🚀 go-pugleaf

paul@mtnmath.UUCP (paul) writes:
: What does make be uncomfortable is talking about and even teaching metaphysical
: speculation as if it were established scientific fact. I challenge you or
: any readers of `sci.physics' to come up with any scientific basis for
: preferring the Cosmic Accountant (standard interpretation) theory of
: quantum collapse to the local mechanistic version.

There is no obvious experimental evidence showing "new physics", as would be
implied by a local mechanisitic theory.  Of course the attitude should be
"Well, we haven't found it yet, but there still might be some new physics
down there and you'll have to convince me real hard before I give up and
believe in conservation fairies" rather than the present "Father, Son and
Holy Ghost Three-But-One Don't-Ask-Questions My-Brain-Hurts
Nurse-Nuuurse-Nuuuuuuuurse" Quantum Credo (no offense to Catholics).

It's almost as if people don't want to bother to really look.  (Why?
Might small science actually get a Nobel Prize by accident?)

: Cosmic Accountant theory		Local mechanistic theory
: (Standard interpretation)
: ____________________________________________________________________________
: 
: Quantum collapse is instantaneous.	Quantum collapse has an unknown local
: 					Lorentz invariant structure.
: 
: Quantum collapse is caused by a	Quantum collapse has an objective
: sentient being making an		unknown cause and can be forced to
: experimental observation.		happen by experimental conditions.

: There is no mechanism to reconcile	There is an unknown local mechanistic
: quantum uncertainty with exact	process that explains both quantum
: conservation laws. It is as if a	uncertainty and exact conservation
: metaphysical Cosmic Accountant is	laws. This process is nonlinear and
: continually balancing the books.	probably chaotic. 

		I thought the whole point of the Bell theorem was to rule
any sort of theory of this second kind out.  Or am I misunderstanding?

Well, *local* exact conservation laws seems almost as much an "Act Of God",
right?  Or perhaps should we introduce fields and particles, say
'conservons' (No, _not_ Buchanan delegates... :-) ),  and other
semi-physical entities that are the mediators of the conservation laws?  We
don't believe in magic "interaction at a distance", we "exchange virtual
particles".  Why do we have to believe in "enforcement of conservation laws
at a distance"? 

How about this: interactions between explore all possible regions of
phase/parameter space (ergodicity due to chaos?) but the interactions with
the mediator of conservation laws result in a very strong repulsive force
for all configurations that don't obey the law.  "Inviolable"
Classical conservation 'laws' can come out of Quantum dynamics in the right
regime, right? 

Perhaps this new enforcer field quantizes things as well?  (only 1/2 integer
charge states are stable?) And the largest Lyapunov exponent of this field
is hbar?  (is h-bar always good for *all* time scales?)

The present way of working is to put "law" into the mathematical "structure"
of things...but perhaps we should be looking for it in emergent dynamics,
instead?  Describing what a Mandelbrojt set looks like is much harder than
describing how it got there.  Remember, CP invariance was 'law', until it
wasn't.

: Randomness in quantum mechanics is	This nonliner process produces
: fundamental. No more complete model	(probably because of its chaotic
: is possible.				nature) the apparent randomness of
: 					quantum mechanics. Quantum collapse
: 					may be a completely deterministic
: 					process.

I like the sound of this.  I might have a job in the future. :-)  Can
a nonlinear dynamicist derive Planck's constant? 

Sorry for the raving,
Matt Kennel
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu

: Paul Budnik