From: martel@marvin.mr.sintef.no (Paulo Martel)
Subject: Re: What does quantum have to do with it?
Organization: University of Trondheim, Norway
Date: 22 Jan 93 22:59:48 GMT

sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>In article <martel.727705022@marvin>, martel@marvin.mr.sintef.no (Paulo Martel) writes...
>> 
>>Chip, I don't want to start an argument again. But the discussion started
>>because of Scott Chase's statement: "There is *real* randomness". I went
>>on to criticize the matter-of-factness of such a statement, saying that one
>>has no means to prove such a thing (not the least because, as you say, we
>>don't have a definition of real randomness). All I was trying to say is that
>>the existence of "hidden variables" or an underlying mechanism cannot be 
>>discarded at this point, altough it has some unpleasant implications. Scott
>>argued against the existence of such a mechanism, in favour of a *real* 
>>randomness in quantum mechanical phenomena. So maybe you should ask Scott for
>>a definition of real randomness instead of me, since he is so sure that such
>>a thing exists.

>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.  I do not think
>that the original poster wanted your philosophical opinion.  He wanted 
>our best answer according to science.

I didn't think that  "There is *real* randomness" was a very
scientific statement. It sounded more like a matter of faith...
Sorry if I took you wrong, but you could have phrased it better.

>Furthermore, I claim, with good cause I think, that your contentions *do*
>constitute wild speculation, i.e., they are not founded in any way on 
>either experiment (since no experiments are widely recognized to constitute
>evidence, or even a suggestion, that QM may not be always correct) or theory.
>All you have going for yourself is your philosophy.  But Nature is not
>constrained to comply with your, my, or anyone else's philosophy.  There is

Right. And Nature is not the same as the models we make of it. QM is just a
model, the best we have. 

>a large difference between theoretical speculation, i.e., attempts to 
>produce new testable models, and philosophical speculation.

>It is all too easy to pretend to sophistication by wild speculation.
>You claim that real randomness may not exist.  Fine.  Now what?  How

Now nothing. That was the point: real randomness may not exist. And I
don't have to proceed anywhere. I know my limitations. I like to philo-
sophize about QM but I don't pretend to be a new Heisenberg. Just because
I discuss intriguing aspects of QM doesn't mean I want to throw it down
(not yet :-)).

>do you proceed with this in any scientific fashion.  I do not object
>to testing the limits of our knowledge.  I know, however, until you
>get past the general "accusations", along the lines of QM must be wrong 
>because I don't like it, and proceed to defining clear alternatives with
>testable distinctions from QM, you will get nowhere, and all of your
>attestations to the contrary are just hot air.

>Studing the philosophy of QM might in fact lead you to such alternatives,
>and for this reason it is worth pursuing.  But I see no evidence that
>you take your so-called philosophy past the point of simply taking a 
>contrarian stand on intrinsic randomness.  

Jesus, Scott. You make it sound like your St.Jorge and me the dragon.
I never said anything like "QM must be wrong because I don't like it".
I just pointed that real randomness is nothing we can be sure of, I'm
not taking a contrarian stand on it (how can I take a contrarian
stand on something we cannot touch with experiment). I regret if I
gave the impression that I'm all against QM and trying to build a new
model of the universe. I just like to think about the more
philosophical issues and problems. As you said, younger generations
are born with QM and learn to accept its oddities, but maybe that is
not a such good thing, because they lose touch we the fundamental
problems of interpretation of QM, altough they become quite proficient
in cranking out results. Let's face it: the modern stand on QM is a
more down-to-earth one, were we live with strange things that work and
stop thinking about the strangeness. I think it is important to think
about the way things *are* and not only about how we crank out the
right results using a given theory. And please get out of your mind
the idea that I am an adversary of QM. I just feel that I don't *have*
to regard QM as the ultimate truth, that's all.

Flames off, people. Why should we get upset over such trivia as the
foundations of the universe ?


|)
|aulo

--
|)      /\/\             | e-mail: martel@marvin.mr.sintef.no |               
|aulo  /    \artel       | phone: +47-7-997700                | This sentence
MR-Center, SINTEF        | FAX:   +47-7-997708                |   is false.
N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY |                                    |               
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories