engineered with the a priori presumption of 'particles', so they 'see
particles', when everything is continuous.
ken (K. P. Collins)