Recommended Posts

What do YOU know?

Oh, my! Somebody hit a nerve. But since you asked....

I know a hell of a lot more about philosophy, economics, social theory, and history than Feynman ever did, or that you ever will, and I have never been foolish or dogmatic enough to cavalierly dismiss entire disciplines that I have not studied -- as Feynman did with philosophy (according to your account).

Feynman did not suffer either fools or foolishness gladly.

Neither do I, and that's why I don't put up with your bluff and bluster.

He was one of the top ten physicists of all times, ever since Galileo and Newton invented the trade. And yes, his interests were narrow. He wanted to know what the world was and how it worked. Tossing word salad was not one of the things he did. He was not deeply into art or literature or idle speculation. I guess his interests were narrow. He knew about what every thing in the Cosmos is made of, and how light and matter interact. Such narrowness. Such ignorance. Such foolishness. Ba'al Chatzaf

I never denied Feynman's brilliance in physics. Far from it. But if he actually believed what you attributed to him, then he was an ignorant fool in regard to philosophy.

Stop blowing hot air. Years ago I had a similar nasty argument with a Nobel Prize winning economist -- a pretentious pip-sweak who maintained that philosophy can tell us nothing, whereas economics is a "real" science. And once this blowhard ventured beyond the boundaries of economics, he didn't know squat. It took less than ten minutes for him to turn beet-red, turn around, and walk away.

If I wasn't bamboozled by a Nobel Laureate, then I certainly won't be bamboozled by you. Even if Feynman did actually know everything you attribute to him, you would have no way of knowing that he knew, unless you personally verified all his claims first-hand. And we both know that you never did any such thing. You are basing your claims either on what Feynman said about himself or what you have been told by others. If I am wrong about this, if you did indeed corroborate his claims for yourself -- and I mean by retracing his steps, not merely by reading a few books -- then let's see your work. Otherwise, I am not interested in your professions of faith.

I've had a bellyful of the religious, true-believing rot on this thread. Try to be a little skeptical of your idols once in a while. It will clear your mind of all those cobwebs.

Ghs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was Feynman's position, then he was an ignorant fool outside his narrow area of expertise.

The Ignorant Fool was one of the co-inventors of Quantum Electrodynamics, the most successful physical theory ever, ever formulated.

If Feynman was an Ignorant Fool then so was Einstein, Maxwell and Newton

Applied physicists armed with Feynman Diagrams make electronic technology possible and practical.

Some ignorance. Some foolishness. Feynman knew his business and his business was the nature of the world at the subatomic scale.

Some narrow expertise that is. To know what something no one can see -is-. Imagine. What do YOU know?

Feynman did not suffer either fools or foolishness gladly. He was one of the top ten physicists of all times, ever since Galileo and Newton invented the trade. And yes, his interests were narrow. He wanted to know what the world was and how it worked. Tossing word salad was not one of the things he did. He was not deeply into art or literature or idle speculation. I guess his interests were narrow. He knew about what every thing in the Cosmos is made of, and how light and matter interact. Such narrowness. Such ignorance. Such foolishness.

Ba'al Chatzaf

As someone who worked in the Electronic Technology Laboratory at Wright Labs for 5 1/2 years and have a patent on a unique field effect transistor I can assure you Feynman diagrams were never used to design anything at our multi-billion dollar lab. They may be used by someone here and there to design some quantum field effect transistors but even even the vast majority of quantum devices use 1925 QM at most and are largely designed using classical E&M as are lasers and mamy other inherently quantum devices. Classical E&M design with a few quantum based rules thrown in here and there gets you virtually all of your electronic designs.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was Feynman's position, then he was an ignorant fool outside his narrow area of expertise.

The Ignorant Fool was one of the co-inventors of Quantum Electrodynamics, the most successful physical theory ever, ever formulated.

If Feynman was an Ignorant Fool then so was Einstein, Maxwell and Newton

Applied physicists armed with Feynman Diagrams make electronic technology possible and practical.

Some ignorance. Some foolishness. Feynman knew his business and his business was the nature of the world at the subatomic scale.

Some narrow expertise that is. To know what something no one can see -is-. Imagine. What do YOU know?

Feynman did not suffer either fools or foolishness gladly. He was one of the top ten physicists of all times, ever since Galileo and Newton invented the trade. And yes, his interests were narrow. He wanted to know what the world was and how it worked. Tossing word salad was not one of the things he did. He was not deeply into art or literature or idle speculation. I guess his interests were narrow. He knew about what every thing in the Cosmos is made of, and how light and matter interact. Such narrowness. Such ignorance. Such foolishness.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Feynman being placed in the top ten physicists of all time would seem largely based upon his personal appeal, popularity of his lecture series, and his own self promotion. Feynman was a co-worker in the development of QED which began well before his contributions. If you buy indeterministic QM he might make the top 20 physicists of the 20th century. If you view indeterministic QM as fundamentally flawed Feynman is just one of many hundreds of contributors in the wrong direction. Useful results along the way but work having to be replaced with an entirely different approach once more is discovered. I am not a fan of his approach to physics or his approach to undermining other approaches in what appears to be self promotion rather than science.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophy as a "word salad."

This as such, on its level, is not even an illogical argument; it's no argument at all, merely an asseveration. Going deeper, since it makes no argument, it's an attack on a person or persons, including the person who made the statement, BTW, or argumentum ad hominem against anybody not speaking in mathematical symbols, maybe not even that. Even a scientist speaking only about his work using English is using philosophy. Making coherent and logical statements is philosophical. Using reality itself as a bedrock for all inquiry is philosophical. Being an ethical scientist is philosophical. Demanding freedom to be freely able to pursue one's scientific work is philosophical. This is called Objectivism by some. Reality, reason, self interest, freedom.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George H. Smith wrote:

If this was Feynman's position, then he was an ignorant fool outside his narrow area of expertise.

I have said this before, but I will say it again: Knowledge of physics does not confer upon a person the privilege to speak nonsense. To receive a degree in physics is not to be anointed into an elite priesthood whose members can utter metaphysical mumbo-jumbo -- e.g., that subatomic particles have no identity -- and then demand that laypersons accept their bullshit on faith. When a physicist moves beyond the highly abstract realm of mathematics and chooses to express himself in the same verbal language that everyone else uses, then the physicist is bound to observe the same principles of coherence and intelligibility that apply to everyone else.

end quote

I watched the videos that Ba’al provided. I highly recommend that you watch them. I would say Feynman would not disagree with you. He was against religious belief that has no scientific basis. I think he would be all for your rational philosophy, George. Feynman is against “dopey” philosophical questions like, “When you are looking at something do you see only light or do you see the object?” He is against dopey philosophical questions like, ”Why are we here?”

He said, “It is not meaningful to ask why we are here . . . but I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing a thing, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell . . . .

Let’s look at the facts.

There is no God

The universe operates according to the laws of energy and entropy.

A moving human is a 26 element animated molecule.

Molecules “exist”, in certain windows of time, owing to stability.

The “purpose” of a molecule will depend upon its reactions.

Relationships are chemical reactions between people.

The naturalness of a reaction is determined by free energy change.

All reactions are coupled to each other and the universe.

end quote

Feynman would be a contextual Objectivist.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which findings would those be? Shortly after Galileo's trial and condemnation, any books that advocated the Copernican system as a fact (rather than as a hypothesis) -- and that's what really got Galileo in hot water -- were placed on the Index of prohibited books. This ban was not lifted until 1757, Not until 1822 were books defending the heliocentric system permitted to be published in Rome.

The Church per se never confirmed any findings by Galileo. Of course there were individual clerics who doubled as scientists, but they worked pretty much on their own.

Ghs

"Which findings would those be?"

For someone with such a strong background in the history of thought, I think you damn well know what these findings are. I think you also know very well about the Jesuit science underground of the time. I think you also damn well know about the Jesuit Giovan Paolo Lembo who not only confirmed Galileo's findings personally but also taught them in his classes in 1615-16.

I think you also probably know that some Jupiter moon observations, mistakenly attributed to Galileo intitally turned out to be Jesuit in origin copied by Galileo. So they not only confirmed his observations, but actually contributed original research.

Zero integrity, absolutely none.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aristotle's may have been a great guy, but his errors absolutely paralyzed physics. These physics greats above had to overcome his influence (either directly or by virtue of era) to succeed. They succeeded in spite of Aristotle, not because of him.
Dead wrong. Politicians paralyzed physics. Or call them what you like. The concept is the Medieval (or whatever) equivalent of people who exercise power. (Kinda like the impression you give off.) Scientists had to succeed in spite of them, not in spite of Aristotle. Michael

Francis Bacon and other prominent figures of the Scientific Revolution frequently excluded Aristotle himself in their criticisms of Aristotelian physics, claiming that Aristotle would never have resisted the advance of scientific knowledge. Their criticisms were directed at the scholastics, i.e., those Aristotelian "schoolmen" who dominated many European universities and who would not permit change to disturb their feathered nests.

As Dennis has pointed out, the same could be said today about the QM scholastics.

Ghs

And as usual, you leave out the most important point and that is, like, we don't know have anything that could remotely be described as conclusive evidence that they are wrong. Or perhaps you just 'know' they are wrong and that's good enough eh?

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aristotle's may have been a great guy, but his errors absolutely paralyzed physics. These physics greats above had to overcome his influence (either directly or by virtue of era) to succeed. They succeeded in spite of Aristotle, not because of him.
Dead wrong. Politicians paralyzed physics. Or call them what you like. The concept is the Medieval (or whatever) equivalent of people who exercise power. (Kinda like the impression you give off.) Scientists had to succeed in spite of them, not in spite of Aristotle. Michael

Francis Bacon and other prominent figures of the Scientific Revolution frequently excluded Aristotle himself in their criticisms of Aristotelian physics, claiming that Aristotle would never have resisted the advance of scientific knowledge. Their criticisms were directed at the scholastics, i.e., those Aristotelian "schoolmen" who dominated many European universities and who would not permit change to disturb their feathered nests.

As Dennis has pointed out, the same could be said today about the QM scholastics.

Ghs

And as usual, you leave out the most important point and that is, like, we don't know have anything that could remotely be described as conclusive evidence that they are wrong. Or perhaps you just 'know' they are wrong and that's good enough eh?

Bob

Speaking of feathered nests - I had a visual hit me this morning driving to work. I was picturing Feynman as a brightly colored attractive bird who was the first to hatch in a nest - his first action - to push the rest of the eggs out of the nest lest competition be allowed to hatch. The seen wins - the unseen is stillborn. The tactics alone tell us much about the supporters of indeterministic QM.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the concepts "identity" and "causality" - (which play a crucial role for us humans in 'our' world, which we perceive from our 'mesoscopic' perspective) - could it be that they might not fit for the quantum world?

There has been a claim since at least 1925 that identity and causality do not fit in the quantum world. Every basis for that claim has been found eroneous. It may be a popular point of view but it is entirely without foundation. The politics keeping that point of view predominent are easily uncovered and as J.S. Bell said in relation to keeping alternatives out of the classroom - it constitutes a "scandal within physics".

Dennis

Can one interpret your post as saying: "We dont [yet] know what 'causes' e. g. quantum entanglement. But this does not mean that no cause for this phenomenon exists."

[Replying to Bob_Mac]:

I don't know what your comment is supposed to mean. If you mean a cosmology that is somehow derived from A is A, then no such cosmology exists or, with the possible exception of some 19th century absolute idealists, has ever been attempted. But if you mean a cosmology that is consistent with the Law of Identity, then any counter-cosmology is palpably incoherent. Indeed, no such theory can even be coherently stated or defended, for if a proposition can be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect, then no proposition can be demonstrated or even shown to be probable. Similarly, if a theory can supposedly mean x and non-X at the same time and in the same respect, then that theory cannot even be coherently formulated.

Does there exist a cosmologic theory claiming that X is non-X at the same time and in the same respect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the concepts "identity" and "causality" - (which play a crucial role for us humans in 'our' world, which we perceive from our 'mesoscopic' perspective) - could it be that they might not fit for the quantum world?

There has been a claim since at least 1925 that identity and causality do not fit in the quantum world. Every basis for that claim has been found eroneous. It may be a popular point of view but it is entirely without foundation. The politics keeping that point of view predominent are easily uncovered and as J.S. Bell said in relation to keeping alternatives out of the classroom - it constitutes a "scandal within physics".

Dennis

Can one interpret your post as saying: We dont [yet] know what 'causes' e. g. quantum entanglement. But this does not mean that no cause for this phenomenon exists. (?)

From the deterministic perspective Gregory S. Duane already proved what causes quantum entanglement in 2001. Hyperchaotic Synchronization:

[1] Duane, G. S., 2001: Violation of Bell's inequality in synchronized hyperchaos, Found. Phys. Lett., 14, 341-353.

[2] Duane, G. S., 2005: Quantum nonlocality from synchronized chaos, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 44, 1917-1932.

I have assumed the results he proved in 2001 as part of my work since 1990.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the concepts "identity" and "causality" - (which play a crucial role for us humans in 'our' world, which we perceive from our 'mesoscopic' perspective) - could it be that they might not fit for the quantum world?

There has been a claim since at least 1925 that identity and causality do not fit in the quantum world. Every basis for that claim has been found eroneous. It may be a popular point of view but it is entirely without foundation. The politics keeping that point of view predominent are easily uncovered and as J.S. Bell said in relation to keeping alternatives out of the classroom - it constitutes a "scandal within physics".

Dennis

Can one interpret your post as saying: We dont [yet] know what 'causes' e. g. quantum entanglement. But this does not mean that no cause for this phenomenon exists. (?)

From the deterministic perspective Gregory S. Duane already proved what causes quantum entanglement in 2001. Hyperchaotic Synchronization:

[1] Duane, G. S., 2001: Violation of Bell's inequality in synchronized hyperchaos, Found. Phys. Lett., 14, 341-353.

[2] Duane, G. S., 2005: Quantum nonlocality from synchronized chaos, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 44, 1917-1932.

I have assumed the results he proved in 2001 as part of my work since 1990.

Dennis

The 2 cent explanation:

Synchronization:

Two clocks on the same wall - if they are nearly identical slight vibrations carried

along the wall can cause them to track in time exactly. A phenomenon known

for a very long time and often discussed in chaos theory.

Hyperchaotic Synchronization - two sets of many clocks become synchronized

by the same method as synchronization.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Synchronization:

Two clocks on the same wall - if they are nearly identical slight vibrations carried

along the wall can cause them to track in time exactly. A phenomenon known

for a very long time and often discussed in chaos theory.

Hyperchaotic Synchronization - two sets of many clocks become synchronized

by the same method as synchronization.

But does the 'synchronized clock' comparison really apply to quantum entanglement?

http://en.wikipedia....um_entanglement

Quantum entanglement occurs when particles such as photons, electrons, molecules as large as "buckyballs",[1][2] and even small diamonds[3] [4] interact physically and then become separated; the type of interaction is such that each resulting member of a pair is properly described by the same quantum mechanical description (state), which is indefinite in terms of important factors such as position,[5] momentum, spin, polarization, etc. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, their shared state is indefinite until measured.[6] Quantum entanglement is a form of quantum superposition. When a measurement is made and it causes one member of such a pair to take on a definite value (e.g., clockwise spin), the other member of this entangled pair will at any subsequent time[7] be found to have taken the appropriately correlated value (e.g., counterclockwise spin).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Synchronization:

Two clocks on the same wall - if they are nearly identical slight vibrations carried

along the wall can cause them to track in time exactly. A phenomenon known

for a very long time and often discussed in chaos theory.

Hyperchaotic Synchronization - two sets of many clocks become synchronized

by the same method as synchronization.

Dennis

From the last post:

The 2 cent explanation:

Synchronization:

Two clocks on the same wall - if they are nearly identical slight vibrations carried

along the wall can cause them to track in time exactly. A phenomenon known

for a very long time and often discussed in chaos theory.

Hyperchaotic Synchronization - two sets of many clocks become synchronized

by the same method as synchronization.

Some more:

In our case we have two separated particles who have internal parts acting as the clocks.

The forces between these two sets of clocks act superluminally - the result is the math

of quantum mechanics demonstrated by Duane. The results of Duane mesh with the

earlier results of de Brolie, Bohm, and J.S. Bell.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aristotle's may have been a great guy, but his errors absolutely paralyzed physics. These physics greats above had to overcome his influence (either directly or by virtue of era) to succeed. They succeeded in spite of Aristotle, not because of him.
Dead wrong. Politicians paralyzed physics. Or call them what you like. The concept is the Medieval (or whatever) equivalent of people who exercise power. (Kinda like the impression you give off.) Scientists had to succeed in spite of them, not in spite of Aristotle. Michael

Francis Bacon and other prominent figures of the Scientific Revolution frequently excluded Aristotle himself in their criticisms of Aristotelian physics, claiming that Aristotle would never have resisted the advance of scientific knowledge. Their criticisms were directed at the scholastics, i.e., those Aristotelian "schoolmen" who dominated many European universities and who would not permit change to disturb their feathered nests.

As Dennis has pointed out, the same could be said today about the QM scholastics.

Ghs

And as usual, you leave out the most important point and that is, like, we don't know have anything that could remotely be described as conclusive evidence that they are wrong. Or perhaps you just 'know' they are wrong and that's good enough eh?

Bob

Speaking of feathered nests - I had a visual hit me this morning driving to work. I was picturing Feynman as a brightly colored attractive bird who was the first to hatch in a nest - his first action - to push the rest of the eggs out of the nest lest competition be allowed to hatch. The seen wins - the unseen is stillborn. The tactics alone tell us much about the supporters of indeterministic QM.

Dennis

I thought visual hits while driving had been outlawed as dangerous to the public.

--Brant

knock it off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aristotle's may have been a great guy, but his errors absolutely paralyzed physics. These physics greats above had to overcome his influence (either directly or by virtue of era) to succeed. They succeeded in spite of Aristotle, not because of him.
Dead wrong. Politicians paralyzed physics. Or call them what you like. The concept is the Medieval (or whatever) equivalent of people who exercise power. (Kinda like the impression you give off.) Scientists had to succeed in spite of them, not in spite of Aristotle. Michael

Francis Bacon and other prominent figures of the Scientific Revolution frequently excluded Aristotle himself in their criticisms of Aristotelian physics, claiming that Aristotle would never have resisted the advance of scientific knowledge. Their criticisms were directed at the scholastics, i.e., those Aristotelian "schoolmen" who dominated many European universities and who would not permit change to disturb their feathered nests.

As Dennis has pointed out, the same could be said today about the QM scholastics.

Ghs

And as usual, you leave out the most important point and that is, like, we don't know have anything that could remotely be described as conclusive evidence that they are wrong. Or perhaps you just 'know' they are wrong and that's good enough eh?

Bob

Speaking of feathered nests - I had a visual hit me this morning driving to work. I was picturing Feynman as a brightly colored attractive bird who was the first to hatch in a nest - his first action - to push the rest of the eggs out of the nest lest competition be allowed to hatch. The seen wins - the unseen is stillborn. The tactics alone tell us much about the supporters of indeterministic QM.

Dennis

I thought visual hits while driving had been outlawed as dangerous to the public.

--Brant

knock it off

I prefer visual hits to the government encouraging me to hit deer.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob K. has imbibed the "don't ask" re foundations attitude to such an extent, he seems to me like a caricature of that attitude. But the attitude is widespread. I agree it's been obstructive to research, and that it's been pushed "using methods unsuitable to intellectual discussions in science" -- by Feynman especially importantly but not only by Feynman.

Ellen

Feynman was no caricature. He was a world class physicist and he had little use for philosophy. He was not bashful in the way he panned it. Foundations of physics is one thing. Philosophical nonsense, hot air and word salad is another.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It's your mantra-like posts which I'm saying sound like a caricature. Maybe re-read my statement.

Yes, Feynman was a world-class physicist. Doesn't mean he wasn't an obstructionist against foundational issues being explored. His abilities and prestige gave his obstructionism more clout than was available to others of lesser lustre.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In indeterministic QM there is no identity. In de Broglie-Bohm deBB like QM theories [deterministic] the particles involved are those of classical mechanics [may have to add the work of Gregory S. Duane to make that point clear].

Dennis

You lose me there in regard to Bohm. The statement doesn't agree with for instance this from Bohm *:

Classical physics says that reality is actually little particles that separate the world into its independent elements. Now I'm proposing the reverse, that the fundamental reality is the enfoldment and unfoldment, and these particles are abstractions from that. We could picture the electron not as a particle that exists continuously but as something coming in and going out and then coming in again. If these various condensations are close together, they approximate a track. The electron itself can never be separated from the whole of space, which is its ground. (David Bohm, On Quantum Physics, 1987)

Also:

One is led to a new notion of unbroken wholeness which denies the classical idea of analyzability of the world into separately and existing parts … We have reversed the usual classical notion that the independent ‘elementary parts’ of the world are the fundamental reality, and that the various systems are merely particular contingent forms and arrangements of these parts. Rather, we say that inseparable quantum interconnectedness of the whole universe is the fundamental reality, and that relatively independent behaving parts are merely particular and contingent forms within this whole. (David Bohm, On the Intuitive Understanding of Nonlocality as Implied by Quantum Theory, Foundations of Physics, vol 5, 1975)

However, maybe what you're doing is using Bohm's earlier views and discarding the later implicate order theory. For instance this quote indicates how he started out thinking of the particle:

In the Fifties, I sent my book (Quantum Theory) around to various quantum physicists - including Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, and Wolfgang Pauli. Bohr didn't answer, but Pauli liked it. Albert Einstein sent me a message that he'd like to talk with me. When we met he said the book had done about as well as you could do with quantum mechanics. But he was still not convinced it was a satisfactory theory.

Einstein's objection was not merely that it was statistical. He felt it was a kind of abstraction; quantum mechanics got correct results but left out much that would have made it intelligible. I came up with the causal interpretation (that the electron is a particle, but it also has a field around it. The particle is never separated from that field, and the field affects the movement of the particle in certain ways). Einstein didn't like it, though, because the interpretation had this notion of action at a distance: Things that are far away from each other profoundly affect each other. He believed only in local action.

I didn't come back to this implicate order until the Sixties, when I got interested in notions of order. I realized then the problem is that coordinates are still the basic order in physics, whereas everything else has changed. (David Bohm, On Quantum Theory, Interview, 1987)

Am I interpreting correctly -- viz., that you're accepting early Bohm and discarding his later work?

Ellen

* The quotes are taken from a site which I can't access at this time -- I think something to do with the privacy issue and Google blocking sites. Here's the URL, which might work later:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/quantum-physics-mechanics-david-bohm.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In indeterministic QM there is no identity. In de Broglie-Bohm deBB like QM theories [deterministic] the particles involved are those of classical mechanics [may have to add the work of Gregory S. Duane to make that point clear].

Dennis

You lose me there in regard to Bohm. The statement doesn't agree with for instance this from Bohm *:

Classical physics says that reality is actually little particles that separate the world into its independent elements. Now I'm proposing the reverse, that the fundamental reality is the enfoldment and unfoldment, and these particles are abstractions from that. We could picture the electron not as a particle that exists continuously but as something coming in and going out and then coming in again. If these various condensations are close together, they approximate a track. The electron itself can never be separated from the whole of space, which is its ground. (David Bohm, On Quantum Physics, 1987)

Also:

One is led to a new notion of unbroken wholeness which denies the classical idea of analyzability of the world into separately and existing parts … We have reversed the usual classical notion that the independent 'elementary parts' of the world are the fundamental reality, and that the various systems are merely particular contingent forms and arrangements of these parts. Rather, we say that inseparable quantum interconnectedness of the whole universe is the fundamental reality, and that relatively independent behaving parts are merely particular and contingent forms within this whole. (David Bohm, On the Intuitive Understanding of Nonlocality as Implied by Quantum Theory, Foundations of Physics, vol 5, 1975)

However, maybe what you're doing is using Bohm's earlier views and discarding the later implicate order theory. For instance this quote indicates how he started out thinking of the particle:

In the Fifties, I sent my book (Quantum Theory) around to various quantum physicists - including Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, and Wolfgang Pauli. Bohr didn't answer, but Pauli liked it. Albert Einstein sent me a message that he'd like to talk with me. When we met he said the book had done about as well as you could do with quantum mechanics. But he was still not convinced it was a satisfactory theory.

Einstein's objection was not merely that it was statistical. He felt it was a kind of abstraction; quantum mechanics got correct results but left out much that would have made it intelligible. I came up with the causal interpretation (that the electron is a particle, but it also has a field around it. The particle is never separated from that field, and the field affects the movement of the particle in certain ways). Einstein didn't like it, though, because the interpretation had this notion of action at a distance: Things that are far away from each other profoundly affect each other. He believed only in local action.

I didn't come back to this implicate order until the Sixties, when I got interested in notions of order. I realized then the problem is that coordinates are still the basic order in physics, whereas everything else has changed. (David Bohm, On Quantum Theory, Interview, 1987)

Am I interpreting correctly -- viz., that you're accepting early Bohm and discarding his later work?

Ellen

* The quotes are taken from a site which I can't access at this time -- I think something to do with the privacy issue and Google blocking sites. Here's the URL, which might work later:

http://www.spaceandm...-david-bohm.htm

Though Bohm's ideas are an important part of the de Broglie-Bohm [deBB]-like class of theories his interpretation of things may be misleading or colored by his philosophy in some respects. I would take what Bohm has said and look at it from the standpoint of the Gregory S. Duane proof where entanglement involves a very very large number of clock-like processes on both ends and the transmission of information between - forming a holistic system. In that respect Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" conforms in substance with a deterministic particle view as the particles increase in number forming larger particles while the entangled systems of particles including the transiting particles in the space in-betwen form a whole in their behavior. You have to remember Bohm died before Duane's work was published. In 1991 when I corresponded with Vigier - [who was co-author with Bohm in 1952] I was essentially presenting an application of Duane's work without the proof and could not get Vigier to understand what I was saying. Having no one else to correspond with on the issue I next tried to use the work for my thesis but needless to say it was even less understood there. Here we are 21-22 years later. I have found a large number of applications and expanded things into other fields since corresponding with Vigier but the essentials have been largely in place since the fall of 1990. There are many barriers to understanding what is being said. Finding a growing number of applications has given me confidence to start putting it out a little piece at a time leading to a comprehensive view much like Bohm's view of the whole.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob K. has imbibed the "don't ask" re foundations attitude to such an extent, he seems to me like a caricature of that attitude. But the attitude is widespread. I agree it's been obstructive to research, and that it's been pushed "using methods unsuitable to intellectual discussions in science" -- by Feynman especially importantly but not only by Feynman.

Ellen

Feynman was no caricature. He was a world class physicist and he had little use for philosophy. He was not bashful in the way he panned it. Foundations of physics is one thing. Philosophical nonsense, hot air and word salad is another.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It's your mantra-like posts which I'm saying sound like a caricature. Maybe re-read my statement.

Yes, Feynman was a world-class physicist. Doesn't mean he wasn't an obstructionist against foundational issues being explored. His abilities and prestige gave his obstructionism more clout than was available to others of lesser lustre.

Ellen

Feynman was a gifted communicator. Less gifted educators and researchers aping his views make it very clear that obstructionist techniques common to political theater were at the heart of Feynman's attempt to push a philosophy wrapped up to appear as inevitable physics. Feynman's attacks on philosophy while pushing his own philosophy make it even clearer that the techniques involve not science and logical argument but the psychological. I found one instance where Feynman used straw-man arguments to attack alternative gravity - which finally cemented my view of Feynman once I understood it wasn't just QM.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feynman was a gifted communicator. Less gifted educators and researchers aping his views make it very clear that obstructionist techniques common to political theater were at the heart of Feynman's attempt to push a philosophy wrapped up to appear as inevitable physics. Feynman's attacks on philosophy while pushing his own philosophy make it even clearer that the techniques involve not science and logical argument but the psychological. I found one instance where Feynman used straw-man arguments to attack alternative gravity - which finally cemented my view of Feynman once I understood it wasn't just QM.

Dennis

You can read minds!!!!! That is fucking astounding!!!!!! And Feynman himself did push an alternative to Einstein's theory. A gravity theory based on particle exchange -- to wit the graviton. He never succeeded in that.

See Feynman, Richard P. (1995). Brian Hatfield. ed. Lectures on Gravitation. Addison Wesley Longman. ISBN 0-201-62734-5. I have it on order and will review it in due course. Here is a snip from the review:

Characteristically, Feynman took an untraditional non-geometric approach to gravitation and general relativity based on the underlying quantum aspects of gravity. Hence, these lectures contain a unique pedagogical account of the development of Einstein’s general theory of relativity as the inevitable result of the demand for a self-consistent theory of a massless spin-2 field (the graviton) coupled to the energy-momentum tensor of matter. This approach also demonstrates the intimate and fundamental connection between gauge invariance and the principle of equivalence.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What George is saying is precisely why cosmology is in such a mess. Trying to merge theories which differ on such basics as the existence of identity and causality and only match observation by introducing numerous fixes no different in kind than Ptolemy's epicycles. Basic scientific approaches are thrown out the window - incoherent philosophies and contradictions lie at the root. Not a good way to build a logical structure.

But could the so-called "mess" in cosmology not just show that, like all theories, cosmological theories are subject to continous modification and change, with elements being discarded that do not reflect the current state of knowledge anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What George is saying is precisely why cosmology is in such a mess. Trying to merge theories which differ on such basics as the existence of identity and causality and only match observation by introducing numerous fixes no different in kind than Ptolemy's epicycles. Basic scientific approaches are thrown out the window - incoherent philosophies and contradictions lie at the root. Not a good way to build a logical structure.

But could the so-called "mess" in cosmology not just show that like every theory, cosmologic theories are subject to continous testing, with elements being discarded that do not reflect the current state of knowledge anymore?

Unfortunately in university circles, there are trends and fashions even in theoretical work. Too many graduate students where hypnotized by the razzle dazzle mathematics of String and Brane Theory. Physics graduates students and post grads are in many ways like boson particles. They love to gather together rather than keep their distance like Femi particles. Lee Smolin has written a book which pretty well trashes string theory. It is -The Trouble with Physics-. He does not trash it for being wrong, but for being essentially untestable.

Cosmology is a wierd subject. It is only semi-testable. There is no way to show that a theory is right. You can only show that a theory is wrong, by predicting something to be observed and then observing and finding out the prediction is wrong. That is how Hoyles Steady State theory was done in. It did not account for Cosmic Background Radiation. There is no way of testing the origin of the cosmos in a laboratory. We cannot make a mini-cosmos in a lab. Do not be overwhelmed by the hype associated with the Large Hadron Collider which suggest that the origin of the cosmos may be revealed at CERN. No way!

Of late the latest observations indicate the cosmos is expanding and what is more is accelerating in its expansion. Two independent teams of astronomers and astro-physicists have used supernovas as standard candles and found they are running away at an increasing rate. In addition the classic Big Bang won't work since it cannot address the Horizon Problem properly. What we may have is an indication that Einstein's theory is not right. No surprise. If one waits long enough and develops better and better technology for measuring and observing just about every theory near and dear will be falsified. That is how we make progress in science. Theorize, falsify, go back to the drawing board and theorize again.

There is real difficulty in probing Origins. They only happened once in real life and if we cannot reproduce it, all we can do is find the best guess that fits the known facts. This not only applies to the origin of the cosmos, but to the origin of life on this planet. We have a good theory that accounts for the diversification of life forms (speciation) on Earth (the latest fusion of Darwin's theory and molecular genetics) but we really do not know how life emerged from non-living stuff. If we could pin that down once and for all maybe we can get the Creationists to shut the hell up.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can read minds!!!!! That is fucking astounding!!!!!!

Uh oh.

I think we have found Bob's Achilles heel. The God in his machine.

It sounds a lot like Feign Man...

(Which sounds like Rain Man...)

:smile:

Michael

We autistics have to stick together.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What George is saying is precisely why cosmology is in such a mess. Trying to merge theories which differ on such basics as the existence of identity and causality and only match observation by introducing numerous fixes no different in kind than Ptolemy's epicycles. Basic scientific approaches are thrown out the window - incoherent philosophies and contradictions lie at the root. Not a good way to build a logical structure.

But could the so-called "mess" in cosmology not just show that like every theory, cosmologic theories are subject to continous testing, with elements being discarded that do not reflect the current state of knowledge anymore?

Unfortunately in university circles, there are trends and fashions even in theoretical work. Too many graduate students where hypnotized by the razzle dazzle mathematics of String and Brane Theory. Physics graduates students and post grads are in many ways like boson particles. They love to gather together rather than keep their distance like Femi particles.

Ba'al Chatzaf

My only data point on the emergence of String and Brane Theory in Universities was the very curious events of when I was in graduate school at the University of Missiouri-Columbia. I encountered something entirely unexpected as soon as I got there. There was no obvious path to graduation because adequate numbers of classes to be a full time student were not being offered. Instead you were being pressured to take classes in the mathematics department - precisely the kinds of classes to prepare you for Sting Theory. In this one case it was not graduate students pushing a theory - the physics department itself was pushing that path in order to continue your education.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...