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 12:17:02 GMT

chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:

>According to martel@marvin.mr.sintef.no (Paulo Martel):
>>I don't have to devise an experiement to show that the mechanism exists.
>>*You* have to devise one to show that it doesn't.

>So it's our responsibility to prove wrong each of your ideas.  NOT!

Yes, that's how the argument started. Someone (Scott) accused me of
being wrong, so I guess it's fair he proves why I'm wrong. I'm not
pretending to be an expert physicist, I just like to think and discuss
about physics. But people seem so arrogant and nose-in-the-air
around here that one cannot really have a nice chat. I started to
point out that Scott seemed pretty sure about the truth of QM. He
snapped back at me as if I was a lunatic, just because I like to
question the "official" truth. As I said before, I don't have a
crackpot theory to replace QM. I like QM, and I like to play with
ideas and think about the foundations of QM. What I DON'T LIKE is
people calling me ignorant and fool because I like to discuss issues
they believe to of no interest. It is true that only a fringe of
the scientific community questions QM, but then, the majority just use
QM as a very good tool to solve problems. Few people work in the
fundamental problems of QM. It is to be expected that doubts and
questions arise first among those, while the rest of us go on to solve
all the other "fascinating puzzles" of modern science.  What's so
wrong in thinking about the meaning of things ?

>>If I were to make an hypothesis compatible with experimental evidence, then
>>what is needed is an experiment to disproof it, rather than to proof it.

>If so, then it's _your_ responsibility to devise and perform it.

_My_ responsability ? I think you are taking this conversation much to 
seriously. And BTW, what I meant was that if you have an alternative 
hypothesis or theory compatible with experimental evidence then obviously
you cannot discard it based on that same evidence. More experiments need to
be performed unless  Occan's razor is used. I have not seen an experiment
that discards the "hidden variables" theory, altough Bell's experiments showed
the implications of the existence of such a mechanism. To some people the 
implications are too hard to bear, and they simply reject the idea. Am I
wrong here ?


>>You could present us with some experiments showing that real randomness
>>*does* exist. I would be delighted to see them.

>So define "real randomness".  Mathematicians will be glad of your insight.
>-- 

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 defintion 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.

|)
|aulo

P.S.-Of course all we need in QM is a working definition of randomness. The 
     problem of this randomness being real or not is more of philosophical
     one.BTW, about real randomness in math: isn't the sequence of digits
     of Pi, for example, believed to be *truly* random (whatever that means) ?

--
|)      /\/\             | 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