Proving quantum mechanics wrong

[BaalChatzaf]

Stating that a question cannot be decided in principle, because there is no emipirical basis for answering a question with either yes or no is an agnostic position.

So we are (yet) 'a-gnostic' as to why quantum entanglement (the "spooky action at a distance") occurs.

The recent Cern findings about subatomic particles moving faster than light bewilder scientists:

First: Action at a distance is observed routinely. It is a fact. A fact need not be explained. It only need be acknowledged as a fact. All chains of explanation must terminate at some point (or there is an infinite regress, something that we do not permit). The "bottom" element of the explanation chain is, by definition, unexplained.

Second: The findings from OPERA await confirmation or refutation by further independent experiments. It is too soon to come to definite conclusion. The main point of doubt is the establishment of the timings of the emission of the neutrinos and the reception of the neutrinos at the other end of the tunnel.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

The findings from OPERA await confirmation or refutation by further independent experiments. It is too soon to come to definite conclusion. The main point of doubt is the establishment of the timings of the emission of the neutrinos and the reception of the neutrinos at the other end of the tunnel.

The data were based on three years of measurements, and it can be assumed that the OPERA team themselves have checked and rechecked this point of doubt many times.

But confirmation/refutation via independent experiments by other members of the scientific community is of course absolutely necessary.

[BaalChatzaf]

The findings from OPERA await confirmation or refutation by further independent experiments. It is too soon to come to definite conclusion. The main point of doubt is the establishment of the timings of the emission of the neutrinos and the reception of the neutrinos at the other end of the tunnel.

The data were based on three years of measurements, and it can be assumed that the OPERA team themselves have checked and rechecked this point of doubt many times.

But confirmation/refutation via independent experiments by other members of the scientific community is of course absolutely necessary.

The OPERA people were very careful. Now we must wait for confirmation or refutation. No matter how careful an experiment is done, there is always the possibility if observer bias. That is why scientific protocol demands independent confirmation or refutation. Wait until the necessary independent checking is done before reaching any conclusions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

The main fact is this: classical physics at the atomic scale DOES NOT WORK. Quantum physics was invented out of factual necessity, not philosophical purity.

You have in fact made a statement which picks a quantum mechanical interpretation [not the facts, mathematics or necessity]. What is known as

the de Broglie-Bohm view gives the same results as conventional mechanics. In 2001 & 2005 G.S. Duane proved that classical mechanics can in fact

work as the foundation for the Bell Inequalities as long as supraluminal signaling is allowed - also in accordance with what J.S. Bell wrote.

It is true that particular classical models in the distant past did not work - however a blanket statement that classical physics

cannot explain quantum phenomenon has been known to be suspect for a very long time [59 years - Bohm] and proven to be untrue

for 49 years - Bell. The work of Duane is further proof with a natural mechanism [10 years]. The foundation is there - the details need

more work.

Dennis May

[BaalChatzaf]

the de Broglie-Bohm view gives the same results as conventional mechanics. In 2001 & 2005 G.S. Duane proved that classical mechanics can in fact

work as the foundation for the Bell Inequalities as long as supraluminal signaling is allowed - also in accordance with what J.S. Bell wrote.

The Bohm De Broigle theory is contrary to relativity theory. It assumes a pilot wave with either infinite velocity or speed much greater than that of light. There is not an iota of physical evidence for the pilot wave. This is why it is not generally accepted.

When the postulates of a theory collide with very well established physical observation and measurement the theory becomes problematical.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

the de Broglie-Bohm view gives the same results as conventional mechanics. In 2001 & 2005 G.S. Duane proved that classical mechanics can in fact

work as the foundation for the Bell Inequalities as long as supraluminal signaling is allowed - also in accordance with what J.S. Bell wrote.

There is not an iota of physical evidence for the pilot wave. This is why it is not generally accepted.

Conventional QM is in precisely the same sitatuation explaining wave funcion collapse. The work

of Gregory S. Duane provides a mechanistic explanation for pilot waves.

Again it comes down to choosing an interpretation [philosophy] not necessity, math, or the facts.

Dennis May

[BaalChatzaf]

the de Broglie-Bohm view gives the same results as conventional mechanics. In 2001 & 2005 G.S. Duane proved that classical mechanics can in fact

work as the foundation for the Bell Inequalities as long as supraluminal signaling is allowed - also in accordance with what J.S. Bell wrote.

There is not an iota of physical evidence for the pilot wave. This is why it is not generally accepted.

Conventional QM is in precisely the same sitatuation explaining wave funcion collapse. The work

of Gregory S. Duane provides a mechanistic explanation for pilot waves.

Again it comes down to choosing an interpretation [philosophy] not necessity, math, or the facts.

Dennis May

I am happy to see that most working physicists, especially our best ones have relegated metaphysics to the domain of the irrelevant.

You really should read some of Richard Feynman's tart remarks about philosophy. Mostly it is word salad and b.s. Mostly.

ruveyn

[acespenlaub]

This discussion could benefit from another person who is familiar with the mathematics of quantum theory I think.

First, physicists should not relegate metaphysics to the "domain of the irrelevant!" It is a necessary tool for developing the correct conceptual interpretation of a theory. However, as quantum mechanics shows, it is possible to construct a marvelously precise and accurate theory using mostly physical facts and mathematics. What the implications of this are to the ultimate nature of the universe lies in the metaphysics however! Everyone needs every branch of philosophy, even physicists. If you don't agree with that, why are you posting on an Objectivist forum?

Second, to explain how quantum mechanics can be so successful but still have absolutely no metaphysically acceptable interpretation as of yet, I need to talk a little about the mathematics. Nothing obtuse, just the broad concepts:

There is an amazing theorem called the "von Neumann Spectral Theorem" which is at the very heart of the success of quantum theory. In essence it states that any set of real numbers can be associated with a mathematical object called an "Hermitian operator on a Hilbert space." The mathematics of such objects and the objects upon which they operate in the "Hilbert space" is well developed, largely as a consequence of quantum theory. The power of this (proven) theorem is that any observable quantity, any measurable property, has a set of possible (real, not complex) values and so simple enumeration of these values allows us to immediately apply the mathematics of "Hermitian operators." This is would give us the same result as classical dynamics gives us if the measurable values were continuous -- that is for any two measurable values, there is always another one in between them on the number line. However, experiment shows that for some phenomena, some observable quantities have a discrete set of allowable values such as {1,2,3,...} and not the numbers in between. This discreteness leads to ALL of the distinctly quantum stuff in quantum theory.

In addition to discrete sets of measurable values, we observe that physical entities at small scales are actually impossible to localize to a specific point in space. That is, every "particle" metaphysically can be said to be everywhere at once. The usual analogy is that of a water wave -- it is something which exists across the whole surface of the lake/pond/pool/etc.... Like the water wave, "particles" are not uniform across space but have a property which varies spatially. The interpretation due to Max Born takes this property and associates it with the probability of an interaction with another particle. This probabilistic behavior CAN BE OBSERVED in experiments involving the diffraction of very low intensity particle beams. If you shine even moderately intense light (which is as much a particle as an electron or neutrino) through a narrow slit, it will produce a pattern of light and dark on photographic film placed opposite the slit. However, at low intensities the pattern is slowly built up over time on the film by individual light particles hitting the screen. Where they hit (and where spots appear on the film) can be described by the Born probabilities. This is the same slowly emerging pattern that appears when you plot the results of rolling a die. Though you may roll a lot of 6's initially, eventually, each side will be rolled an equal number of times -- but the pattern takes time to appear.

The question is then, not one of the metaphysical status of fundamental probabilistic behavior, non-locality or discreteness of measurable values, but what these experimentally observable FACTS mean metaphysically. What is the true nature of existents which gives rise to these non-common sense properties?

What seem to be the two main points of contention in this discussion are therefore resolved:

1. Yes, philosophy is important in interpreting physics, but you must be wary that the things which you give the status of metaphysically fundamental are not in contradiction with experimental fact. And do not throw out philosophy altogether because someone else's philosophy (or the bulk of humanity's philosophical thought) is at odds with experimental fact. It just means that most philosophers are flat out wrong, not that proper philosophy isn't useful.

2. The central question concerning quantum mechanics is not whether fundamental probabilistic behavior or non-locality are metaphysically possible, because they are in fact experimentally verifiable, but rather, it is what do those observations imply about reality outside the realm of common experience.

Both sides of this discussion were right on one of these points and wrong on the other. This was partly due to the ineptitude of most physicists at grappling with quantum mechanics AND metaphysics (thus a lack of available, useful information to non-specialists), and partly due to needing to check one's premises. If I have misstated any facts or am ambiguous, please comment to that effect -- this is important to get right because quantum mechanics is unfortunately the source of much of the new "philosophical word salads and b.s." and having the right answer is the easiest way to discredit the wrong ones.

P.S. -- Richard Feynman was a brilliant physicist but tartness does not imply correctness. He didn't have the right answer and was tired of hearing wrong ones so he told people to give up trying to provide an answer. At least then no one would be wrong....

[Guyau]

Welcome to OL, Andrew.

Thank you for the informed cogent post.

Stephen

[BaalChatzaf]

Bottom line. Quantum physics predicts correctly. It has yet to be falsified by empirical means.

Philosophical "impurity" has not prevented physicists from getting the right answers to their questions.

Can you argue with success? Can you glorify failure? Philosophy has failed to give us a comprehensive empirically corroborated picture of reality. After 3000 years is it reasonable to expect some positive results?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[acespenlaub]

Thank you Stephen.

Ba'al, do you think that philosophy and physics should be competing with each other? That they are mutually exclusive?

In fact, physics used to be a branch of philosophy, back when the sciences were collectively called "natural philosophy." Philosophy at the time simply meant, as it does in the original greek, "love of knowledge/learning." So, in a sense, after 3000 years philosophy has given us quantum physics!!

You should keep in mind that metaphysics, which is a branch of the field of (modern) philosophy you denounce outright, is much more broad in its scope than physics. It says nothing of the nature of things, only what it means for those things to have a nature. Both metaphysics and physics are necessary to understanding the world around us.

You are correct that physics can be done successfully without any substantial amount of explicit metaphysics, but that is only because they ARE DIFFERENT THINGS! It's like saying that history can be done without doing organic chemistry, and then going on to bash organic chemistry. The interpretation of the physics must include metaphysics because "what does it mean?" as a question must always lead back to philosophy.

You're right that you don't need a lot of philosophy to do good physics but to do good metaphysics, you need to interpret the physics!

--Andrew

[Selene]

Andrew:

Welcome to OL.

It is extremely refreshing to see the difference between a rational 21 year old, like yourself, and what passes for an "intellectual" in the OWS "movement."

When I was teaching Aristotelian Rhetoric at one of NY's city universities at your age, I would share with my students that metaphysics derived it's name from being the book after Aristotle's Physics*, which kinda stunned them. Simplicity usually does stun folks.

Robert [ba'al] is not an "Objectivist," but he is extremely smart, knowledgeable and cantakerous, like a lot of folks in our little community here.

I can see I am going to learn from you which makes it even more worthwhile having you join OL.

Finally, as you know, the fabulous threesome, Ragnar, John and Francisco, all majored in two subjects, physics and philosophy. Hugh Akston understood the connection as do you.

Adam

Post script: Out of curiosity, are you of Italian heritage? Additionally, what type of "strategic games" do you prefer?

*late 14c., "branch of speculation which deals with the first causes of things," from M.L. metaphysica, neut. pl. of Medieval Gk. (ta) metaphysika, from Gk. ta meta ta physika "the (works) after the Physics," title of the 13 treatises which traditionally were arranged after those on physics and natural sciences in Aristotle's writings. The name was given c.70 B.C.E. by Andronicus of Rhodes, and was a ref. to the customary ordering of the books, but it was misinterpreted by Latin writers as meaning "the science of what is beyond the physical." Hence, metaphysical came to be used in the sense of "abstract, speculative" (e.g. by Johnson, who applied it to certain 17c. poets, notably Donne and Cowley, who used "witty conceits" and abstruse imagery). The word originally was used in English in the singular; plural form predominated after 17c., but singular made a comeback late 19c. in certain usages under German influence.

[BaalChatzaf]

You should keep in mind that metaphysics, which is a branch of the field of (modern) philosophy you denounce outright, is much more broad in its scope than physics. It says nothing of the nature of things, only what it means for those things to have a nature. Both metaphysics and physics are necessary to understanding the world around us.

The what bloody use does it have? It is word salad.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

You should keep in mind that metaphysics, which is a branch of the field of (modern) philosophy you denounce outright, is much more broad in its scope than physics. It says nothing of the nature of things, only what it means for those things to have a nature. Both metaphysics and physics are necessary to understanding the world around us.

The what bloody use does it have? It is word salad.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The prosecution rests!

[syrakusos]

This discussion could benefit from another person who is familiar with the mathematics of quantum theory I think.

First, physicists should not relegate metaphysics to the "domain of the irrelevant!" It is a necessary tool for ...

... and having the right answer is the easiest way to discredit the wrong ones.

P.S. -- Richard Feynman was a brilliant physicist but tartness does not imply correctness. He didn't have the right answer and was tired of hearing wrong ones so he told people to give up trying to provide an answer. At least then no one would be wrong....

You write well. Welcome to OL. You summarized the topic well. Unfortunately, facts do not conclude arguments.

The blog OrgTheory is written by sociologists of economics, Brayden King, Fabio Rojas, et al. On April 11, 2011, Brayden King posted "<a href="http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/when-evidence-isnt-convincing/" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(153, 51, 0); "><span style="color: purple; ">When Evidence Isn't Convincing</span></a>." It summarized research by Daniel Kahan which merits wide publicity. <br />

<blockquote><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; ">Attitudes were labeled according to "communitarian" or "individualist" and "hierarchical" or "egalitarian." Subjects were shown the resumes of authors and samples of their work and then were asked to rate the expertise of the authors</span>.</blockquote>

Generally, people rated authors as experts when the views coincided with their own. Kahan and his team created three authors and their books. All three had the same high level of academic standing. (Doctorates from major schools.) In every case, two different, opposing views were written for each author and randomly shown to subjects. The topics were gun control, nuclear power plants, and global warming." http://necessaryfact...not-enough.html

[acespenlaub]

Mike,

Thank you.

And yes, sadly that is true. But at least we can try to get the facts straight, so that we at least have more ground to stand on than our opponents.

--Andrew

[acespenlaub]

Selene,

I never knew that about the etymology of 'metaphysics.' I always took it to mean the knowledge we need to understand the physical world beyond physics -- and not the stuff that Aristotle wrote about after physics.

--Andrew

P.S. - No, I'm of German heritage, but I'm studying Italian and love the food and language. I mostly play computer strategy games now because it is much easier to find opponents and the rules can be much more complex, while at the same time remaining easy to play. As a kid, I did play quite a few board games with my dad, some of which were not easy to play (e.g. - Caesar and the Battle of Alesia ).

[Guyau]

Andrew, I don’t want to distract you from your course work. These notes are for other possible readers and may be of interest for your future reference. Best wishes in your physics studies. My own first degree (1971) was in physics, and I took some graduate courses in physics at Chicago (1979–80). The photo of me was when I was about 19 working on that first degree.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

. . .

There is an amazing theorem called the "von Neumann Spectral Theorem" which is at the very heart of the success of quantum theory. In essence it states that any set of real numbers can be associated with a mathematical object called an "Hermitian operator on a Hilbert space." The mathematics of such objects and the objects upon which they operate in the "Hilbert space" is well developed, largely as a consequence of quantum theory. The power of this (proven) theorem is that any observable quantity, any measurable property, has a set of possible (real, not complex) values and so simple enumeration of these values allows us to immediately apply the mathematics of "Hermitian operators." This is would give us the same result as classical dynamics gives us if the measurable values were continuous -- that is for any two measurable values, there is always another one in between them on the number line. However, experiment shows that for some phenomena, some observable quantities have a discrete set of allowable values such as {1,2,3,...} and not the numbers in between. This discreteness leads to ALL of the distinctly quantum stuff in quantum theory.

. . .

Worthwhile history of the preceding parts of quantum theory is to be found in Max Jammer’s The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics (McGraw-Hill 1966).

Chapter 6 – Statistical Transformation Theory

6.1 The Introduction of Probabilistic Interpretations [Role of Max Born]

6.2 The Transformation Theory

“Although the quantum-theoretic transformation theory [at this stage (1926), a generalization of the matrix and wave mechanics] originated in an attempt to solve a specific problem of rather limited scope, it soon proved itself conducive to such far-reaching generalizations that it led eventually to a unifying synthesis of all the diverse approaches and provided through its abstract formulation of the basic principles a deeper insight into the nature of the theory. A comparison with classical mechanics seems to be instructive. Quantum theory prior to the advent of the transformation theory may be accompanied with Newtonian mechanics prior to, say, Poisson’s introduction of generalized momenta; and just as the development of the canonical formalism in classical dynamics provided in the work of Jacobi, Poincaré, and Appell a profound comprehension of the whole structure of classical mechanics, so the development of the quantum-mechanical theory of transformations culminated with the work of Dirac, Jordan, and von Neumann in the achievement of new vistas which made it possible to view the nonrelativistic quantum mechanics of a finite number of degrees of freedom as a logically consistent, compact, and unified system of thought.” (293)

6.3 The Statistical Transformation Theory in Hilbert Space [Role of John von Neumann]

(Note)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For the place of the spectral theorem, in the von Neumann generality, in mathematical history, read down to III. Operator Theory in the First Half of the Twentieth Century, here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For the spectral theorem itself, one place the graduate physics student might turn is to Robert Geroch’s Mathematical Physics (Chicago 1984).

Chapters

49. Bounded Operators [on Hilbert Spaces]

50. The Spectrum of a Bounded Operator

51. The Spectral Theorem: Finite-Dimensional Case

52. Continuous Functions of a Hermitian Operator

53. Other Functions of a Hermitian Operator

54. The Spectral Theorem

55 & 56 extend the spectral theorem beyond Hermitian (and even beyond bounded) operators, thereby reaching far more usefulness in physical application.

[BaalChatzaf]

An error in John von Neuman's analysis was uncovered by J.S. Bell (He of Bell's theorem) You can be sure the error was subtle since von Neumann never made silly mistakes. This from the wiki article on Bell:

Discovery of the flaw in von Neumann's argument

Bell's interest in hidden variables was motivated by the existence in the formalism of quantum mechanics of a "movable boundary" between the quantum system and the classical apparatus:

A possibility is that we find exactly where the boundary lies. More plausible to me is that we will find that there is no boundary. ... The wave functions would prove to be a provisional or incomplete description of the quantum-mechanical part, of which an objective account would become possible. It is this possibility, of a homogeneous account of the world, which is for me the chief motivation of the study of the so-called 'hidden variable' possibility.

[7]

Bell was impressed that in the formulation of Bohm’s nonlocal hidden variable theory, no such boundary is needed, and it was this which sparked his interest in the field of research. Bell also criticized the standard formalism of quantum mechanics on the grounds of lack of physical precision:

For the good books known to me are not much concerned with physical precision. This is clear already from their vocabulary. Here are some words which, however legitimate and necessary in application, have no place in a

formulation

with any pretension to physical precision:

system

,

apparatus

,

environment

,

microscopic

,

macroscopic

,

reversible

,

irreversible

,

observable

,

information

,

measurement

. .... On this list of bad words from good books, the worst of all is 'measurement'.

[8]

But if he were to thoroughly explore the viability of Bohm's theory, Bell needed to answer the challenge of the so-called impossibility proofs against hidden variables. Bell addressed these in a paper entitled "On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics".^[9] (Bell had actually written this paper before his paper on the EPR paradox, but it did not appear until two years later, in 1966, due to publishing delays.^[10]) Here he showed that John von Neumann’s argument^[11] does not prove the impossibility, as it was claimed. The argument fails in this regard due to its reliance on a physical assumption that is not valid for quantum mechanics—namely, that the probability-weighted average of the sum of observable quantities equals the sum of the average values of each of the separate observable quantities.^[12] In this same work, Bell showed that a stronger effort at such a proof (based uponGleason's theorem) also fails to eliminate the hidden variables program. The flaw in von Neumann's proof had been previously discovered by Grete Hermann in 1935, but did not become common knowledge until rediscovered by Bell.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

[Selene]

Selene,

I never knew that about the etymology of 'metaphysics.' I always took it to mean the knowledge we need to understand the physical world beyond physics -- and not the stuff that Aristotle wrote about after physics.

--Andrew

P.S. - No, I'm of German heritage, but I'm studying Italian and love the food and language. I mostly play computer strategy games now because it is much easier to find opponents and the rules can be much more complex, while at the same time remaining easy to play. As a kid, I did play quite a few board games with my dad, some of which were not easy to play (e.g. - Caesar and the Battle of Alesia ).

Andrew:

I thought that it might have been an Avalon Hill game. Two of my best friends/first cousins played Avalon Hill games from the time we were about ten (10). Gettysburg, Tounament Version - which would take two or three days to play, Tactics I and II[with the nuclear option of course!], Jutland [which had an infinitely expandable board], etc.

Great for the mind.

Are you a chess player?

Adam

[acespenlaub]

Ba'al,

I never questioned that the interpretation of quantum mechanics is open and never claimed that the probabilistic view is correct. It is an interesting topic to think about and a friend and I are going to ponder hidden variable theories over the holidays. So thank you for posting about them -- I have been meaning to spend some time digging through the existing literature but it keeps getting pushed aside.

Other than reminding us all of an interesting debate, I'm not sure if your post was intended to further the discussion. If it was then you should note that von Neumann was wrong about the impossibility of hidden variable theories, but that says nothing about the Spectral Theorem. So, once again we have the distinction between the physics and the interpretation. The interpretation requires metaphysical insights to get right, where as the physics (such as the Spectral Theorem) does not require them...at least not as directly.

--Andrew

P.S. -- Adam, I have played some but haven't spent much time on it recently. It would be fair to say I'm terrible at the moment!

[dennislmay]

That is, every "particle" metaphysically can be said to be everywhere at once. [...] The interpretation due to Max Born takes this property and associates it with the probability of an interaction with another particle. This probabilistic behavior CAN BE OBSERVED in experiments involving the diffraction of very low intensity particle beams.

The question is then, not one of the metaphysical status of fundamental probabilistic behavior, non-locality or discreteness of measurable values, but what these experimentally observable FACTS mean metaphysically. What is the true nature of existents which gives rise to these non-common sense properties?

What seem to be the two main points of contention in this discussion are therefore resolved:

2. The central question concerning quantum mechanics is not whether fundamental probabilistic behavior or non-locality are metaphysically possible, because they are in fact experimentally verifiable, but rather, it is what do those observations imply about reality outside the realm of common experience.

If I have misstated any facts or am ambiguous, please comment to that effect --

Your statements indicate you have chosen a philosophical position concerning the meaning of quantum mechanics - one not based on observation, experiments, or mathematics but rather one of the orthodox philosophical interpretations. The work of J.S. Bell clearly shows there is no preferred status for a probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. All of the rest of your statements seem to flow from that incorrect assumption – von Neuman’s proof the probabilistic nature of QM being disproven in 1964.

Dennis May

[dennislmay]

Ba'al,

I never questioned that the interpretation of quantum mechanics is open and never claimed that the probabilistic view is correct. It is an interesting topic to think about and a friend and I are going to ponder hidden variable theories over the holidays. So thank you for posting about them -- I have been meaning to spend some time digging through the existing literature but it keeps getting pushed aside.

Other than reminding us all of an interesting debate, I'm not sure if your post was intended to further the discussion. If it was then you should note that von Neumann was wrong about the impossibility of hidden variable theories, but that says nothing about the Spectral Theorem. So, once again we have the distinction between the physics and the interpretation. The interpretation requires metaphysical insights to get right, where as the physics (such as the Spectral Theorem) does not require them...at least not as directly.

--Andrew

P.S. -- Adam, I have played some but haven't spent much time on it recently. It would be fair to say I'm terrible at the moment!

A deBB - de Broglie-Bohm-like [deterministic] approach is the approach I support. I believe if you look deeply into the work of J.S. Bell,

and Bohm you will come to a better appreciation that neither the physics nor metaphysics is even close to being settled. Reading

J.S. Bell "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" is a must.

[dennislmay]

The flaw in von Neumann's proof had been previously discovered by Grete Hermann in 1935, but did not become common knowledge until rediscovered by Bell.

A tragedy of the first magnitude that von Neumann's error was not widely discussed starting in 1935. Many people continue to this day to mistakenly believe that there is some proof that quantum mechanics is probablistic or indeterministic. People who should know better repeat the error continually - reinforcing 3 generations of error compounded upon error.

Dennis May

[BaalChatzaf]

The flaw in von Neumann's proof had been previously discovered by Grete Hermann in 1935, but did not become common knowledge until rediscovered by Bell.

A tragedy of the first magnitude that von Neumann's error was not widely discussed starting in 1935. Many people continue to this day to mistakenly believe that there is some proof that quantum mechanics is probablistic or indeterministic. People who should know better repeat the error continually - reinforcing 3 generations of error compounded upon error.

Dennis May

Even so, quantum physics brings home the results. Predictions which have not yet been falsified. The touchstone of good science is two fold (1) internal consistency - Hilbert Space is internally consistent mathemtics and (2) correct predictions --- in the case of the Standard Model of Fields and Particles predictions good to 12 decimal places. No rival theory has come even close.

A theory that so so right that often cannot be very wrong.

Ba'al Chatzaf