The bedrock physics uncertainty principle is a bunch of crap. It's just an artifact of math-challenged physicists doing their work in Hilbert space.Jan Dash (or any physics dude), try to prove me wrong!I say those trained as quants are better at physics than physicists...

criminy, put down some formula! doesn't have to be latexyou know I hope that quantum theory holds up very well experimentally? sometimes I think you're just trying to egg people on

QuoteOriginally posted by: zetacriminy, put down some formula! doesn't have to be latexyou know I hope that quantum theory holds up very well experimentally? sometimes I think you're just trying to egg people onz,As you know, Quantum theory doesn't hold up well at all experimentally for near field problems. It only holds if you average the crap out of results. That is, exact atomic dynamics are reduced to QM results if transformed by a smoothing (blurring) gaussian transform. The uncertainty principle is just the acknowledgement that QM is an out-ot-focus view of the real world.I'm not egging anyone on. The problem is that Hilbert space (Riemann manifold) does not allow torsion free manifolds...N

You do better N. Have you forgotten about string theory then ? Talk about your manifolds and the purest of pure maths!

> The bedrock physics uncertainty principle is a bunch of crap.It's not crap; it's just ignorance at the deepest level. If humans are still around in 200 years, when all is said and done with respect to "quantum theory interpretations", I'll bet people will eventually say "Einstein was right".

Last edited by Athletico on March 21st, 2006, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

QuoteOriginally posted by: Athletico> The bedrock physics uncertainty principle is a bunch of crap.It's not crap; it's just ignorance at the deepest level. If humans are still around in 200 years, when all is said and done with respect to "quantum theory interpretations", I'll bet people will eventually say "Einstein was right".You mean that God does not play dice and we live in a deterministic universe after all ? Holy cow!

- SanFranCA2002
**Posts:**649**Joined:**

Its far worse than you think. Nice show on PBS a few weeks ago. Seems physicists can't even agree on how ice melts. Ice. That stuff in the glass in front of you. Ice. Yet they think they have finance (and economics and everything else by some here who shall remain nameless) all figured out. I've time and again seen a direct relationship between arrogance and incompetence in practice. It also does not help their credibility that every couple of years I pick up a paper and someone discovers something that "changes everything" in how we should look at some physics issue. Kind of like a bunch of clowns running around with whoppie cushions.

QuoteOriginally posted by: SanFranCA2002Its far worse than you think. Nice show on PBS a few weeks ago. Seems physicists can't even agree on how ice melts. Ice. That stuff in the glass in front of you. Ice. Yet they think they have finance (and economics and everything else by some here who shall remain nameless) all figured out. I've time and again seen a direct relationship between arrogance and incompetence in practice. It also does not help their credibility that every couple of years I pick up a paper and someone discovers something that "changes everything" in how we should look at some physics issue. Kind of like a bunch of clowns running around with whoppie cushions.I was just thinking that in the shower tonight. Sorry.

- SanFranCA2002
**Posts:**649**Joined:**

If you are thinking about me in the shower, I think you might try to put more balance into your work/leisure time tradeoff.

QuoteOriginally posted by: NThe bedrock physics uncertainty principle is a bunch of crap. It's just an artifact of math-challenged physicists doing their work in Hilbert space.Couple of points:1/ Only mathematicians, quants Psychology students believe they have the answer to everything. Physicists tend to believe they are trying to model reality rather than there being an all encompassing truth.2/ HUP looks OK to me when I see how it has been derived. If anyone has a good proof as to why it is crap I'd like to see it (you can PM me in case you are concerned other people will steal it - I promise I won't submit it to the guys in Sweden and claim my Nobel prize!).QuoteIt also does not help their credibility that every couple of years I pick up a paper and someone discovers something that "changes everything" in how we should look at some physics issue. Kind of like a bunch of clowns running around with whoppie cushions. Like what? We are not again talking about universes based on the number 8. Pleeze!Seems to me still the issue is the wave function collapsibility - as nothing I have seen describes this effect sufficiently well.

- Cuchulainn
**Posts:**60471**Joined:****Location:**Amsterdam-
**Contact:**

QuoteOnly mathematicians believe they have the answer to everythingIn a sense, this is true. In maths, you define your world and then prove everything about it. With physics, you look at the stars and ask yourself, "well how did I get here?". Mathematicians don't have this problem.

http://www.datasimfinancial.com

http://www.datasim.nl

Approach your problem from the right end and begin with the answers. Then one day, perhaps you will find the final question..

R. van Gulik

http://www.datasim.nl

Approach your problem from the right end and begin with the answers. Then one day, perhaps you will find the final question..

R. van Gulik

QuoteOriginally posted by: rmaxQuoteOriginally posted by: NThe bedrock physics uncertainty principle is a bunch of crap. It's just an artifact of math-challenged physicists doing their work in Hilbert space.Couple of points:1/ Only mathematicians, quants Psychology students believe they have the answer to everything. Physicists tend to believe they are trying to model reality rather than there being an all encompassing truth.2/ HUP looks OK to me when I see how it has been derived. If anyone has a good proof as to why it is crap I'd like to see it (you can PM me in case you are concerned other people will steal it - I promise I won't submit it to the guys in Sweden and claim my Nobel prize!).QuoteIt also does not help their credibility that every couple of years I pick up a paper and someone discovers something that "changes everything" in how we should look at some physics issue. Kind of like a bunch of clowns running around with whoppie cushions. rmax,HUP looks great if you do your work in 1 or 2 dimensions, but from simple classical mechanics, you know that angular momentum in 3 dimensions is not in Hilbert space (Riemann manifold).z,Clearly you know NMR is not in S0_3, right?N

Last edited by N on March 22nd, 2006, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOnly mathematicians believe they have the answer to everythingIn a sense, this is true. In maths, you define your world and then prove everything about it. With physics, you look at the stars and ask yourself, "well how did I get here?". Mathematicians don't have this problem.Cuch,Yeah, but don't you think physicists should realize that QM must be at least as robust as classical mechanics? I guess they think Navier-Stokes disappears at atomic scales. Right...Their 'Hilbert space' has manifolds with holes. It's just silly.N

Last edited by N on March 22nd, 2006, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

QuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteOriginally posted by: Athletico> The bedrock physics uncertainty principle is a bunch of crap.It's not crap; it's just ignorance at the deepest level. If humans are still around in 200 years, when all is said and done with respect to "quantum theory interpretations", I'll bet people will eventually say "Einstein was right".You mean that God does not play dice and we live in a deterministic universe after all ? Holy cow!Yes, the dice comment is what Einstein tends to be remembered by, thanks for the sarcasm, but EPR was more about preserving locality than determinism.

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOnly mathematicians believe they have the answer to everythingIn a sense, this is true. In maths, you define your world and then prove everything about it. With physics, you look at the stars and ask yourself, "well how did I get here?". Mathematicians don't have this problem.Agreed - I am now awaiting the volley of feed back from the Psychology communitity......Erm - thought so.

GZIP: On