Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Freaky Fysiks!

De Broglie–Bohm/ Classically Debunking the Copenhagen Consensus


Gert said...

Interesting and well presented but not w/o problems. For one the oil waves aren't standing waves at all!

FreeThinke said...

Far faar faaar faaaar FAAAAAR beyond my feeble powers to comprehend.

All I can get out of it is a possible affirmation of something I've suspected all my conscious life namely this: Whatever appears random and chaotic to us is in all probability just a tiny part of a clearly delineated geometric pattern much too large for us to appreciate at any given moment.

Logic, Order and Beauty permeate every facet of the Cosmos. We just can't see it from our small, painfully limited perspective.

-FJ said...

For one the oil waves aren't standing waves at all!

Kinda depends upon your perspective... the "visible" oil-droplet waves would appear to be the "pilot" waves.

FreeThinke said...

All right, I read some of the WIKI article on "perspective"and standing waves, etc. It soon gets too technical, and too abstract for me to be able to follow, but isn't it true that NOTHING –– absolutely NOTHING –– is truly stationary?

EVERYTHING is in constant motion ALL the TIME. Isn't that the very nature of LIFE?

Since all forms of matter are made of molecules which in turn are made of atoms which in turn are made of sub-atomic particles, and all these things have an individual identity of their own, despite being an integral part of a much larger whole, shouldn't we say that even such things as rocks and long-dead trees –– i.e. chairs, tables, cabinetry as well as petrified wood –– are still very much alive, and therefore, still in constant motion, even though we can't discern it with our naked eyes?

Gert said...

There are other things that are a bit superficial in his attempt at debunking Copenhagen. At 1:38 he shows how it's quantised. Sure but so are musical strings and pipes, drum membranes and rigid plates (see Chladni patterns). That's because the math underlying Schrodinger and the classical wave equation is very related. Hell, even Fourier's heat equation leads to quantisation! Bound eigenvalue problems do that.

No, we're not going to see a return to de Broglie's "matter waves" anytime soon. We don't need to: much of QM is more than adequately explained with probability amplitudes, no 'real' waves needed, thank you!

Thersites said...


FreeThinke said...

Zizek is wrong when he expresses disdain for Mr. Trump's promise to nominate "Right Wingers" to the Supreme Court, of course. All we need to do is look at places like Detroit –– and most blackened, burned-out, crime-ridden, drug addicted, violence prone, wrecked, decayed, and hideously impoverished cities to understand what "Leftist Activism" can do once it gains ascendancy.

The idiotic assumption –– or canard –– Leftists continually put forth –– that "Right Wingers" are eager to reestablish Jim Crow –– and eventually reinstitute SLAVERY –– is an out-and-out LIE repeated by the Left SIMPLY to gain, maintain and enhance their DEATH GRIP on POLITICAL POWER over all the desperate, degraded, degenerate, hopeless elements the LEFT has CREATED with their WICKED policies.

That certain elements keep voting for the crypto-Marxists should be regarded as positive PROOF of those elements' complete inability to govern themselves with even a modicum of wisdom or intelligence. The reason this is true must be laid at the feet of the misnamed "Progressives" whose patronizing, condescending, emasculating policies have systematically weakened and rendered impotent the targeted groups the Left has ardently PRETENDED to want to HELP.

With "friends" like Karl Marx, Rosa Luxembourg, Antonio Gramsci, the Frankfurt School, Woodrow Wilson, Emma Goldman, Saul Alinsky, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, William Kunstler, Morris Seligman Dees, and HILLARY CLINTON ostensibly on your side, you have no need whatsoever for ENEMIES.

FreeThinke said...

This is an admission of hopeless ignorance on my part. I have no doubt that Gert really knows what he is talking about in his last post on Quantum Theory, was it?

BUT–– and I say this with modesty and not rancor –– Gert has not expressed his superior knowledge of an abstruse, esoteric body of highly-specialized knowledge in ENGLISH. Instead, he uses what-appears-to-me-to-be Scientific JARGON –– the language of an inner Circle in the Know.

All I ask is this: Would it be possible to explain these concepts in words comprehensible to a highly-literate-but-woefully-ignorant layman? Or must one be born with a mysterious "Science Gene" that enables one to grasp such matters intuitively?

Thersites said...

"There is no royal road to geometry." (μή εἶναι βασιλικήν ἀτραπόν ἐπί γεωμετρίαν, Non est regia [inquit Euclides] ad Geometriam via) - Reply given when the ruler Ptolemy I Soter asked Euclid if there was a shorter road to learning geometry than through Euclid's Elements.

In other words, it's pure "deductive" reasoning (ala Parmenides) with few Heraclitian "leapers". For it literally takes a "leap" of logic and faith to move from the side of the Copenhagen Interpretation to the side of a "Classical" theorist (and visa versa).

FreeThinke said...

I give-up!


(That's a DUNCICON in case you didn't recognize it.)

Gert said...

"Gert has not expressed his superior knowledge of an abstruse, esoteric body of highly-specialized knowledge in ENGLISH."

As Blackadder said to Baldrick: "I'd have to teach you to read first and that could take 10 years!" Without knowledge of that HARD thing you studiously avoided studying, i.e. math, it's very hard to explain or understand.

Your sentence above carries enough ignorance to be out off trying to teach you to tie your own shoe laces. QP is widely regarded as the most successful scientific paradigm ever, with astonishing predictive power. And with applications all around you, unless you live in a cave (which in your case can't be a priori excluded, of course) You're basically an anti-scientific arsehole.

As Richard Feynman (OOOO! A Jooooo!) once remarked: "if you think you've understood it [QP], you've probably not studied it enough!", so after 20 years of it I don't pretend to fully either, even though I teach it.

Perhaps you could try Leonard Susskind's "The Theortical Minimum" but Susskind's another Joooo!

As regards your 'political opinions', The Onion does a much better job than you. You're not a Free Thinker but certainly very, very low cost...

-FJ said...

Science and politics (humanities) have little to do with one another. And anyone who thinks that a scientific background is an aid to formulating political statagem's is only fooling himself.

Gert said...

"And anyone who thinks that a scientific background is an aid to formulating political statagem's is only fooling himself."

And where on Earth did I make that point?

FT is an arsehole, like you rarely meet in real life. Only the Murrican Tinkerwebs seem to produce such OTT types. See also his post on Clinton's sexuality: when 'anti-PCism' is worse that PCism, one should take a step back and maybe a little lie down. Or maybe thimbleful of whiskey... under the tongue for medicinal purposes.

Compared to FT, Beakerkin is a genius. Anyone who can't see Clinton/Trump isn't a false dichotomy is to stupid to have their 'balls broken'. ROFLOL.

Anonymous said...

Since physics is the ultimate constraint on the range of available possibilities, politicians (practitioners of "the art of the possible") should know (or be advised) and respect it.

-FJ said...

A politician's job is to finds ways to make the "impossible" possible, for their "laws" have nought to do with "physics".

-FJ said...

It's all about learning how to sing along! ;p