Re: Everything Is Moving

You know what? That's a truely long-winded way of admitting that nothing is
actually random. All you've said is that the apparent randomness is caused
by the inability of humans to act and react on the same timescale as that of
quantum objects. That being said, why is it that so many physicists will
declare that quantum objects are truely non-deterministic? Just because we
cannot react fast enough to see the deterministic interactions doesn't mean
the deterministic universe we see is founded on non-determinsitic actions.

R.

Side note. There is indeed a way for humans to perceive quantum interactions
on their own time scale. The trick is to find a way to take advantage of
relativity by accelerating the quantum frame being observed to near light
speeds in a circular path. The interactions should appear to slow as time
dilation takes effect. Just a thought.


"EL" <hemetis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1117153437.083147.76570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [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
    ... The concept of Randomness is founded on the assumption of absolute ... Quantum Mechanics assumes that quanta are building ... it is also logical that within a static collection of members ... While relativity is littered with a mixture of verifiable true ...
    (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: 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)
  • Re: Won arguments?
    ... much effect on macroscopic systems. ... that as a general rule quantum randomness ... This was a chance event, ...
    (talk.origins)