Re: Hammond sees the obvious
From: Alan (gper_at_mindless.com)
Date: 08/24/04
- Next message: Dave: "Re: OWLS Anisotropy Update (2)"
- Previous message: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error."
- In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: Hammond sees the obvious"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: Hammond sees the obvious"
- Reply: George Hammond: "Re: Hammond sees the obvious"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 24 Aug 2004 14:19:18 -0700
> > Your FIRST definition, from Wikipedia, references the word
> > "observables".
> >
> > Why would you choose Webster's, then, to define "observables"?
>
> [Hammond]
> Common dictionaries such as Webster are written for
> average uneducated middle class idiots.
> Only a common idiot would NEED to look up
> a definition of "observable"' for chrissake.
>
> > "Observable", an adjective, as defined for general purposes by
> > Webster's, does NOT mean the same as "observables", a noun, as defined
> > scientifically by Wikipedia:
>
> [Hammond]
> For chrissake... "observable" and "observables" are two different
> forms of the same world... one is an adj. and one is a noun.
No sir.
The point is NOT that one is a noun and the other an adjective; it is
that one is used in a scientific sense, and the other is not, and the
meanings are NOT the same.
"Observable", in the COMMON sense, means, in referring to something,
that it can be sensed, as by a human.
"Observables", in the SCIENTIFIC sense, is a property, such as angular
momentum, location in space, or what have you, "that can be determined
by some sequence of physical operations". That doesn't mean, or imply,
that a human must be involved in order for observables to exist. Read
through the entire Wikipedia definition of "observable", and note
particularly the part about the measurement process, and recall that
the measurement process in QM does NOT necessarily refer to "some guy
looking through a microscope", but could be ANY interaction that
changes the wave state of a particle or system.
In the broadest scientific sense, an observable is "any thing, or
property of a thing, which can effect changes in OTHER things or
properties".
>
>
> >
> > Observable
> > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
> > In physics, particularly in quantum physics a system observable is a
> > property of the system state that can be determined by some sequence
> > of physical operations. These operations might involve submitting the
> > system to various electromagnetic fields and eventually reading a
> > value off some gauge. In systems governed by classical mechanics any
> > experimentally observable value can be shown to be given by a
> > real-valued function on the set of all possible system states. In
> > quantum physics, on the other hand, the relation between system state
> > and the value of an observable is more subtle, requiring some basic
> > linear algebra to explain. In the mathematical formulation of quantum
> > mechanics, states are given by non-zero vectors in a Hilbert space V
> > (where two vectors are considered to specify the same state if, and
> > only if, they are scalar mutiples of each other) and observables are
> > given by self-adjoint operators on V. However, as indicated below, not
> > every self-adjoint operator corresponds to a physically meaningful
> > observable. For the case of a system of particles, the space V
> > consists of functions called wave functions.
>
> [Hammond]
> "OPbservables" in QM are the same as "observables" in
> classical physics... the only difference being the observables
> of QM are statistical observables and are generally quantized.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> >
> > The point is, that the SCIENTIFIC use of the term "observable" does
> > NOT in any way, shape, manner, or form, imply the existence of a HUMAN
> > observer.
>
> [Hammond]
> WRONG, LIAR
> It means EXACTLY that.
> The end step in any "measurement" is the
> detection of that result by a PERSON.
> No person, no observation.
[snip sig]
You toss around the word "liar" a lot. What makes you think I have
DELIBERATELY stated a non-truth?
Maybe part of the problem is that you got your physics education
several decades ago, when the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM was
king, and after a few decades of non-use, your knowledge got kind of
muddled up, and confused with other things (like the common,
Webster's-type meaning of "observable").
Just as you know that you are right, Mr. Hammond, virtually everyone
else knows you're wrong. Looked at OBJECTIVELY (TRY, okay???), who's
more likely to be right - you, or virtually everyone else?
I'm not going to tutor you in QM Interpretation - unless you pay me
:-)
Suffice it to say that "measurement" has a scientific meaning, too,
which is different from the common meaning. YOU are going by the
common meaning. Since you "just won't get" whatever I, or anyone else,
tell you, I'm not going to put the effort into going any further.
- Next message: Dave: "Re: OWLS Anisotropy Update (2)"
- Previous message: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error."
- In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: Hammond sees the obvious"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: Hammond sees the obvious"
- Reply: George Hammond: "Re: Hammond sees the obvious"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
