Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics

From: Gregory L. Hansen (glhansen_at_steel.ucs.indiana.edu)
Date: 12/15/04 

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:26:17 +0000 (UTC)

In article <41c10c20.49709196@netnews.att.net>,
Lester Zick <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 14 Dec 2004 18:48:16 -0800, "stlbl" <wjgreen1@verizon.net> in
>comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>>This is all interesting stuff and I'll have to reread it during the
>>day. As you know the word quanta refers to something discreet and
>>"grainy", and the big deal in the 1920's and later was that energy and
>>mass had a fundamental unit and only seemed to be measurable in integer
>>multiples of some fundamental quantities---eigen values were invoked to
>>help explain things. Particle spin should not be thought of as an
>>observable rotation like a ball on a string or a phonograph. Electrons
>>have their spin direction either up or down, or A and B or yes and no
>>(to refer to some sort of symmetry)---its too late in the evening for
>>me to make sense---I'll try to recall my book learnin' from 10-15 years
>>ago tomorrow--to help us find common ground...oh, the poem is from
>>Faust, Pt.1, in the witch's kitchen. The poem makes Faust angry, but
>>Mephisto exclaims (to the witch that says it),"Well done..." The
>>serpent was "the first friend to knowledge" as we know.
>>Ideas that come into people's heads probably are not in integer
>>form, but most likely when tried to come to expression through
>>words---we can count them, as in I had an Idea, I had another idea. In
>>truth they are each one multifaceted. We like to assign integer
>>numbers to things so that we can be good accountants and keep track of
>>things, use binary math, etc... All theoreticians must be good
>>accountants. We experimentalists can let detectors, graphs etc do it
>>for us. But we probably design them to measure that way.
>
>I strongly suspect that I dis quantum theory primarily because it
>morphed physics from "no stinkin reasons we can see" into just plain
>ol' "no stinkin reasons".

So you want to reduce quantum mechanics to classical mechanics, I suppose.
But ignoring whether that's even possible, which unanswered questions
about classical mechanics have you chosen not to ask?

It's easy to think of some, since we have quantum mechanics to contrast
with it. Why would an object take just a single trajectory out of the
infinite trajectories available to it?

Why is it possible to develop a mechanics based on the concept of the
particle?

When an object goes from point A to point B, why should we expect it to
occupy in succession every point along a path from A to B rather than
teleporting to its destination?

Why should time move forward at the same rate at all points in the
universe? Why should time always move forward at all points in the
universe?

The first two questions, at least, can be answered by quantum mechanics.
Classical trajectories are found in the expectation values of particles
whose position and momentum uncertainties are much smaller than the
dimensions of the system in question. And the very notion of particle
can get dubious in quantum field theory, but a natural particle
interpretation of the fields is available in the mostly flat and quiescent
spacetime we find ourselves in.

All theories have things that are true for no stinkin' reason, including
classical mechanics. They're called postulates. If they could be
derived from more basic notions they wouldn't be postulates. But
sometimes people reach their comfort zone and it doesn't even occur to
them to keep asking what the stinkin' reasons are. 

-- 
"We don't grow up hearing stories around the camp fire anymore about
cultural figures. Instead we get them from books, TV or movies, so the
characters that today provide us a common language are corporate
creatures" -- Rebecca Tushnet

Relevant Pages