1. On Bohmian mechanics.
2. Innate beat induction in humans.
3. Correlation between IQ and cognative biases.
4. A letter that I too would like to see.
5. Theodosius Dobzhansky on evolution.
Dude, on the QM link… Will comment on others later..
According to Bohmian mechanics, quantum behavior only appears to be random because we do not have access to all the features that contribute to the dynamics of particles. The randomness of quantum mechanics is no more mys-terious than the unpredictability of a tossed coin, says the team. If you know the precise nature of the toss, the mo-tion of air currents in the room, and so on, you could completely determine whether the coin will come up heads or tails. However, since we don’t know all those details, the coin toss appears un-predictable to us
Sri, am getting a little old. Plus have been in jobless in most cleanrooms for the best part of last 5 years. So help me out here:
I was always under the impression that QM establishes that there is a limit of observation that cannot be breached, that given by the Std. Dev of inevitable error in measurement of space and time. The limit was h/2, I think.
Now, keeping it in the context of the example in the article, I think it is much easier to determine the coin toss condition and the air current condition in the room. And, more importantly, there are two states of (at least temporary) stability with a distinct but equal probability of happening, which, given the conditions above can be ascertained with 100% precision. Ok there are 3 states but I guess then we will have to talk about the lower probability of the third and so on.. but you get the picture.
So, looking through my old, jaded eyes, this IS what QM says too. Ok, probably QM will say that the precision is not 100% but 99.999…% owing to the possibility that all atoms in the coin will decide to polarize resulting in a net charge which may affect the spin in some way.
My problem with the above example is, its like using a 10X magnifying glass to see Cottrell Lomer locks and then saying that they dont exist because they werent seen when magnified. My problem is they were nto magnified enough.
Similarly, in the above example, the system was not micro enough.
No seriously, correct me if I am wrong. Am forwarding this to Prof Shenoy. Maybe he will have an opinion better than that of a mortal me.
Yes, I agree that analogy is too leaky. I suppose it was, a rather poor attempt, at demonstrating the idea behind a hidden variable theory.
It is consistent with QM in so far as saying that there will always be an uncertainty in measurement (never smaller than h/2). It is the cause of this uncertainty that is being debated.
Hidden variable theories, argue that this uncertainty is because of information that existed (or exists) but is now lost (and/or cannot be known). QM argues that there is no such hidden variable and that the uncertainty is intrinsic to a system. This is where the two interpretation, at explaining, the observed uncertainty differ.
That said, the article was mostly fluff. I am looking for something better to read about it. I think the Wikipedia page and its references are a starting point. Will let you know if I find something good.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.