OT Where's my royalties?

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Graeme wrote:
>
>And the other one that has them in fits is -
>
>Two hydrogen atoms are sitting in a bar. One of them says,
>"I've lost an electron!" The other says, "Are you
>positive?".

ITYM "Are you certain?" "Yes, I'm positive."

 

[Graeme]

[email protected] (Alan Braggins) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> ITYM "Are you certain?" "Yes, I'm positive."
>

I really am on a roll today :-( You're right, I took the
lazy route and cut and paste it from elsewhere, no
excuse though.

Graeme

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Jon Senior wrote:
>There are two possibilities here:
>
>1) The universe follows a set of finite laws.
>2) The universe is random.
>
>Possibility 1 is the basic tenet of physics (And thus
>science). Possibility 2 is the basic tenet of religion.

"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." - Wolfgang Pauli.

 

[Jon Senior]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Er, no. Einstein said ``God does not play dice''. He was
> wrong. Quantum effects _are_ random: that's why, for
> example, decay processes make excellent RNGs.

I presume that you have enlightened the scientific community
of your conclusion that the universe is non-deterministic?
They might as well all pack up and go home now.

Jon

 

[Paul Rudin]

Jon Senior <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> writes:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > Er, no. Einstein said ``God does not play dice''. He was
> > wrong. Quantum effects _are_ random: that's why, for
> > example, decay processes make excellent RNGs.
>
> I presume that you have enlightened the scientific
> community of your conclusion that the universe is non-
> deterministic?

I think they know already ;-)

> They might as well all pack up and go home now.

Why?

 

[Jon Senior]

Tony Raven [email protected] opined the following...
> Whingin' Pom wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:11:48 +0100, Tony Raven <junk@raven-
> > family.com> () wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Keith, alone among posters, does not seem to appear at
> >>>all in my newsreader. Strange.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Maybe not seeing Keith is your Forte ;-)
> >
> >
> > I think you under-estimate the Gravity of the problem.
> >
>
> Whatever, it would appear that Keith's posts are XNews (or
> is that ex-Gnus) as far as Guy's concerned.

I agree. The Outlook seems dire.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Dave Larrington [email protected] opined the following...
> Keith Willoughby wrote:
>
> > So is the cat dead, or not?
>
> There /is/ no cat. Or spoon.

SPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON MENACE!

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Peter Clinch [email protected] opined the following...
> Jon Senior wrote:
>
> > There are two possibilities here:
> >
> > 1) The universe follows a set of finite laws.
> > 2) The universe is random.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by "finite laws"...

To be honest neither am I. I think I was trying to get
across the concept of a set of laws which consitute
everything. I believe its usually known as "The
Unified Theory".

> However, the actuality is perhaps more like a 1.5), The
> Universe follows very hard laws but without knowing more
> than can *possibly*[1] be available to you about the
> existing state of things you have no way of predicting the
> outcome, so from a predictive point of view it is random
> up to a point [Lord Copper].

Sorry. Deterministic NOT EQUALS Predictable. It can be
deterministic without it being possible to predict
from within.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Paul Rudin [email protected] opined the following...
> > I presume that you have enlightened the scientific
> > community of your conclusion that the universe is non-
> > deterministic?
>
> I think they know already ;-)

A minority of physicists believe that the universe is non-
deterministic. The remainder are unconvinced. When quantum
mechanics can provide explanatory and predictive advantages
over Newtonian physics in all areas, then the argument will
be (nearly) over.

> > They might as well all pack up and go home now.
>
> Why?

Because in a non-deterministic universe, there can be no
hard and fast laws of physics. This renders physics somewhat
pointless. Thus, unless they really enjoy the mind-bending
maths, they might as well give up now.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Tony Raven [email protected] opined the following...
> Jon Senior wrote:
> >
> > From memory, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle stated
> > that you could only observe one aspect of a particle.
> > Doing so would have an effect on the other aspect
> > (Aspects = position / momentum). He simply showed that
> > observation involved interaction. While you may not be
> > able to know the everything about a given particle, you
> > can predict the behaviour of a theoretical known
> > particle.
>
>
> Its gone beyond that. The particle is in a superposition
> of all possible states. The act of observation forces it
> to assume one state but left to its own devices you cannot
> know which state it is in, just the statistical
> distribution between the states

But that is nothing but observation. We cannot observe the
particle, so we can only know the probable range of states
it can occupy. In a hypothetical situation (Outside of the
Universe) where we knew everything about the particle, could
we predict its behaviour.

The thing about Shrodinger's wonderul thought experiment is
that it was devised to explain quantum superpositions to one
of his students. The problem was that it showed that
something which was quite believable at the micro level, was
implausible at the macro level.

> > Chaos theory does not actually consitute "chaos". The
> > high-order chaos is a result of low-order logic.
> >
>
> The chaos is because the logically predicted outcome is
> very sensitive to the starting conditions so that your
> inability to measure those starting conditions e.g.
> Heisenberg and your inability to calculate the sequence of
> events with the accuracy of an infinite number of decimal
> places at each point in an infinitely sub divided time
> means that you cannot predict the outcome which changes
> every time you run your calculation.

This does not show that the logic is invalid, just that your
information is incomplete.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Roos Eisma [email protected] opined the following...
> To make it cycling related:

How dare you? ;-)

Jon

 

[Peter Clinch]

Jon Senior wrote:

> Sorry. Deterministic NOT EQUALS Predictable. It can be
> deterministic without it being possible to predict
> from within.

I quite agree, but what I'm saying is that if you can't
predict it then however deterministic it is you don't know
what will happen next, so it is effectively random from your
POV in the universe. Or sort of in between the two states
you gave as possibilities.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111
ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382
640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
[email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Jon Senior]

Peter Clinch [email protected] opined the following...
> Jon Senior wrote:
>
> > Sorry. Deterministic NOT EQUALS Predictable. It can be
> > deterministic without it being possible to predict from
> > within.
>
> I quite agree, but what I'm saying is that if you can't
> predict it then however deterministic it is you don't know
> what will happen next, so it is effectively random from
> your POV in the universe. Or sort of in between the two
> states you gave as possibilities.

I see where your coming from. But I don't agree with the
third state. The two alternatives I offered are from the
consideration of being outside the universe.

This however is nitpicking. (Which I am exceptionally
good at!).

The universe is inherently deterministic, but from within
it, prediction is impossible.

Jon

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected],
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> typed:
> This however is nitpicking. (Which I am exceptionally
> good at!).
>
> The universe is inherently deterministic, but from within
> it, prediction is impossible.
>
But you're wrong. Quantum decay is not even deterministic:
it's utterly random with no known cause.

Obviously, even very simple non quantum effects can be
unmeasurably unpredictable, but the quantum mechanical
universe is random.

A

 

[Jon Senior]

Ambrose Nankivell [email protected]
opined the following...
> But you're wrong. Quantum decay is not even deterministic:
> it's utterly random with no known cause.
>
> Obviously, even very simple non quantum effects can be
> unmeasurably unpredictable, but the quantum mechanical
> universe is random.

While I appreciate that you like it, this is a controversial
and incomplete theory. Not every physicist would agree. In
fact, not every quantum physicist would agree. The key point
in your first paragraph is "no _known_ cause" (My emphasis).
If quantum mechanics is non- deterministic, then that effect
must also exist at a macro level if the two are related. If
it does not, then something is missing from the theory. If
they are unrelated, then something is missing from the
theory. Stop treating Schrodinger's cat as a novelty and
start looking at the implications of the thought experiment.
Is the cat really both dead and alive simultaneously?

Jon

 

[Tumbleweed]

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ambrose Nankivell [email protected]
> opined the following...
> > But you're wrong. Quantum decay is not even
> > deterministic: it's utterly random with no known cause.
> >
> > Obviously, even very simple non quantum effects can be
> > unmeasurably unpredictable, but the quantum mechanical
> > universe is random.
>
> While I appreciate that you like it, this is a
> controversial and incomplete theory. Not every physicist
> would agree. In fact, not every quantum physicist would
> agree. The key point in your first paragraph is "no
> _known_ cause" (My emphasis). If quantum mechanics is non-
> deterministic, then that effect must also exist at a macro
> level if the two are related.

What is 'a macro level'? Aint no such thing. [Try and
define it.]

> If it does not, then something is missing from the theory.
> If they are unrelated, then something is missing from the
> theory. Stop treating Schrodinger's cat as a novelty and
> start looking at the implications of the thought
> experiment. Is the cat really both dead and alive
> simultaneously?
>
> Jon

havent experiments proved that not only is there no known
cause, there is unknown cause either?

(ie no hidden local variables)

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

 

[Jon Senior]

Tumbleweed [email protected] opined the
following...
>
> "Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
> > Ambrose Nankivell [email protected]
> > opined the following...
> > > But you're wrong. Quantum decay is not even
> > > deterministic: it's utterly random with no known
> > > cause.
> > >
> > > Obviously, even very simple non quantum effects can be
> > > unmeasurably unpredictable, but the quantum mechanical
> > > universe is random.
> >
> > While I appreciate that you like it, this is a
> > controversial and incomplete theory. Not every physicist
> > would agree. In fact, not every quantum physicist would
> > agree. The key point in your first paragraph is "no
> > _known_ cause" (My emphasis). If quantum mechanics is
> > non- deterministic, then that effect must also exist at
> > a macro level if the two are related.
>
> What is 'a macro level'? Aint no such thing. [Try and
> define it.]

Means "bigger" basically. Behaviour that exists at a
particle level should be observable in objects made from
those particles. If the behaviour of particles in non-
deterministic then the behaviour of objects made from those
particles must also be non-deterministic. Does "macro"
exist? No. Is it a concept? Yes. Does it help when
describing phenomena? Yes.

> havent experiments proved that not only is there no known
> cause, there is unknown cause either?

Not sure what you mean by this. The sentence doesn't
actually make sense. I'm sure that you could strip out some
of those negatives to make it read better. ;-)

>

But it did make me smile... yes.

Jon

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:39:08 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote (more or less):

>Paul Rudin [email protected] opined the following...
>> > I presume that you have enlightened the scientific
>> > community of your conclusion that the universe is non-
>> > deterministic?
>>
>> I think they know already ;-)
>
>A minority of physicists believe that the universe is non-
>deterministic. The remainder are unconvinced. When quantum
>mechanics can provide explanatory and predictive advantages
>over Newtonian physics in all areas, then the argument will
>be (nearly) over.
>
>> > They might as well all pack up and go home now.
>>
>> Why?
>
>Because in a non-deterministic universe, there can be no
>hard and fast laws of physics. This renders physics
>somewhat pointless. Thus, unless they really enjoy the mind-
>bending maths, they might as well give up now.

The 'Clockwork Universe' view which had held sway since
Newton's time was basically swept aside by the verification
of quantum indeterminacy.

Which is different to chaos theory's extreme sensitivity of
non-linear systems to their initial conditions.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[Tumbleweed]

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tumbleweed [email protected] opined the
> following...
> >
> > "Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote
> > in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Ambrose Nankivell
> > > [email protected] opined the
> > > following...
> > > > But you're wrong. Quantum decay is not even
> > > > deterministic: it's
utterly
> > > > random with no known cause.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously, even very simple non quantum effects can
> > > > be unmeasurably unpredictable, but the quantum
> > > > mechanical universe is random.
> > >
> > > While I appreciate that you like it, this is a
> > > controversial and incomplete theory. Not every
> > > physicist would agree. In fact, not every quantum
> > > physicist would agree. The key point in your first
> > > paragraph
is
> > > "no _known_ cause" (My emphasis). If quantum mechanics
> > > is non- deterministic, then that effect must also
> > > exist at a macro level if
the
> > > two are related.
> >
> > What is 'a macro level'? Aint no such thing. [Try and
> > define it.]
>
> Means "bigger" basically. Behaviour that exists at a
> particle level should be observable in objects made from
> those particles. If the behaviour of particles in non-
> deterministic then the behaviour of objects made from
> those particles must also be non-deterministic. Does
> "macro" exist? No. Is it a concept? Yes. Does it help when
> describing phenomena? Yes.

It is observable in 'bigger' things, for example it has been
shown in helium 'objects' made from many helium atoms. There
is no reason to believe it doesnt exist in any larger
objects you can think of, its just not possible to show it
due to their tiny comparative effect.

>
> > havent experiments proved that not only is there no
> > known cause, there
is
> > unknown cause either?
>
> Not sure what you mean by this. The sentence doesn't
> actually make sense. I'm sure that you could strip out
> some of those negatives to make it read better. ;-)
>

An 'unknown cause' implies there is a cause, we just dont
know what it is. Einstein championed this view, it was
called (AIUI) 'hidden local variables*', and he proposed a
thought experiment that would show they existed, since if
they didnt the opposite result would be ludicrous (my word).
The thought experiment was just that, because it was
'impossible' to actually carry out such an experiment. The
experiment became a reality some 50-60 years later, and the
result was the 'ludicrous' one. Hence, there are no hidden
but unknown factors causing the decay. Hence my comment,
there are no unknown causes either!

--
Tumbleweed *i.e. the thought was that there are factors that
cause the decay, we just cant access them.

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

 

[Dave Larrington]

Jon Senior wrote:

> Dave Larrington [email protected] opined the following...
>> Keith Willoughby wrote:
>>
>>> So is the cat dead, or not?
>>
>> There /is/ no cat. Or spoon.
>
> SPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON MENACE!
>

<URL: http://legslarry.8bit.co.uk/Spoon.htm>

u.r.c was exposed to spoons for thirty seconds...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================