Re: Quantum Physics

[Steve Johnson <***>]

> JZ: Please tell me that I do not have an impression
> that you are to discredit three decades' work of Max
> Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Louis De
> Broglie,
> Erwin Schrodinger, Wolfgang Pauli, Werner
> Heisenberg,
> and Paul Dirac by replacing their model with another
> model.... maybe a Newtonian relational hybrid model?

SJ: No, I'm merely asserting that QM is one model of
reality (or as RR would say the ambience) just like
General Relativity, just like Newtonian Mechanics, or
Ptolemaic cosmology. There is nothing pejorative in
saying that. One of the main point that Rosen tried to
emphasise throughout his work is that once people
stumble upon one successful Modelling Relation (such
as QM) they tend to forget that it is *still* a model
and after a while start thinking that the model is the
system itself. Quantum Mechanics is a model which
successfully fulfils the Hertz condition (modelling
relation commutativity) accross a wide spectrum of
circumstances but it too has a limited range of
applicability (just like any model). When the system
does not match what is predicted by the model it
becomes a "paradox" whereas it is only an indication
of the fact that the model is in need of tuning (or,
in rare cases, replacement)

As a side note I might add that it is well known that
Einstein throughout his life was not happy with
Quantum Mechanics as were many other prominent
physicists (e.g. David Bohm). Quantum Mechanics is
probably the most successful theory human mind has so
far produced (in terms of range of applicability and
accuracy of prediction) but this is exactly why Rosen
would warn us not to walk into the trap of identifying
it with science or with reality.

- Steve









--- Jerry Zhu <***> wrote:

> > SJ: All these statements are based on just one of
> > our
> > models, namely, Quantum Mechanics. You're
> implicity
> > according it a higher ontological status in saying
> > that  that's the way things "really" are at the
> > microscopic level. There is no reason for doing so
> > as QM is just another model.
> 
> JZ: Please tell me that I do not have an impression
> that you are to discredit three decades' work of Max
> Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Louis De
> Broglie,
> Erwin Schrodinger, Wolfgang Pauli, Werner
> Heisenberg,
> and Paul Dirac by replacing their model with another
> model.... maybe a Newtonian relational hybrid model?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>               
> __________________________________ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> All your favorites on one personal page ? Try My
> Yahoo!
> http://my.yahoo.com 
> 



                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250