Re: [OT]: Ping Kevin Aylward - re your "scientific paper"

From: Kevin Aylward (salesEXTRACT_at_anasoft.co.uk)
Date: 09/23/04 

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:58:28 GMT

Guy Macon wrote:
> John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> says...
>
>> They aren't obligatory. I think you'd do better to just ignore the
>> critiques that are obviously based on a lack of understanding.
>
> What part of "The vast majority of experts do *not* consider
> free will to be proven not to exist.

Still on this one are we?

>Most experts say that it
> is an open question and depends on such hotly debated factors
> as the many-worlds interpretation" is obviously based on a
> lack of understanding?

Most experts certainly do not say it depends on MWI. Most experts say
MWI has F'all to do with the matter.

And this *is* a red herring. I certainly don't care what experts say on
this matter, as, with my axiom, its trivial to prove that free-will is
illusionary. Of course, if you can actually show otherwise, lets here
it.

>
> What part of "The vast majority of experts do *not* believe
> that Heisenberg was wrong

Look, Heisenberg was mistaken. Early QM'ists did not distinguish between
preparation and measurements

1Ballentine "Quantum Mechanics, A Modern development" P.226
(reference to graphs of delta_x and error_x, showing them not the same)

 "To the reader who is unfamiliar with the history of quantum mechanics,
these remarks may seem to belabor the obvious. Unfortunately the
statistical quantities delta_q and delta_p in(8.33) have often been
misinterpreted as the errors of individual measurements. The origin of
the confusion probably lies in the fact that Heisenberg's original paper
on the certainty principle, published in 1927, was based on early work
that predates the systematic formulation and statistical interpretation
of quantum theory. Thus the natural derivation and interpretation of
(8.33) that is given above was not possible at the time. The statistical
interpretation of the indeterminacy relations was first advanced by K.R.
Popper in 1934." (8.33) - delta_x.delta_p >=1/2|<C>|, the result hold
for any operators that satisfy [A,B]=iC"

*******

Its only prediction that is limited by HUP.

When you write a text book.... oh.... why bother....

>and that you can have exact knowledge
> of the position and velocity of a subatomic particle" is
> obviously based on a lack of understanding?

This sentence is too obtuse for me. What are you trying to say? Look,
dude, I have already given you a link to a peer reviewed and published
paper that experimental *disproves* this naive view of HUP. Its that
simple. Stop debating something you know nothing about. Go and read
gradute books, not web sites and bantam paperbacks.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/quantummechanics/index.html, see appendix
***

2Ballentine "Quantum Mechanics, A Modern development" P. 225-226

"Jauch (1993). The rms atomic momentum fluctuation, delta_p is directly
obtained from the temperature of the crystal, and hence gives a lower
bound to delta_q, the rms vibration amplitude of an atom. The value of
delta_x can be measured by neutron diffraction, and at low temperature
it is only slightly above its quantum lower bound, hbar/2delta_p. Jauch
stresses that it is only the rms ensemble fluctuations that are limited
by (8.33). The position coordinates of the atomic cell can be determined
with a precision that is two orders of magnitude smaller then the
quantum limit on delta_q".

Jauch (1993) - Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relation and Thermal Vibrations
in Crystals, Am. J. Phys. 61, 929-932

*******

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.