Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Acceptance of QM results

Orac, you just evaded my reasoning. What I said was that to get a statistically reliable result, you should have fundamental laws that are deterministic. You have said nothing about that. For the computer to work, there should be a basic physical law that is not random.

The fact that I am able to type messages and sent it via internet is proof enough to show that the fundamental laws in physics are deterministic and not probabilistic. Had it been simply random, you would have got in some other form.

I am not interested in the result.

Intel had to take into account that electrons dont stay in the wires they tunnel in and out of them into account, you know your spooky thing that scares you.

If they designed the chips without considering that weird behaviour the chips wouldnt work and you wouldn't be typing on the internet.

Its not about the proability thing it's about the popping in and out of existance.

Thats the cruel joke thats being played on you.
.

The tunneling is based on probability. The so-called popping in and popping out are also based on probability. However, if you insist that it is due to 'deterministic quantum information', then I would wholeheartedly agree with you.

Finally you are starting to think and talk science in that you just don't ignore or deny the observations.

Ok so how is the probabilty producing a real measurable effect thats probably where you need to go next.

As I said I am not trying to discourage you, I am trying to encourage you to think and throw things around.

See now you are doing science .. you are not doing an Intelligent Design or PreEarth and pre-ordaining the answer or ignoring experiments and observations.

Start playing with these ideas and work out how to integrate them back into your theory so the experimental results are still consistant and viola you are doing science not pseudoscience.

I have not changed my stand. I think you might have misunderstood my arguments. So far in any of the discussions I have not denied the observations; I have only stated that the observed result can be explained in an alternate way.

How is the probabilty producing a real measurable effect? That is what I have been asking so far. Based on QM, there is randomness at the quantum level. Can randomness create a real measurable effect. In my opinion 'NO'. So there is no randomness at the quantum level; or, the quantum information is finite and deterministic (my theory is based on that idea).

From what yo have stated, it is not clear whether you agree with the basic of QM, that is, 'the randomness at the quantum level'. Do you think there is randomness at the quantum level?

Then you are dribbling pseudoscience garbage in a science section .... YAWN.



Since that is at least a science question there is no randomness in QM levels otherwise they would not be quantum levels would they.

The whole of QM is based on the concept of instant-duality (wave-particle duality) at the particle level. That means there is an element of randomness at that level. If you deny that, then I genuinely doubt that you are having some 'personal version' of QM.

If you are denying that randomness, then I have no objection to your arguments. Without that randomness, the QM is classical, just Newtonian, only that 'probability mechanics' are used to extract results. The QM thus gets reduced to a mathematical tool, and that is what I have been arguing.

Completely wrong QM is based upon Quantization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_(physics))

Thats where it gets it's name from :-)

The duality issue is something discovered that belongs to QM but it certainly isn't it's core.

As I sid there are many newer QM theory where there isn't duality at all because there are no such thing as particles they are simply illussions.




Again completely wrong there are no such thing as random levels or they would be quanta ... quata into quantum levels exists because they aren't random.



No I am stating standard QM theory you clearly have no idea of QM at all.



I am saying as per all QM theory they are most definitely fixed why do you think all atoms for example have an specific frequency for emissions and absorption. The levels are hard and fixed.



And that basically tells us all you understand nothing of QM at all. The probability stuff has nothing to do with the levels it's to do with the fact you have wave behaviour from our little friend Mr Schrodinger :-)

So clearly you deny something you haven't got any remote clue on what it's all about ... very scientific.

The QM is essentially based on particle-wave duality and probability connected with a wave function, and not merely quantization. Refer the wikipedia article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

As you said, there are different versions (each claiming itself to be the real one). That is why I have said that you are having your own version (the version you like from among the existing ones). Field quantization is a part of QM and not exactly the same as QM. In my opinion, it is matter and not field that is quantized; that can also be called a quantum theory, but not part of QM.

In Quantum mechanics, there is uncertainty at the level of particles, ie, there is some randomness. If you deny that, then I will have to say the same thing that you have said: "you understand nothing of QM".

I know nothing of QM then and I am done talking with you because you dribble rubbish ... those atom spectral lines are just jumping randomly all over the place because the levels are oh so random.

You may definitely treat this as an end of any conversation with you because it is pointless your head is firmly not in the real world but in your finite world .... enjoy it.

You are now officially not only appointed our official theory of everything but resident QM expert ... I defer to your knowledge on all things how can I argue you know everything without question.

Orac, why should you be furious. You said it first. I just pointed out the possibility that I will have to retort the same words. There is nothing personal in it, and that need not be an end of any discussion.