|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 12:28 AM |
CRACK THIS CODE!!! NASA CAN'T | zetasum | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 3rd 05 12:27 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 04:29 PM |