Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:kind of like the police (Score 1) 869

When you receive a mail from Nigeria, explaining you will receive several million dollars if you reply and follow instructions, you are totally certain this is a scam.

With religion this is the same. They are plenty of them, why this one should be true and every other false ? Their claims are extraordinary. They promise immense benefits. At some point, they want a share of your money. It's enough for me to be totally certain religions are scams.

Comment Re:Physics (Score 1) 287

Doesn't the Everett interpretation suggest you could be the Schroedinger cat, and 'you' wouldn't die, your body might in this reality, but each time you live on in another 'world'?

I can't explain better than Tegmark does in the article I linked.

And you're correct, I was making too strong a case that QM could be explained away by common sense, but I still think the weirdness is overestimated in almost every article on the subject.

Sure. Actually, things are simpler and paradoxes disappear with Everett interpretation.

Comment Re:Physics (Score 1) 287

Your position is perfectly valid. We don't have a direct access to physical reality itself. Current physics theories are successful but known to be incomplete.

At first view, quantum physic theory (because of the observer role) seems incompatible to physical realism. That is the philosophical stance that there is a reality independent from human mind.

What I wanted to point out earlier is that you can't expect a new, better theory, that supplant current quantum physic and where everything can be explained in a way compatible with common sense.

My feeling is that quantum physic is "true" in a sense that it help us to understand the world. So I tend to think that wave function may have a counterpart in reality itself. This means my preference goes to Everett interpretation.

This article of Tegmark and Wheeler is very good on the subject:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0101/0101077v1.pdf

Comment Re:Physics (Score 1) 287

Am I right if I understand what you think by: "Quantum field theory way to describe a particle by a superposition of two states is too weird to correspond to a physical reality." ?

I agree it is weird. I agree also that goals of a theory in physic is not to describe reality itself.

But, actual experiments demonstrate that it's not only current quantum physic theory that is weird. Any theory that would explain outcome of these experiments will have to include some sort of weirdness. Those experiment proves that naive materialism (Physical reality is based on matter) is wrong. I know that from Bernard d'Espagnat's book "On physics and philosophy.".

Comment Re:Physics (Score 1) 287

Personally I think spooky action at a distance isn't spooky at all. Consider the time-honored classic of two electrons in a correlated state being shot out of some device. Assume they are entangled in such a way that when you measure one to be up, you instantly know the other is down. Physicists will say, how could the other electron possibly know this, instantly. But a very simple explanation is that the device always shoots 1 up, 1 down. Sure you don't know if it's up or down until you measure it, but that doesn't make it spooky at all.

Except that other experiments show it doesn't work that way. It's not "you don't know if it's up or down until you measure it", it's you know it's in a superposition state of up and down that "decide" to be only up or only down only when you (or a detector) look at it.

Slashdot Top Deals

The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.

Working...