On 10/9/2014 10:46 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m166ia$u7a$2@dont-
email.me:

I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only thing
I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either -
just that it's the way the math works out.


That gets very (and unavoidably) metaphysical because the question becomes
whether the maths is a possibly flawed model, an extrapolation of some
original observation, or whether the maths as information is as fundamental,
if not more so, than mass-energy itself. After trying for some time, I
decided to let that line of inquiry drop.


I don't think it's really a metaphysical question, nor that the math is
flawed. I think it's more the inability to explain it to me due to my
lack of understanding of the basics behind it.

Looking back 50 years (back when subatomic particles such as quarks,
muons, etc. were still in an early theoretical stage), I wish I would
have become a theoretical physicist. Not that I would have won a Nobel
Prize or anything (I wouldn't), but I think my life would have been much
more enjoyable. I've always loved math, but at the time I had gotten
hooked on electronics. Not that I regret that decision - I don't. But
the more I see about what physicists are discovering, the more I want to
be involved.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m16b3a$d52$1@dont-
email.me:

I've always loved math, but at the time I had gotten
hooked on electronics. Not that I regret that decision - I don't. But
the more I see about what physicists are discovering, the more I want to
be involved.


I got into electronics too, but it had more to do with the little neon bulbs
than the maths. The things totally fascinated me as a kid. IO was never
good at maths, I only got to grips with logarithms because I needed them to
make a phase mod synth actually happen, with my own code.

Maybe my use of word 'metaphysical' is badly chosen, what I really mean is
that no usefully predictive theory (so far as I know) models information in a
coherently or structured link as mass is to energy. If it did the worth of
maths changes entirely from an explanatory device, to a means of actually
making stuff. The patterns of numbers are as 'out there' as any physical
discovery, so perhaps this is so. The bit that does get tangled with
metaphysics is that if this is so, then our thought (as well as our
observations, a fact already established in quantum theory) shapes our world
in ways more fundamentally direct than we usually imagine. It opens up
questions as to whether the ever present risk of war is due to the human
obsession with it rather than anything else, and perhaps the reason that
physists, despite having created the atomic bomb, tend not to 'do war'
precisely because they're usually too busy thinking deeply about other
things.

On 10/9/2014 11:54 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 10:46 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m166ia$u7a$2@dont-
email.me:

I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only thing
I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either -
just that it's the way the math works out.


That gets very (and unavoidably) metaphysical because the question becomes
whether the maths is a possibly flawed model, an extrapolation of some
original observation, or whether the maths as information is as fundamental,
if not more so, than mass-energy itself. After trying for some time, I
decided to let that line of inquiry drop.


I don't think it's really a metaphysical question, nor that the math is
flawed. I think it's more the inability to explain it to me due to my
lack of understanding of the basics behind it.

Right now I think your problem is that you are trying to think of
quantum mechanical theory in classical ways. QM doesn't require the
same things as classical mechanics. Often things just happen without an
underlying mechanism. Even in classical mechanics there are things
happening at the lowest level that we have to accept without
explanation, but we are used to that.

Here is an example. Why do like charges repel? There are a zillion
"why" questions that we just have to accept have no answers. But with
QM we get confused because the lack of answers are to questions we
normally can explain by CM hand waving.

--

Rick

On 10/9/2014 1:09 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 11:54 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 10:46 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m166ia$u7a$2@dont-
email.me:

I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only
thing
I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either -
just that it's the way the math works out.


That gets very (and unavoidably) metaphysical because the question
becomes
whether the maths is a possibly flawed model, an extrapolation of some
original observation, or whether the maths as information is as
fundamental,
if not more so, than mass-energy itself. After trying for some time, I
decided to let that line of inquiry drop.


I don't think it's really a metaphysical question, nor that the math is
flawed. I think it's more the inability to explain it to me due to my
lack of understanding of the basics behind it.

Right now I think your problem is that you are trying to think of
quantum mechanical theory in classical ways. QM doesn't require the
same things as classical mechanics. Often things just happen without an
underlying mechanism. Even in classical mechanics there are things
happening at the lowest level that we have to accept without
explanation, but we are used to that.


Yes and no. I'm also trying to consider it in the QM domain, but there
is just too much unknown about it. And while we may have to accept
things without explanation, that's only because we don't have the
explanation yet. Much like the Curies and Roentgen not being able to
understand radiation and X-rays, respectively, even though they could
observe the results.

Here is an example. Why do like charges repel? There are a zillion
"why" questions that we just have to accept have no answers. But with
QM we get confused because the lack of answers are to questions we
normally can explain by CM hand waving.


That's simple. The last time a guy approached me, I was repelled!
Unlike that cute gal at the bar last night... Too bad I'm married

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 10/9/2014 5:12 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 1:09 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 11:54 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 10:46 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m166ia$u7a$2@dont-
email.me:

I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only
thing
I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either -
just that it's the way the math works out.


That gets very (and unavoidably) metaphysical because the question
becomes
whether the maths is a possibly flawed model, an extrapolation of some
original observation, or whether the maths as information is as
fundamental,
if not more so, than mass-energy itself. After trying for some time, I
decided to let that line of inquiry drop.


I don't think it's really a metaphysical question, nor that the math is
flawed. I think it's more the inability to explain it to me due to my
lack of understanding of the basics behind it.

Right now I think your problem is that you are trying to think of
quantum mechanical theory in classical ways. QM doesn't require the
same things as classical mechanics. Often things just happen without an
underlying mechanism. Even in classical mechanics there are things
happening at the lowest level that we have to accept without
explanation, but we are used to that.


Yes and no. I'm also trying to consider it in the QM domain, but there
is just too much unknown about it. And while we may have to accept
things without explanation, that's only because we don't have the
explanation yet. Much like the Curies and Roentgen not being able to
understand radiation and X-rays, respectively, even though they could
observe the results.

That is an assumption. There are many aspects of QM that simply don't
have an underlying reason. At least when they do the math it simply
says this will happen without an explanation. QM is full of that sort
of thing. Classical mechanics has fewer things that aren't based in
deduction.


Here is an example. Why do like charges repel? There are a zillion
"why" questions that we just have to accept have no answers. But with
QM we get confused because the lack of answers are to questions we
normally can explain by CM hand waving.


That's simple. The last time a guy approached me, I was repelled!
Unlike that cute gal at the bar last night... Too bad I'm married

Ok. But no understanding of the why, eh?

--

Rick

On 10/9/2014 7:02 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 5:12 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 1:09 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 11:54 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 10:46 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in
news:m166ia$u7a$2@dont-
email.me:

I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only
thing
I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either -
just that it's the way the math works out.


That gets very (and unavoidably) metaphysical because the question
becomes
whether the maths is a possibly flawed model, an extrapolation of some
original observation, or whether the maths as information is as
fundamental,
if not more so, than mass-energy itself. After trying for some time, I
decided to let that line of inquiry drop.


I don't think it's really a metaphysical question, nor that the math is
flawed. I think it's more the inability to explain it to me due to my
lack of understanding of the basics behind it.

Right now I think your problem is that you are trying to think of
quantum mechanical theory in classical ways. QM doesn't require the
same things as classical mechanics. Often things just happen without an
underlying mechanism. Even in classical mechanics there are things
happening at the lowest level that we have to accept without
explanation, but we are used to that.


Yes and no. I'm also trying to consider it in the QM domain, but there
is just too much unknown about it. And while we may have to accept
things without explanation, that's only because we don't have the
explanation yet. Much like the Curies and Roentgen not being able to
understand radiation and X-rays, respectively, even though they could
observe the results.

That is an assumption. There are many aspects of QM that simply don't
have an underlying reason. At least when they do the math it simply
says this will happen without an explanation. QM is full of that sort
of thing. Classical mechanics has fewer things that aren't based in
deduction.


Not that we understand at this time. Just as there weren't underlying
reasons to the Curies and Roentgen.


Here is an example. Why do like charges repel? There are a zillion
"why" questions that we just have to accept have no answers. But with
QM we get confused because the lack of answers are to questions we
normally can explain by CM hand waving.


That's simple. The last time a guy approached me, I was repelled!
Unlike that cute gal at the bar last night... Too bad I'm married

Ok. But no understanding of the why, eh?


Oh, I understand why - very well! To both cases.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

rickman wrote in :

That is an assumption. There are many aspects of QM that simply don't
have an underlying reason. At least when they do the math it simply
says this will happen without an explanation. QM is full of that sort
of thing. Classical mechanics has fewer things that aren't based in
deduction.


CM and QM have more in common than I was led to beleive at first, especially
when it comes to direct observations. My first reading told me that position
and momentum (as well as time and energy) were two mutually exclusive
proprties, one being known while the other could not be known. The
'Heisenberg Uncertaintainty Principle (though I think there was a Pauli's
Exclusion Principle somewhere too, but I can't remember being told much about
that one, Heisenberg (and Bohr) were the big names in anything I read.

Anyway, I ended up with some thought experiment. (Good enough for
Schroedinger, good enough for me...) I imagined a dancer leaping across a
stage. I imagines a photographer adjusting the exposure time of a camera to
capture each moment, trying to get the best out of the uncertain light and
timing. I decided that as an aggredate of particles, the dancer, and the
film, and the passing photons, should still show something of the QM
behaviour, very directly, straight to out human perception. If it were not
so, how could we make ANY observations to prove any theory?!

I realised that a logn exposure would blur the image, giving big clues as to
the momentum of the ebent but blurring the position, and conversely a short
exposure can get precise position and leave a great deal of uncertainty about
momentum, for example motion of an arm relative th the rest of the dander's
body.

Some years later the things I read about QM started saying this too! That the
degree of informational accuracy about one property WAS on a continuum of
certainty, just as in CM observations. This did not surprise me, but it did
please me better than the older notion of absolute 'focus' on one or the
other. Perhaps books for laymen just got better written, I don't know...

This went further though. I also decided that after examining the photo at
length, and considering other contexts after the event, both position AND
momentum could be known with precision.

I'll admit to being surprised when that too was recently stated by scientists
to be the case for QM too, as well as CM. it is now recognised that AT THE
TIME OF THE EVENT, the uncertainty priciple applies, but there is what I call
a temporal bandwidth that applies, outside of which more certainty is had
about both properties.

My current thought is that eventually QM, having belped build the tools that
see where Bohr said we could not see, will also show us a great deal about
our perception of time, and therefore time itself.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

Looking back 50 years (back when subatomic particles such as quarks,
muons, etc. were still in an early theoretical stage), I wish I would
have become a theoretical physicist. Not that I would have won a Nobel
Prize or anything (I wouldn't), but I think my life would have been much
more enjoyable. I've always loved math, but at the time I had gotten
hooked on electronics. Not that I regret that decision - I don't. But
the more I see about what physicists are discovering, the more I want to
be involved.

FWIW I started out to be a theoretical physicist then read a bunch of
salary surveys comparing pay scales for various science related professions.

I changed my major to engineering the next day.


--
Jim Pennino