Talk:Clockwork universe

message: I have no idea how redirection is set or changed in Wikipedia. But it is working improperly for the search "mechanical universe", which leads here and offers no disambiguation link. Theres a famous science documentary series "The mechanical universe", I should be able to reach it with the search "mechanical universe"
--93.140.101.210 (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong redirection of search "mechanical universe" 

message: The comment that Isaac Newton established the Clockwork Universe Theory contradicts statements made in the "Isaac Newton" article. That article makes these statements:
:Isaac Newton "warned against using them [his theories] to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock"
:"Newton insisted that divine intervention would eventually be required to reform the system"
:Leibniz is said to have "lampooned" Newton. Leibniz described Newton's view using the clock metaphor, "God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time."
The best way to resolve the contradiction between these articles is to examine primary sources.
Jeffhawkey (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions with respect to the Isaac Newton article 

message: As far as I know, the interpretations of quantum mechanics do not make testable predictions, they just explain the philosophy behind quantum mechanics. I am not aware that any interpretation of quantum mechanics has been falsified (this is a consequence of the previous sentence). Saying that Bell's theorem decided the matter of determinism in 1964 is misleading, since it would mean that Robert B. Griffiths, H. Dieter Zeh and William C. Davidon were complete fools (which I assume is false). Saying that quantum mechanics did not fail in its predictions is not an argument against some interpretations of quantum mechanics, since as far as I know none of them claimed that its predictions would fail (see first sentence in this paragraph). There is a world of difference between what experiments seem to indicate and what has been scientifically proven. Therefore, the claim that "God does play dice" is unproven to this very day. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And claiming that the experiments have offered definitive proof in this respect is calling 't Hooft names. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with claiming that "God does play dice" has been scientifically proven 

message: Bell's Theorem purports to be a mathematical proof that any deterministic formulation/theory/interpretation of quantum mechanics MUST statisfy a certain inequality.  ALL experiments indicate that in the real-world, quantum particles violate that condition.  If the real world was in any way deterministic, the experimental results would be different but unfortunately they are not.  There is ample EXPERIMENTAL evidence for indeterminism.  [see the book for laymen "Fabric of the Cosmos" which gives an easy to understand description of the issues involved].
And if you will read the excellent work of ‘t Hooft you will see clearly that he claims only to perhaps be able to map deterministic formulations to some stochastic aspects but admits to being unable to calculate even the hamiltonian.   Without even that, he can not, and does not, claim that he has a "deterministic" replacement for quantum mechanics that can calculate anything.   His work suggests avenues for further research but does not claim to eliminate the well-established and well-verified indeterminism.
I share some of the angst over the strange world of the microscopic, but misrepresenting the experimental evidence and especially putting false claims into the mouths of `t Hooft and others does a disservice to all.  And what exactly do you hope to accomplish?  Do you prefer to fantasize that the world splits at each instant of time into nearly an infinity of parallel universes [whose math is shaky and whose proof is by definition impossible] or rather to simply note that each individual quantum event behaves stochastically [indeterministically] which is clearly shown in the equations and leads to predictible and verifible results?  The article is not about fantasy and science fiction but rather about science fact.
There are reasonable objections to IN-determinism but the claims made in that regard in your paragraph under "criticisms" are unscientific and logically incorrect.  What you might argue instead are
    1. Maybe there are non-local theories (allowed by Bell's theorem) which violate Special Relativity and transpose cause and effect but which are then deterministic which we might discover in the future.
    2. Maybe there are technical difficulties with Bell's theorem experiments that introduce some subtle as yet undiscovered invalidating error.
    3. Maybe there are strange religious arguments (which seem to be the gist of your objections) that require determinism even in the face of modern scientific evidence.
    4. Maybe someone will invent a deterministic re-interpretation/formulation/theory for quantum mechanics [not so far] and ALSO discover a math error in Bell's work in the future.
But maybe I don't understand what you are thinking.  Perhaps this will help.   No interpretation of quantum mechanics is able to predict anything we can measure based entirely on deterministic principles.  Some have bits of determinism introduced at great fantastical cost, but all also have large parts remaining that are purely probabilistic.  Only when we start by assuming indeterminism throughout do we get simple but accurate verifible predictions.   It is not what I would have wished either but seems, from overwhelming evidence, to be simply true.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudgementSummary (talk • contribs) 11:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with Misunderstanding the Mathematics of "Interpretations" 

message: :Only a total moron who has read Bell's theorem would disagree with indeterminism if Bell would have definitively solved the problem. Therefore you call four or five top physicist "total morons". As far as I know, the deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics have not been refuted. If they have been absolutely refuted, do present evidence, you cannot just throw your own opinion and expect readers and editors to take it for granted.
:It cannot be claimed that there is scientific consensus that the world in itself would behave indeterministically. All we know is that the maths of quantum mechanics is indeterministic, but this says something about our limited knowledge of the world, not over the world itself. What we know is that quantum mechanics and relativity theory cannot both be true, but we don't know which is false. That is the problem: one of them is false, but we don't know which.
:The issue of determinism has not been settled yet, since there is no consensus on the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. Otherwise it would not be an "interpretation", i.e. a philosophical view of scientific results, but one interpretation would be part of empirical science (i.e. a scientific fact) and the others would be refuted. I suggest reading Loopholes in Bell test experiments, especially "To date, no test has simultaneously closed all loopholes." Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In less than half an hour I found three problems with your claims: Loopholes in Bell test experiments, Superdeterminism and De Broglie–Bohm theory. So, your stance is really weak and unsupported. You cannot seriously claim that "science has proven indeterminism" while these doors to objections are left wide-open. Science has not proven anything in respect to the debate determinism vs. indeterminism. It is just that indeterminism receives more press, that's all. Science has not spoken yet upon this matter. I don't actually claim that the world in itself is deterministic. What I claim is that we don't know if it is so or not. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Quote from Mark Twain. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues with Bell's Theorem

message: I don't believe any discussion or argument is enhanced by name calling and would suggest your ideas should stand on their own merits rather than on ad hominem attacks.   I recall the line from Shakespear's Hamlet about someone who "doth protest too much."   
What I believe you continue to misunderstand and misrepresent is that Bell's theorem makes NO CLAIM whatsoever as to determinism or indeterminism.  Rather it proves mathematically that there are EXPERIMENTAL consequences for either, that can be tested in the real world.   To reiterate, it demonstrates there are experiments we can preform that will prove the reality of either determinism or indeterminism.  We don't have to rely on so-called "interpretations" whose nature is another issue.   And you also misrepresent the sense of the argument in that 
    1. if Bell's theorem is VIOLATED by experimental results, the world is IN-deterministic.
    2. if Bell's theorem is found to be valid, the world is DETERMINSTIC....
So you have even got the direction of it wrong and should change your article which ever way you come finally come down on determinism.
So I will restate what I believe are reasonable objections to the obvious indeterminism of quantum mechanics
    1. Maybe there are non-local theories (allowed by Bell's theorem) which violate Special Relativity and transpose cause and effect but which are then deterministic which we might discover in the future.
    2. Maybe there are technical difficulties with Bell's theorem experiments that introduce some subtle as yet undiscovered invalidating error.
    3. Maybe there are strange religious arguments (which seem to be the gist of your objections) that require determinism even in the face of modern scientific evidence.
    4. Maybe someone will invent a deterministic re-interpretation/formulation/theory for quantum mechanics [not so far] and ALSO discover a math error in Bell's work in the future.
I thought you had followed this outline in your last submission but then you misstate the results.
I would also assert that you misrepresent "intrepretations".  The seminal paper on the issue, defining the term, was the EPR paper by Einstien which I gave in my section.  It is highly technical but the gist is that it claims quantum mechanics is "incomplete" and DOES NOT offer different equations.   In this sense "interpretations" are not like translating one language to another, but rather start everything from completely different mathematical equations.  To get determinism, somehow you have to derive the wavefunction [AT THE CORE OF QUANTUM MECHANICS] from some other equation rather than assuming it to start; because the wavefunction in itself is manifestly indeterministic.  [I don't believe anyone has entirely done this especially as there is no experimental evidence and are mathematically incomplete in themselves.] I see this misrepresented often in the popular press.  Maybe you want to study this and devote some of your otherwise admirable zeal to correcting the record when you are better versed in the subject.
In light of this I don't believe your objections are reasonable; but then quantum mechanics is very controversal in the public mind; but much less so in science; our job, I believe, is not to restate muddled and obviously wrong assumptions about it... but to be factually and scientifically accurate.  [plse also excuse the somewhat rambling tempo of this as I have been up all night... thx] JudgementSummary (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Bell's Theorem Revisited

message: :Well, when several top physicists claim that the world in itself is deterministic and they had read Bell's theorem there are two possibilities: either determinism vs. indeterminism has received no definitive answer (it is not a scientific fact), or that they are completely deluded, stupid idiots who don't understand a thing about the science they profess to practice. I don't have to understand higher maths to make this point: if the top experts disagree upon whether the world in itself is deterministic or indeterministic, you cannot say that there would be scientific consensus that the world in itself is indeterministic. This is a matter of accurately rendering the scientific consensus: top experts disagree upon the problem of determinism, so we cannot claim that the issue is settled as scientific fact.
:I totally agree that the equations of quantum mechanics do not allow us to predict future events, but this can be due to either the world being indeterministic or due to the fact that the equations of quantum mechanics ignore hidden variables. The world can be in itself deterministic, even if our best knowledge of the world is indeterministic. 
:But all this debate is utterly meaningless if you cannot substantiate your claims that the scientific consensus is that the world in itself is indeterministic. By substantiating your claims I mean quoting reliable sources which say that the scientific consensus anno 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013 is that the world in itself is indeterministic. We as editors are not allowed to throw our own opinions on this matter, we have to let the sources speak. If you have zero sources you have zero knowledge on this matter, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. By sources I do not mean the popularized science of quantum mechanics as New Age stuff, I mean serious scientific studies which have rendered the verdict that the scientific consensus (i.e. the scholarly consensus, not the informed opinion of its authors) is that the world in itself is indeterministic. It is even useless to argue one way or another without quoting reliable sources. Unless you can produce reliable sources, you have no right to say that the scholars have definitively agreed upon this issue. Since, however informed, this would be just your opinion. Suppose you would be a top scientist in quantum mechanics, it would be the voice of one scientist, not the voice of all scientists. So, unless you can get is passed through peer-review in reputable journals, your claim remains unsubstantiated, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It would all have to be deleted as original research or original synthesis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Bell's Theorem 

message: Bell's theorem says we can do an experiment to find out which way is true.   And throwing around terms like "moron" and "idiot" doesn't change that.  I again ask you to read the simple layman's discussion in "Fabric of the Universe" that I added to the references...
So again with my points...   The experiments all say that the world is indeterministic [I added only 3-4 references supporting that because hundreds would have confused the issue].   So if this continues to bother you, then argue there is something wrong with the experiments, which in my limited circle of quantum mechanics practitioners, is a far out position.  But please say that and give references...
JudgementSummary (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  BELL'S THEOREM DOESN'T SAY THE WORLD IS DETERMINISTIC OR INDETERMINISTIC

message: OK it looks like there are a clear majority of editors who think this is all too much.  I've radically reduced that material and suggest the focus now is on describing what the term means, rather than writing extended essays about its implications for free will and the like.  Better a stub than an extended and speculative essay ----Snowded TALK 16:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Snowded — I'm not sure what my last edit did exactly; I think we had an edit conflict. I meant to remove one line of blankspace and ended up somehow adding a whole chunk of info. I've undone my own edit, but if you could review and make sure I haven't accidentally trampled all over what you've done, I'd appreciate it. Cheers – Richard BB 16:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its OK.  The intent is get a partial greenfield - all too messy before, too much material, too hard to do anything other than drastic changes.  If we get the core description right and referenced then we can look at possibly adding back aspects of the other material ----Snowded TALK 16:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowded, I thee bestow The Kitten of Boldness! —wing gundam 18:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a badge for that I would welcome it, if not you should create one! ----Snowded TALK 18:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Smowded:  You just removed 95% of the entire article and I just saw it... reverting to the original before I started editing... everything remaining on the article is what I put in and I guess I will rewrite it and add it back in one section at a time...  not like deleting most everything in one fell swoop but it will have to do thanks..JudgementSummary (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use colons to indent your comments.  Your material was a personal essay, synthesis and OR.  Your latest additions follow the same style.  I strongly suggest you read up on WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:RS before you make changes and ideally discuss them here first.  If you check you are in a minority of one on these changes with several experienced editors trying to tell you the same thing.  ----Snowded TALK 06:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowded: would like to see a point by point discussion of the material you removed...  I have actually removed only my contributions and replaced the originals... Makes it easier for me to rewrite them... and would still like to see a point by point discussion of the 95% of the article you just removed... which was entirely my effort...  now onwards to rewrite... thanks...JudgementSummary (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to create a sandpit to draft your proposed changes and then link here so they can be discussed.  It doesn't matter who writes material it has to be properly referenced and follow the rules.   I strongly suggest you get agreement on the talk page to major changes as you have little or no support from other editors.  You also do not seem to be taking on board the point that this is not a place for editors essays ----Snowded TALK 06:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

text: JudgementSummary, replacing old content isn't the point. POV is POV, regardless of whether it was there before you. Furthermore since you don't understand why/that your work was a POV/OR/SYN essay, I highly advise you to let an experienced editor vet any changes you want to make. I've created your sandbox for you at User:JudgementSummary/sandbox. Please make any changes here, so that other older editors can review your work. —wing gundam 12:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: This article was terrifying WP:POV essay. It was gutted by us and left to die. And that's a Good Thing. But hopefully the time has come to grow it anew. I think there's some room for legitimate expansion.
I've recently come across several textbooks on chaos theory (e.g. Tamas Tel's, Edward Ott's) which make reference the former perception of (and the lack of) a "clockwork universe", in the context of the divergence of numerical solutions to classical, dynamical systems that exhibit chaos. In addition, some discuss how, for classical systems exhibiting chaos (like the three-body problem), the corresponding quantum systems do not exhibit chaos. Where developments are tied to a clockwork universe, such material may be appropriate for inclusion.
I'm still Wiki-exhausted from fighting for and pushing through the blanking of this article, so I'm loath to get involved again. I can review additions for technical correctness if needed, but someone should pursue these leads and summarize the relavent literature (if any), perhaps under the heading "In modern physics".—wing gundam 09:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving on (Chaos theory) 

message: Note sure if I'm being overly nit-picky, but
# the article starts with "In the history of science, the clockwork universe compares ...", but its not an idea of the history of science. Perhaps just removing the hyperlink would do. It is more closely aligned to a philosophy of doing science (or understanding the works of God). How about
#: "In the development of science, the clockwork universe was an idea that compared ..."
#: Or use "metaphor" rather than "idea". Should we place article into :Category:Metaphors referring to objects?
# The lead makes it definitionally the same as a mechanical universe, though the fact that is was started by the grand watchmaker is central to the analogy and is idly mentioned in text later.
Dpleibovitz (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the history of science? Really?