----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 3:23 PM Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
A quick reply with a question. > Have you had a chance to look into superstring ideas? One thing that > goes away with that is the inability to determine a particle's location > and motion simultaneously, Given the fact that local realistic hidden variable theories have been falsified (both in the sense that they have formally been shown to result in predictions at odds with the predictions of QM and in the sense that the QM predictions for spacelike correlations have been experimentally verified), I tend to doubt any claims that a new theory is a local realistic hidden variable theory. To refresh my memory (I first heard about string theory about 25 years ago when the founder gave a physics colloquium at Wisconsin) I went and looked at a few websites. None mention non-locality or indicate that superstring theory is a realistic hidden variable theory. None indicate that it is nonlocal. All indicate that, at small enough scales, the indetermancy is in the structure of spacetime itself. Can you point out where you got this impression? One problem with popular explainations is that it is very easy to write an explaination that gives the lay reader the wrong impression on a key point. I'm guessing that happened here. BTW, I did see the site on the "slits in time" and I'll reply in some depth later. A quick response is that this is a neat experiment, but the results it gives are very standard and should be expected from elementary QM. I'd be shocked if it didn't turn out that way. :-) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
