[Vision2020] Why Nick's eyes are brown

[joekc at adelphia.net]

Phil,

I wonder if you and Nick aren't talking past each other.

I think that Nick's claim is that Einstein did not accept quantum mechanics as being a complete theory, i.e., as telling us all that there was to know about the quantum world. And this is correct. Here is an interesting page to look at:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.html

Below, you write: "Einstein ... understood that quantum mechanics was a workable mathematical model that adequately explained observed phenomena, but ... he thought that another more fully 'real' explanation might be devised." This claim is consistent with the one above.

As I understand it, Einstein (a) knew well that quantum mechanics had many virtues and some predictive power but (b) thought that it did not tell the whole story about the quantum world. Which vindicates both you and Nick. He was a determinist and a realist who thus adopted the epistemological interpretation of quantum mechanics: the 'indeterminism' of the theory was due to our lack of knowledge, not a genuine indeterminism in the world.

Einstein's main contribution to quantum theory was due to a paper (not an experiment) that he co-wrote with two colleagues: Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR) in 1935. Quoting from the website noted above: 

"So, EPR postulated that the existence of hidden variables, some so-far unknown properties, of the systems should account for the discrepancy.  Their claim was that QM theory is incomplete: it does not completely describe the physical reality.  ...  Niels Bohr, one of the founders of QM, held the opposite view and defended a strict interpretation, the Copenhagen Interpretation, of QM."

Heisenberg was also a proponent of the Copenhagen interpretation, as well: quantum theory is complete, indeterminism is true, and some propositions about the quantum world are neither true nor false until the moment of observation. (For those who wish to carry the story further, the Wikipedia article on the EPR Paradox is helpful as well as the one noted above.)

This is how I understand it. Of course, I'm a philosopher, Phil, not a physicist! So I'd be interested in knowing if I've gotten some things wrong. 

Best, Joe Campbell

---- Phil Nisbet <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com> wrote: 

=============
I have to admit to the list that my last two posts on the subject of Quantum 
Mechanics were made in a more than average fit of pique; however, the 
allegation and statement made by Dr Gier were close to the limit.

The debate centered on Nick's statement that Einstein did not believe in 
Quantum Mechanics.  His statement was utterly false.  He then suggested that 
he was planning on submitting the ideas generated to one of his relatives 
and to a couple of his friends, suggesting that this would be a peer review.

First, we have no idea what Nick submitted and have no names of who what was 
submitted to.  Second, from Nick's response, we know that the question 
generating this 'peer' review is not what Nick makes a statement about.

What I have said is that Einstein was critical to and a founder of Quantum 
Theory.  I have further stated that unlike the statement made by Dr Gier, 
Heisenberg was not 'the' creator of Quantum Mechanics, but only one of many 
who contributed to its creation.

I have also posted the statements by Albert Einstein showing that he fully 
understood that quantum mechanics was a workable mathematical model that 
adequately explained observed phenomena, but that he thought that another 
more fully 'real' explanation might be devised.  That is significantly 
different than stating that he did not believe in Quantum Mechanics.

My second posting deals with the same type of ambush that Nick has done to 
me.  If I send an assortment of Nick's articles around to some of my friends 
for 'peer' review, do not tell Nick what I have sent and to whom and then 
state that their learned opinion is that the Work of Dr Gier was not worthy 
of use as confetti, I would be just as deluded as Nick is in the smear he 
just posted on me.

What Nick did was not a peer review, it is a hatchet job and he knows it.

Phil Nisbet

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

_____________________________________________________
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯