From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 04:36:19 EDT
Richard McGough wrote in part:
>In response to my statement that "somebody who knew first year quantum physics should have mentioned that physical states generally involve infinite superpositions of eigenstates" you said:
>>Well I have had first year quantum physics. And what I read doesn't agree with what you are saying. there is only an infinite summation if there are an infinite number of different states for the system.
I've had a whole lot more quantum physics than the first year, but what always impressed me was how difficult it was to know exactly how to apply the principles to the real world, especially how to apply them to matters such as cosmological questions that seem quite unrelated to typical topics of grad-school physics. These sorts of applications require a feel for the subject that few students come away with solely from the course work. There are lots of pitfalls. The crux therefore is not what first-year quantum teaches, but how those lessons apply--if at all--to cosmology. I've forgotten most of what I'd learned, so I can't make a technical contribution here without putting in more effort than I'm prepared to do; but just on basic principles I think it's inappropriate for you guys to be talking down to one another. Knowledgeable people are having a fundamental disagreement. If Richard is correct, it would be helpful for him to make his case so clearly and simply that Tegmark would immediately see the error of his ways. I'd be interested. And if he can do that, he should indeed honor his obligation to present it to the relevant public audiences.
I agree with Richard, incidentally, that the May sciam cover was grossly inappropriate for a scientific magazine. No one has come close to establishing the existence of parallel universes, and I suspect no one ever will. Thus with parallel universes we're on the road back to philosophy again. And maybe sciam is on its way to becoming a tabloid.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard McGough
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:16 PM
Subject: RE: Predeterminism and parallel universes
Hi Glen,
You wrote:
>If you are correct, then I would challenge you to write a letter or article to a PEER-REVIEWED physics journal pointing out the simple and supposedly stupid error that Tegmark made. It would be good for you to go through the same peer review so that we can be sure that your criticisms are valid.
I think I would prefer to have the issue settled here. To my understanding, many folks here are fully competent to judge such "small matters" as this. My criticism is not very involved - it would fit in a single paragraph in the letter to the editor. There is no need for what you suggest.
>Gee, then I guess, G.F.R. Ellis, a 'minor' figure in cosmology today, makes the same mistake.
Sure, why not? I'm not into authority worship. He wouldn't be the first great mind to err. May I suggest you read Jeremiah 17.5 and Proverbs 3.5f?
You seem to be retreating from logical argument to empty challenges and name dropping.
In response to my statement that "somebody who knew first year quantum physics should have mentioned that physical states generally involve infinite superpositions of eigenstates" you said:
>Well I have had first year quantum physics. And what I read doesn't agree with what you are saying. there is only an infinite summation if there are an infinite number of different states for the system.
You then went on to blunder through some first year QM. It took me a while to figure out your fundamental confusion, but I got it now. It stemmed from the ambiguity of the phrase "infinite supperpostion of eigenstates" which by itself could mean either
1) A single state that results from summing an inifinite number of eigenstates
or
2) An infinite number of states that are each superpositions of eigenstates.
You wrote a great deal about #1, as if it were somehow a response to something I wrote. Your confusion of #1 for #2 appears incomprehensible in light of the fact that my WHOLE ARGUMENT was based on the infinite number of distinct states that can be formed by linear superposition of two eigenstates in the form of a FINITE SUM:
|s> = a|u> + b|d> with aa* + bb* = 1
This is the equation I wrote in my original post. My point stands.
You really seem to be in way over your head, Glen. You simply are not tracking the argument. The things I am saying really are first year quantum physics. What is your occupation? Are you an academic?
You then went on to quote more calculations from Tegmark (from a different publication) that contained the same flaws as the original, namely, he treats all possible physical configuations in the binary "there is or is not a proton at point (x,y,z)." This approach is not merely silly, it is unphysical. It doesn't match any model of reality, and it completely ignores the FACT that the number of possible physical configurations of finite systems can be and typically is INFINTE. His tiny little finite number 2^10^118 is ludicrous. It should be obvious to anybody with knowledge of physics, even those familar with only classical mechanics since there also is a continuous infinity of classical states.
Finally, you left us all with yet another profound insight into your own character:
>In that way, you can show everyone that you are correct and he is a hopeless incompentent.
Yes, well, your words speak for themselves.
B'Shem El Elyon,
--
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at http://www.BibleWheel.com
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 03 2003 - 04:31:54 EDT