Re: paradox in quantum mechanics

From: Paul Stowe (ps_at_acompletelyjunkaddress.net)
Date: 10/23/04 

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:19:23 GMT

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:37:57 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
>news:6fAdd.33692$5O5.32438@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>|
>| "jsp" <jupiterscientific2004b@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>| news:6583e4ad.0410200804.53c5f8cd@posting.google.com...
>| > For nice explanations of several
>| > intriguing issues in quantum mechanics
>| > (uncertainty, decoherence, entanglement, Schrödinger's cat,
>| > the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,
>| > and the collapse of the wave function)
>| > click on the first report at
>| > http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/index.html
>| >
>| > which is part of a review of the book
>| > "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene at
>| > http://www.jupiterscientific.org/review/tfotc.html
>| >
>| > Enjoy!
>|
>| Read your link. I know it is always difficult to explain physics that is
>| really written in the language of mathematics in ordinary English. But I
>| must take exception at one thing that was said:
>|
>| 'Special relativity destroyed the concept of ether. General relativity
>| resurrected it.'
>|
>| GR is not an aether theory. It is a theory based on two principles - the
>| principle of equivalence and the principle of general invariance. It is
>| basically, just like SR, a theory of symmetry - specifically the symmetry
>| imposed by the principle of general invariance. Sometimes people bring up
>| Einstein's 1920 aether lecture but what those people leave out is its
>| conclusion -
>| http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Leiden-1920.htm
>(this
>| does not represent an endorsement on my part of other parts of the site):
>|
>| 'As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the
>| future we are not yet clear'
>|
>| We - 84 years - on now know the answer - none, zero, zilch.
>
> Bill, don't you get tired of repeating the same drivel?

 He can't 'get tired' he's a Borg Drone without an ounce of creative
 thought.

> This is the 21st century. Get up to speed.

 Might as well go talk to a rock...

> The quantum vacuum is not just a mathematical artifact.

 In his world-view its an fumdamental property of space and need not
 be resolved and further. Axioms & Principles, not physicality are
 his religous foundations.

> Educate yourself about it.

 One can be the most 'educated' person on the planet and still not
 be able to think for themselves. These types can only regurgitate
 that which they have taken from others.

> Read more about particle physics.

 It won't help, the mind is cast in concrete.

> I don't think you will find many particle physicists that don't
> think the quantum vacuum is a dielectric medium that screens charge.

 You've said the one word that is the big red OFF button for these
 minds, 'medium'. :)

 Paul Stowe

Quantcast