On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:05:39 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 10:45:12 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 8/27/2019 11:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:21:12 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> >>> Maybe Neumaier is a good enough physicist not to let his theological >>> beliefs influence his physics. Don Page is another such whose name springs >>> to mind. Neumaier's rejection of the reality of virtual particles and >>> quantum foam is soundly based on his good physics. >>> >> >> >> >> >> https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/interview-mathematician-physicist-arnold-neumaier/ >> >> He seems more of a dabbler in physics to me. He is primarily a >> mathematician. >> >> The problems that these additional elements in the traditional >> interpretations are supposed to solve are sidestepped in the thermal >> approach by realizing basic but previously overlooked facts: The first is >> that we never ever measure directly something microscopic. Instead we >> deduce the microscopic information indirectly from macroscopic measurements >> together with some theory relating it to the microscopic system of >> interest. The second fact is that a macroscopic observation is simply the >> deterministic reading of an ensemble expectation value, and not (as >> postulated in the conventional interpretations) an intrinsically random >> event governed by Born’s probabilistic rule. Both facts together eliminate >> the validity of all no-go theorems for a realistic interpretation of >> quantum mechanics. >> >> >> There's nothing new about an ensemble interpretation, but it is >> effectively a hidden variable theory and so is non-local. That's why it's >> not popular. >> >> Brent >> >> >> > I any case, reading about his > > * thermal interpretation of quantum physics (including quantum > mechanics, quantum field theory, quantum statistical mechanics**, and > application)* > > https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/therm/ > > (and there are comments in some forums on this interpretation) seems "out > there", and his home page > > God excels in loving those He wants to love. > He excels in forming those He wants to form. > He excels in trying those He wants to try. > He excels in testing those He wants to test. > > God excels in destroying what He wants to destroy. > He excels in creating what He wants to create. > > God is perfect in everything. > <https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/eng/perfect.html> > All powers are His, > From the dawn of history into all eternity. > > This is why it is safe to be in His arms, > Like a small child loved by his mother. > > As all those who want to follow His lead, > He loves me <https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/eng/joy.html>, > and I love Him > <https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/eng/arms.html>. > > https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/ > > > > leads one to come to the crackpot diagnosis. > > He seems to do some good mathematics and numerical analysis, bit outside > of that ... > > @philipthrift >
Phil, how about your considered opinion of his analysis of virtual particles? As Bruce indicated, some scientists are able to put aside their religious beliefs in analyzing physical theories. TIA, AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/730e4bf5-3688-45d7-9908-ceed4b1f9c65%40googlegroups.com.
