Re: Everything Is Moving

[Ranando King wrote]
> Consider that the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox showed that
> Quantum Physics is at least either incomplete or incorrect. Einstein's
> conversations with Shroedinger further showed this truth without resorting
> to the questionable formalities introduced by Podolsky. And yet, particle
> physicists still insist that the truth is that nature is RANDOM on it's most
> fundamental level instead of simply chalking the apparent randomness to the
> current limitation of human knowledge and capability as was always done in
> classical mechanics.
[EL]
The concept of Randomness is founded on the assumption of absolute
similarity of the members within a set.
This is obviously consistent with a particle or particulated model of
nature.
The name says it, Quantum Mechanics assumes that quanta are building
blocks and that they are all equal in quantity and quality.
However, it is also logical that within a static collection of members
within a set, randomness cannot emerge due to a zero probability of
interaction that allows subsets to be identified as unique patterns of
order.
As you have scribed the title, "Every thing is moving", which I do
agree with, one should understand that randomness is not objectively a
selection of quanta or members of a set as it is taken from upper
levels of complexity made simple by abstraction. Randomness is a
dynamic process of selection, subjectively processing the dynamic
differences of the identical members. So yes, the members are
objectively identical but their dynamic spacetime properties are not
identical at all.
To make this clearer or easier to understand, take any set of identical
objects and identify them by index numbers with an integer for each in
the sequence; then build a corresponding subjective set for the dynamic
properties such that the second set can be mapped on a one-on-one
basis; the dynamic relational map, having differences, can allow the
estimation of the temporal selection that yields the apparent "random"
subset.
What I am saying is that what we abstract as "random" on one level, is
absolutely deterministic on deeper levels of knowledge. What you seem
to be missing is that the temporal resolution of our knowledge is a
very limited interval between two extremes. No human can verify an
estimation related to cosmic-time-scales because tens of years are not
compatible with billions of years (on the macro-scale); also no human
can follow the details of a dynamic system that changes on a
quantum-time-scale of nanoseconds or even less (on the micro-scale).
The time scale on which basis we acquire knowledge is too large to keep
track of changes within the micro-cosmos. The only way out is to build
probabilistic values and topologies that forms a temporal
hyper-representation of spacetime with properties of homogenous
periodical persistence or else the randomly ordered patterns rejoins
with the background chaos.
Quantum mechanics discards the set-internal-dynamics as irrelevant when
it is the probability space of the whole set that matters as relevant.
In the vector space, we do not regard charges as objective entities but
simply signed quantities, where negative and positive represent
directions on a magnitude scale and not labels on particles.
Replacing particles with charged clouds does not solve the problem
because it is an abstraction replacing another abstraction. It is not
true that QM regards all quantum level topologies as spheres (where
from did you get such an idea!). Topological spheres are strongly
related to isotropy, which is not always the case.
That is why QM is not something to swallow but rather to chew on. :-)
While relativity is littered with a mixture of verifiable true
formalism and unverifiable fantasies, QM is straight forward a best
possible model for representing reality.
To advance QM, what we need is to increase the temporal resolution of
significance and analyse the dynamic topologies that underlay random
processes. To correct relativity and filter out the fantasies, a better
understanding of macro-time-scales is demanded; also relating the
temporal macro-scale to the micro-scale and estimating the absolute
concurrency from the relative apparent observations is what the
relativistic formalism is all about.

Kindest regards.
EL

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Everything Is Moving
    ... All you've said is that the apparent randomness is caused ... declare that quantum objects are truely non-deterministic? ... relativity by accelerating the quantum frame being observed to near light ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Does anybody have any evidence that all evolutionary events are
    ... Non-epistemic randomness is unpredictability due to the fact that the ... Quantum phenomena, in particular quantum wavefunction collapse, ... Planets are hold in one piece by gravitational and chemical binding ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Does anybody have any evidence that all evolutionary events are
    ... Non-epistemic randomness is unpredictability due to the fact that the ... Quantum phenomena, in particular quantum wavefunction collapse, ... Planets are hold in one piece by gravitational and chemical binding ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Won arguments?
    ... much effect on macroscopic systems. ... that as a general rule quantum randomness ... This was a chance event, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dawkins for president
    ... randomness research is a completely separate field from evolutionary ... Prior to the decision of a quantum event, ... understanding of the evidence behind them radically changes. ... We see them opposing your "science" because you refuse to enumerate it ...
    (talk.origins)