Surprise! Dr. John Bell Liked the Ether!

Sam I don't think Einstien or Bohr have the right to tell God what to
do. It God throw dice the religious right will tell you it would always
come up 7 If I said God could only roll snake eyes I would be burned at
the stake. Gravity is my God,and it takes chaos,and evolves it into a
universe. Bert

nightbat wrote

Greysky wrote:

wrote in message
...
In sci.physics Greysky wrote:

snip

Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

Where may we view your Nobel in awe?

I don't expect to ever get a Nobel. Over the decades, I have made *far* to
many enemies for that to happen. You may build a FTL transmitter with the
info on my site, however. Maybe you could mention me when you get *your*
Nobel...

Greysky

nightbat

No, no, questioning dissent and introspection is good, and
laughter is better for the mind, for what would we do without Uncle Al's
brilliant applied wit. A non controversial scientist or researcher isn't
making waves, and it's all about really understanding the duality nature
of those particle waves isn't it? Just think, if you profound guys
weren't at each other's throats so much how would us lesser mortals ever
hope to grasp, leap, or enjoy the displayed enlightenment. And the
question is not hopeful mention at Nobel award ceremonies, but comparing
thoughts and possible medals and analyzing whom is the shiniest? So
always shoot for the working improbable and say may we all share your
individual or group reflective good credit no matter how humble the
contribution for the Universe is bigger then all of us.

And now I wish to thank the most Honorable Committee............



the nightbat

nightbat wrote

Greysky wrote:

wrote in message
...
In sci.physics Greysky wrote:

snip

Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

Where may we view your Nobel in awe?

I don't expect to ever get a Nobel. Over the decades, I have made *far* to
many enemies for that to happen. You may build a FTL transmitter with the
info on my site, however. Maybe you could mention me when you get *your*
Nobel...

Greysky

nightbat

No, no, questioning dissent and introspection is good, and
laughter is better for the mind, for what would we do without Uncle Al's
brilliant applied wit. A non controversial scientist or researcher isn't
making waves, and it's all about really understanding the duality nature
of those particle waves isn't it? Just think, if you profound guys
weren't at each other's throats so much how would us lesser mortals ever
hope to grasp, leap, or enjoy the displayed enlightenment. And the
question is not hopeful mention at Nobel award ceremonies, but comparing
thoughts and possible medals and analyzing whom is the shiniest? So
always shoot for the working improbable and say may we all share your
individual or group reflective good credit no matter how humble the
contribution for the Universe is bigger then all of us.

And now I wish to thank the most Honorable Committee............



the nightbat

nightbat wrote

Bill Sheppard wrote:

Our venerable Uncle Albert liked the 'ether' too, as evidenced in his
famous 1920 speech at the University of Leyden. See-
www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html

Note the last paragraph where he states that according to GR space
without 'ether' is unthinkable. But then he stipulates quite arbitrarily
that motion cannot be ascribed to it. In other words, it must be a rigid
lattice incapable of flowing. Talk about legislation by fiat (!).
That seems to be the point at which physics ran off the
rails. Instead of allowing the ether model to evolve further to reveal
flowing-space, it was headed for the scrap heap in favor of void-space.
Though Uncle A still endorsed the ether as late as 1922, its demise was
already determined and its epitah carved in its headstone.
So the question remains, if the MM null result of 1887
influenced him to do the famous (infamous?) flip-flop, why did he wait
over 30 years to do it? oc

nightbat

Well oc, perhaps at the 30 year mortgage burning celebration
party he got a little high on the good spirits and determined to heck
with the centuries old aether premise, we don't need it to do the math,
we have Johnny Walker Black Label and pretty girls, what else matters?


the nightbat

nightbat wrote

Bill Sheppard wrote:

Our venerable Uncle Albert liked the 'ether' too, as evidenced in his
famous 1920 speech at the University of Leyden. See-
www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html

Note the last paragraph where he states that according to GR space
without 'ether' is unthinkable. But then he stipulates quite arbitrarily
that motion cannot be ascribed to it. In other words, it must be a rigid
lattice incapable of flowing. Talk about legislation by fiat (!).
That seems to be the point at which physics ran off the
rails. Instead of allowing the ether model to evolve further to reveal
flowing-space, it was headed for the scrap heap in favor of void-space.
Though Uncle A still endorsed the ether as late as 1922, its demise was
already determined and its epitah carved in its headstone.
So the question remains, if the MM null result of 1887
influenced him to do the famous (infamous?) flip-flop, why did he wait
over 30 years to do it? oc

nightbat

Well oc, perhaps at the 30 year mortgage burning celebration
party he got a little high on the good spirits and determined to heck
with the centuries old aether premise, we don't need it to do the math,
we have Johnny Walker Black Label and pretty girls, what else matters?


the nightbat

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
| FrediFizzx wrote:
|
| "Sam Wormley" wrote in message
| ...
| | John Bell liking aether doesn't make it so....
| | Einstein liking actualities doesn't make them so...
|
| Read Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet". You might learn
| something. Especially read the Forward by Bjorken.
|
| FrediFizzx
|
| Interesting
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...070945-8907940

http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/8/6/16

http://boojum.hut.fi/personnel/THEORY/volovik.html

You can download a PDF of the book from the last link.

FrediFizzx

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
| FrediFizzx wrote:
|
| "Sam Wormley" wrote in message
| ...
| | John Bell liking aether doesn't make it so....
| | Einstein liking actualities doesn't make them so...
|
| Read Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet". You might learn
| something. Especially read the Forward by Bjorken.
|
| FrediFizzx
|
| Interesting
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...070945-8907940

http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/8/6/16

http://boojum.hut.fi/personnel/THEORY/volovik.html

You can download a PDF of the book from the last link.

FrediFizzx

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
John Bell liking aether doesn't make it so....
Einstein liking actualities doesn't make them so...

Quoting John Wheeler from "STEPHEN HAWKING'S A BRIEF HISTORY OF
TIME, A READER'S COMPANION", "I had worked with the other great man
in the quantum debate, Niels Bohr, in Copenhagen. And I know no
greater debate in the last hundreds of years than the debate between
Bohr and Einstein, no greater debate between two greater men, or one
that extended over a longer period of time--twenty-eight years--at a
higher level of colleagueship. To put it in brief: Does the world
exist out there independent of us, as Einstein thought; or, as Bohr
thought, is there some sense in which we, through our choice of
observing equipment, have something to do with what comes about..."

Einstein refused to believe in a reality that precluded cause and
effect. "God does not play dice with the universe." he declared. He
especially objected to the theory's insistence that particles,
forces, and events seemed to come into existence only when a
measurement or observation was made.

For more than half a century physicists and philosophers debated
whether the quantum theory really was a complete and accurate
description of reality. Then in 1964, physicist John Bell proposed a
brilliant method to resolve the issue. "Bell's Theorem," says the
eminent physicist Henry Stapps, "is the most profound discovery of
science." By the early 1980's a number of elegant experiments
applying Bell's Theorem have proved that quantum theory, which
speaks in terms of probabilities rather than actualities, is indeed
a complete explanation of reality... God DOES play dice with the
universe!

Empirical results of observation and experiment... that's what makes
something so!

More--

Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics
Amir D Aczel
2002 John Wiley & Sons/Four Walls Eight
Windows 302pp 16.99/$28.00hb

There are two kinds of books about quantum
mechanics. There are those in which we learn
about abstract concepts such as Hilbert spaces,
state vectors and density matrixes, but where the
author never addresses - or only pays lip-service
to - the question of what quantum mechanics
actually means. This is the approach often taken in
textbooks. The other, quite opposite, approach
focuses on the interpretative question - drawing all
kinds of conclusions and analogies, talking about
telepathy and other mysteries, and perhaps even
claiming that quantum mechanics transcends
Western philosophy.

Neither approach is very helpful when one wants
to understand what quantum mechanics really
means in a deep philosophical sense. Amir Aczel's
new book on entanglement - falling as it does into
neither category - avoids such pitfalls.

Anton Zeilinger from the Institute of Experimental
Physics at the University of Vienna reviews the
book in the May issue of Physics World; email


Thank you Sam for a very interesting and informative post. There is no
doubt the great Einstein-Bohr debate was just that - great. And, while
Einstein lost slight luster in my mind by never accepting QM fully (he was
always scientist enough to acknowledge it as a valid theory - just an
intermediate one in his view) his debates with Bohr only enhances his
already great reputation and strengthened QM. This is just one of the many
great services Einstein did for physics.

As an aside I have recently changed my view of QM, I now hold to Ian
Percivals view that realty out there is real, exists in an objective sense,
the wave collapse is real. He suggests it is caused by fluctuations in the
state at about the plank time scale and this results in an almost
instantaneous wave function collapse by means of a Quantum State Diffusion
process - see http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2001/HPL-2001-7.pdf. So
Bohrs view is not the only one consistent wit the facts. However science
demands that we accept Bohrs view as valid until experiment can decide
otherwise - for that is all that counts in science.

Thanks
Bill

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
John Bell liking aether doesn't make it so....
Einstein liking actualities doesn't make them so...

Quoting John Wheeler from "STEPHEN HAWKING'S A BRIEF HISTORY OF
TIME, A READER'S COMPANION", "I had worked with the other great man
in the quantum debate, Niels Bohr, in Copenhagen. And I know no
greater debate in the last hundreds of years than the debate between
Bohr and Einstein, no greater debate between two greater men, or one
that extended over a longer period of time--twenty-eight years--at a
higher level of colleagueship. To put it in brief: Does the world
exist out there independent of us, as Einstein thought; or, as Bohr
thought, is there some sense in which we, through our choice of
observing equipment, have something to do with what comes about..."

Einstein refused to believe in a reality that precluded cause and
effect. "God does not play dice with the universe." he declared. He
especially objected to the theory's insistence that particles,
forces, and events seemed to come into existence only when a
measurement or observation was made.

For more than half a century physicists and philosophers debated
whether the quantum theory really was a complete and accurate
description of reality. Then in 1964, physicist John Bell proposed a
brilliant method to resolve the issue. "Bell's Theorem," says the
eminent physicist Henry Stapps, "is the most profound discovery of
science." By the early 1980's a number of elegant experiments
applying Bell's Theorem have proved that quantum theory, which
speaks in terms of probabilities rather than actualities, is indeed
a complete explanation of reality... God DOES play dice with the
universe!

Empirical results of observation and experiment... that's what makes
something so!

More--

Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics
Amir D Aczel
2002 John Wiley & Sons/Four Walls Eight
Windows 302pp 16.99/$28.00hb

There are two kinds of books about quantum
mechanics. There are those in which we learn
about abstract concepts such as Hilbert spaces,
state vectors and density matrixes, but where the
author never addresses - or only pays lip-service
to - the question of what quantum mechanics
actually means. This is the approach often taken in
textbooks. The other, quite opposite, approach
focuses on the interpretative question - drawing all
kinds of conclusions and analogies, talking about
telepathy and other mysteries, and perhaps even
claiming that quantum mechanics transcends
Western philosophy.

Neither approach is very helpful when one wants
to understand what quantum mechanics really
means in a deep philosophical sense. Amir Aczel's
new book on entanglement - falling as it does into
neither category - avoids such pitfalls.

Anton Zeilinger from the Institute of Experimental
Physics at the University of Vienna reviews the
book in the May issue of Physics World; email


Thank you Sam for a very interesting and informative post. There is no
doubt the great Einstein-Bohr debate was just that - great. And, while
Einstein lost slight luster in my mind by never accepting QM fully (he was
always scientist enough to acknowledge it as a valid theory - just an
intermediate one in his view) his debates with Bohr only enhances his
already great reputation and strengthened QM. This is just one of the many
great services Einstein did for physics.

As an aside I have recently changed my view of QM, I now hold to Ian
Percivals view that realty out there is real, exists in an objective sense,
the wave collapse is real. He suggests it is caused by fluctuations in the
state at about the plank time scale and this results in an almost
instantaneous wave function collapse by means of a Quantum State Diffusion
process - see http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2001/HPL-2001-7.pdf. So
Bohrs view is not the only one consistent wit the facts. However science
demands that we accept Bohrs view as valid until experiment can decide
otherwise - for that is all that counts in science.

Thanks
Bill

"Greysky" wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
In sci.physics Greysky wrote:

snip

Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

Where may we view your Nobel in awe?

I don't expect to ever get a Nobel.

One does not become a Nobel laureate for stringing together buzzwords from a
Brief History of Time. Hey Greysky figured out what Wick Rotation is yet?
It is an example of ------- integration and depends on the ------- theorem
from complex analysis. I left the key words blank because according to you
it is a branch of mathematics we know nothing about so we do not really
know the relevant details.

Bill


Over the decades, I have made *far* to
many enemies for that to happen. You may build a FTL transmitter with the
info on my site, however. Maybe you could mention me when you get *your*
Nobel...

Greysky