From: rlaltsta@eos.ncsu.edu (RICHARD L ALTSTATT)
Subject: Re: What does quantum have to do with it?
Originator: rlaltsta@c00327-2114bl.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: rlaltsta@eos.ncsu.edu (RICHARD L ALTSTATT)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:31:09 GMT



> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> : Let's set the record straight.  Someone in a.s.p.new-theories asked if
> : radioactive decay and other like phenomena were really random or if they
> : were determinate, with the appearance of randomness.  I answered that
> : there is *real* randomness.  That means that so far as we know, with
> : no evidence to the contrary, QM is correct, and it predicts real
> : randomness in such processes.  I stand by that statement.
> 
> Are there any present experimental results that would be drastically altered
> if instead of occuring truly 'randomly', the underlying processes were
> actually deterministic with a dimension of 10 billion?  It seems that most
> experimental results of QM don't ever depend on this fuzzy collapse and
> random thing ('wouldn't be prudent'), but more on the structure of the
> allowed energy levels and states in general.
> 
> Do the molecules in the air around you really move randomly?  At one
> level, most definitely.  The behavior is most profitably understood
> in terms of the mathematics of random functions.  But
> the knowledge that *really* down there, that's not the case is quite
> important.  And sure enough, you can find extreme cases where the
> fluid mechanics breaks down and kinetic considerations become important,
> and this makes experimentally verified scientific predictions.
> 
> :But I see no evidence that
> : you take your so-called philosophy past the point of simply taking a 
> : contrarian stand on intrinsic randomness.  
> 
	If you want to talk about randomness or uncertainly then you
don't have to talk philosophy without substance.  There has been real
work done in the war of uncertainty vs. wave shape.  "God doesn't play
dice with the universe" Einstien.  "I can't see how you [Heisenburg] 
could come to that conclusion after seeing the classical method of
derivation." Scrodinger.  Heisenburg won that war but much else that
he said was erased by history because it was wrong.  On the other hand, 
the other works of Shroedinger and Einstein are still up and kicking.
	If you want to see their ideas read one of Einsteins interpretations
(I'll see if I can find any titles in our local L) for non physicists.
He has several on General relativity and atomic structure which led to 
his formulas on photoelectricity.  these can be read by anyone so I am sure
there are more references.  Shroedinger is harder to find.(no I can't spell his
name so I will have a long search) but his ideas are clear from most 
Modern Physics books which are written at the sophomore level.  Heisenburg
is on the next page so there is room for opposing views.
	Many physicists do not believe in inherent randomness.  We believe
Chaos is a study of unsolved fractals and that atomic structure is a complex 
set of harmonic waves.  These lead to the same effects as are proposed by
the randomness crowd but without the inherent belief that some things 
can't be solved.  Now you can have something to argue about.
			Richard Altstatt - Mad Scientist
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories