A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Roger Penrose: QM, It Just Doesn't Make Sense!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 27th 06, 10:41 PM posted to alt.astronomy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Roger Penrose: QM, It Just Doesn't Make Sense!


Roger Penrose, leading physicist at Oxford, and winner of the Wolf
Prize for Physics in 1988 with Stephen Hawking, says QM just doesn't
make sense:


"However, Penrose said his biggest and most controversial argument is
with quantum mechanics. "You might say, 'Quantum mechanics?
That's one of the major advances of the 20th century,'" he said.
"But it just doesn't make sense."

The so-called "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics, he said,
is evidence that something is wrong at some level in the equation.
Penrose explained that he believes quantum mechanics goes sour where it
comes into combination with Einstein's theory of general relativity.

"It's a very uneven marriage, saying that space-time structure has
to yield to quantum mechanics, and that's it," he said. "I think
there's good reason that quantum mechanics itself will have to give,
and that the correct theory will involve give on both sides.""


http://www.stnews.org/News-197.htm

Perhaps God doesn't play dice after all!

Double-A

  #2  
Old April 27th 06, 11:36 PM posted to alt.astronomy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Roger Penrose: QM, It Just Doesn't Make Sense!


"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...

Roger Penrose, leading physicist at Oxford, and winner of the Wolf
Prize for Physics in 1988 with Stephen Hawking, says QM just doesn't
make sense:


"However, Penrose said his biggest and most controversial argument is
with quantum mechanics. "You might say, 'Quantum mechanics?
That's one of the major advances of the 20th century,'" he said.
"But it just doesn't make sense."

The so-called "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics, he said,
is evidence that something is wrong at some level in the equation.
Penrose explained that he believes quantum mechanics goes sour where it
comes into combination with Einstein's theory of general relativity.

"It's a very uneven marriage, saying that space-time structure has
to yield to quantum mechanics, and that's it," he said. "I think
there's good reason that quantum mechanics itself will have to give,
and that the correct theory will involve give on both sides.""


http://www.stnews.org/News-197.htm

Perhaps God doesn't play dice after all!

Double-A

Time will tell.

HJ


  #3  
Old April 28th 06, 03:52 AM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.fan.art-bell,alt.usenet.kooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Roger Penrose: QM, It Just Doesn't Make Sense!

Double-A wrote:

Roger Penrose, leading physicist at Oxford, and winner of the Wolf
Prize for Physics in 1988 with Stephen Hawking, says QM just doesn't
make sense:


"However, Penrose said his biggest and most controversial argument is
with quantum mechanics. "You might say, 'Quantum mechanics?
That's one of the major advances of the 20th century,'" he said.
"But it just doesn't make sense."

The so-called "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics, he said,
is evidence that something is wrong at some level in the equation.
Penrose explained that he believes quantum mechanics goes sour where it
comes into combination with Einstein's theory of general relativity.

"It's a very uneven marriage, saying that space-time structure has
to yield to quantum mechanics, and that's it," he said. "I think
there's good reason that quantum mechanics itself will have to give,
and that the correct theory will involve give on both sides.""


http://www.stnews.org/News-197.htm

Perhaps God doesn't play dice after all!

Double-A


Did you read the first and last sentences of the quote?

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer
  #4  
Old April 30th 06, 09:00 PM posted to alt.astronomy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Roger Penrose: QM, It Just Doesn't Make Sense!

Double-A Again I post. objects too large in our Macro world can't be
effected by quantum randomness. Micro particles don'[t have to move like
planets.. Take this for an example. The kaon and the B meson are
sensitive to the direction of time,now tell me a macro object that can
flow backwards. Reality is we don't know how any of the arrows of time
defined by physicist are related to our "subjective" sense of time.
Fact is subjective time might be the most tricky. We treat time as
something that passes,and physicist treat time as a dimension Strange as
this may sound "The flow of time can't be measured. I read many moons
ago St. Augustine saying this "We know what time is until someone asks
us,and then we discover we don't know what we are talking about. I can
relate this to QM and we think we know it,until we have to explain it
TreBert

  #5  
Old May 1st 06, 12:06 AM posted to alt.astronomy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Roger Penrose: QM, It Just Doesn't Make Sense!


G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Double-A Again I post. objects too large in our Macro world can't be
effected by quantum randomness.



But Schrödinger thought they could. That's why he came up with the
illustration about his cat.


Micro particles don'[t have to move like
planets.. Take this for an example. The kaon and the B meson are
sensitive to the direction of time,now tell me a macro object that can
flow backwards.



Of course there are micro world theories that seem to make sense at
first, such as that positrons might be electrons moving backwards
through time. But when you carry it very far, it doesn't make sense.
For instance, if positrons are moving backwards in time, then they and
indeed all antimatter should fall upwards. However even if that were
true, when you think about it, just falling upwards is not completely
symmetric with objects moving forward in time falling downwards. True
symmetry would require that backwards through time moving antimatter
remain near the ground for an indefinite time, and then inexplicably
suddenly fall upward.


Reality is we don't know how any of the arrows of time
defined by physicist are related to our "subjective" sense of time.
Fact is subjective time might be the most tricky. We treat time as
something that passes,and physicist treat time as a dimension Strange as
this may sound "The flow of time can't be measured. I read many moons
ago St. Augustine saying this "We know what time is until someone asks
us,and then we discover we don't know what we are talking about. I can
relate this to QM and we think we know it,until we have to explain it
TreBert



I like to think that time is merely a comparison between two ongoing
processes, such as between a running clock and your body's biological
processes. But then SR says that how the processes in two objects
compare depends upon their relative velocity. Also the law of entropy
gives it direction.

Double-A

  #6  
Old May 5th 06, 01:17 PM posted to alt.astronomy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Roger Penrose: QM, It Just Doesn't Make Sense!

Double-A That cat in a box makes no sense. It is a worthless
imaginary mind experiment. Best to make the cat half dead and forget it.
TreBert

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thierry Hassid Instructor [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 August 30th 05 06:44 PM
CRACK THIS CODE!!! WHY DID IT HAPPEN READ THIS DISTRUCTION!!!! zetasum History 0 February 3rd 05 01:28 AM
CRACK THIS CODE!!! NASA CAN'T zetasum Space Shuttle 0 February 3rd 05 01:27 AM
What does it make sense to bring back? Hephaestus Technology 1 July 2nd 04 01:50 PM
Moon key to space future? James White Policy 90 January 6th 04 05:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.