A website from the Institute of Physics

• Sign in
• Forgotten your password?
• Sign up
• Contact us

5 comments

Comments on this article are now closed.

• 1
  John Duffield Mar 4, 2013 9:07 PM United Kingdom

  I'm with Einstein, and I didn't like this. It suggests that Einstein was unhappy with Quantum Mechanics rather than with the Copengagen Interpretation. And it throws in the usual Bell mythology. See J.S. Bell's Concept of Local Causality by Travis Norsen, where you can read this:
  
  Many textbooks and commentators report that Bell's theorem refutes the possibility (suggested especially by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in 1935) of supplementing ordinary quantum theory with additional ("hidden") variables that might restore determinism and/or some notion of an observer-independent reality. On this view, Bell's theorem supports the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation. Bell's own view of his theorem, however, was quite different. He instead took the theorem as establishing an "essential conflict" between the now well-tested empirical predictions of quantum theory and relativistic local causality...
  
  M: Schrodinger proposed his cat to show how ridiculous the Copenhagen Interpretation was. But like Bell's Theorem it's been hijacked by people who promote quantum weirdness and dismiss anything to the contrary. See Jeff Lundeen's website re direct measurement of wavefunction. It's something real, not some magic probability. Note in his semi-technical explanation he says "We hope that the scientific community can now improve upon the Copenhagen Interpretation". Also see Joy Christian's papers on arXiv. He's been savaged for daring to challenge the quantum mysticism which this soundbite promotes.

  • Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
• 2
  M. Asghar Mar 8, 2013 3:53 PM

  Rule of scales

  It seems that Einstein failed to realise that God imposes rule of scales on its manifestations, where one scales operates without any scale and the other goes by it and the beauty of the things is that one passes smoothly from one to the other.

  • Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
• 3
  vug Mar 10, 2013 4:38 AM

  Quote:

  Originally posted by John Duffield View comment

  Also see Joy Christian's papers on arXiv. He's been savaged for daring to challenge the quantum mysticism which this soundbite promotes.

  Joy Christian's paper has mathematical errors in it, hence his theories are incorrect. It is not because he challenged quantum theory but simply because he was wrong.

  • Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
• 4
  peerally Mar 15, 2013 7:36 AM Vacoas, Mauritius

  Einstein and Dice Playing

  Having myself extended Einstein's GR and SR with a new universal law of relativity integrating the two(SAJS:104, 221-224)I have come to understand Einstein very well. The video presenter says that Einstein made the famous statement maybe because he felt that an all-powerful God would do things straightaway and not resort to probabilistic procedures. Actually I don't think so. Einstein himself was deeply materialistic and that was also the reason why he spent so msny of his last years until his last night in hospital trying to unify gravity and EM fields.Einstein was profoundly "scientific" and felt there should be eventually fairly obvious ways of understanding physical realities. That was not a huge mistake on the part of Einstein but it is simply that the period of his work was not conducive to unraveling the mysteries of the universe. In the same manner later Feynmann went to the other extreme as mentioned in the other video on wavefunction reality: Nobody understands quantum theory and did he also say don't try to. Actually both of these greatest minds of our species could be wrong. We know definitely Einstein was wrong on quantum reality. Feynmann too could be wrong for we scientists, however good we are, tend to suffer from a syndrome of being too or over scientific sometimes. We have to be careful when we say "never".much better would be "never say never". Actually what i mean is that even quantum reality could be well understood and I will give a bit of my deeper thoughts soon after my present paper on the "ultimate culture" is published. We might be near to some conceptual breakthroughs which would make say the Schrodinger's Cat analogy, a good one apart from its historical value, suitable for teaching in Secondary Schools.

  • Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
• 5
  M. Asghar Mar 16, 2013 11:12 AM

  QM with its rules

  peerrally, appreciated your thoughts about QM which is complete descipline within its own rules of scale. The conceptual difficulty comes, when one remains stuck in the framework of CM with its own rules. However, one knows also as to how to pass smoothly from one to the other. Of course, the perpetual citing of Einstein and others in this context(good for the media) makes the things confusing and convoluted.
  
  Quote:

  Originally posted by peerally View comment

  Having myself extended Einstein's GR and SR with a new universal law of relativity integrating the two(SAJS:104, 221-224)I have come to understand Einstein very well. The video presenter says that Einstein made the famous statement maybe because he felt that an all-powerful God would do things straightaway and not resort to probabilistic procedures. Actually I don't think so. Einstein himself was deeply materialistic and that was also the reason why he spent so msny of his last years until his last night in hospital trying to unify gravity and EM fields.Einstein was profoundly "scientific" and felt there should be eventually fairly obvious ways of understanding physical realities. That was not a huge mistake on the part of Einstein but it is simply that the period of his work was not conducive to unraveling the mysteries of the universe. In the same manner later Feynmann went to the other extreme as mentioned in the other video on wavefunction reality: Nobody understands quantum theory and did he also say don't try to. Actually both of these greatest minds of our species could be wrong. We know definitely Einstein was wrong on quantum reality. Feynmann too could be wrong for we scientists, however good we are, tend to suffer from a syndrome of being too or over scientific sometimes. We have to be careful when we say "never".much better would be "never say never". Actually what i mean is that even quantum reality could be well understood and I will give a bit of my deeper thoughts soon after my present paper on the "ultimate culture" is published. We might be near to some conceptual breakthroughs which would make say the Schrodinger's Cat analogy, a good one apart from its historical value, suitable for teaching in Secondary Schools.

  • Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor