“Einstein had objections to its implications and apparent incompleteness. He was completely comfortable with how it was used to make successful predictions.”
I mean “Einstein had trouble with it” in the following sense: Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature that QM implied. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly. Einstein's view was what would now be called, a hidden variable theory. Hidden variable theories might seem to be the most obvious way to incorporate the Uncertainty Principle into physics. They form the basis of the mental picture of the universe, held by many scientists, and almost all philosophers of science. But these hidden variable theories are wrong. The British physicist, John Bell, who died recently, devised an experimental test that would distinguish hidden variable theories. When the experiment was carried out carefully, the results were inconsistent with hidden variables. Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and cannot know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to God being an inveterate gambler, who always throws the dice. “QM is the most predictive theory over the widest range of dimensions in history. It has certain odd implications, but in its simple application as tool to predict the outcome of experiments, it is perfectly well understood and completely unambiguous, even if statistical in nature.” How do you explain all the brouhaha over “spooky action at a distance”(a.k.a non-locality) This implies infinite parallel universes and tells you that you are just a 3D hologram projected from information laying on the 2D surface of the edge of the universe. String theory requires non-locality as per the pilot wave quantum theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle. A detailed QM study of LENR might resolve some of these theories and is worth the effort on this account alone. “Investigation of entanglement keeps a lot of people fascinated. That's true. But that doesn't make the theory less useful.” It is my contention that LENR requires non locality and entanglement to explain the lack of radioactive by-products derived from the reaction. “Not sure what you're referring to here. Surely not the heisenberg and schrodinger formulations, since they have been shown to be mathematically equivalent. And if you're referring to more philosophical interpretations like the Copenhagen interpretation, it's important to understand that these are more for peace of mind. In the applications of the theory to interactions, the predictions are not ambiguous.” I am referring to the pilot wave theory that will explain a lot of what is going on in LENR. “That's nonsense. Everything around us depends on QM, and most people accept everything around us. People won't accept LENR because the evidence sucks. Light a match and they'll agree there's heat. Plug in an ecat, and wait 2 hours for a cup of tea, and no one's gonna think it's a big deal.” IMHO in terms of QM, evidence of transmutation has been conclusively demonstrated in LENR(via Miley and Arata). For me transmutation and cold fusion is synonymous. If there is transmutation, there is cold fusion. Excess heat is just a red herring. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> For laymen, quantum mechanics (QM) is very hard to understand; even >> Einstein had trouble with it. >> > > Einstein had objections to its implications and apparent incompleteness. > He was completely comfortable with how it was used to make successful > predictions. > >> Experimenting with QM is even more difficult. If you look at results, >> they go away or become invalid. >> > > QM is the most predictive theory over the widest range of dimensions in > history. It has certain odd implications, but in its simple application as > tool to predict the outcome of experiments, it is perfectly well understood > and completely unambiguous, even if statistical in nature. > > >> Workers in the field have spent decades repeatedly redoing the double >> slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment, each trying to glean >> some new revelation into how the world of the small works. >> > > Investigation of entanglement keeps a lot of people fascinated. That's > true. But that doesn't make the theory less useful. > > There are even two major QM theories competing with each other; each >> having its own lists of acolytes; and each with differing implications for >> the view of the cosmos. >> > > Not sure what you're referring to here. Surely not the heisenberg and > schrodinger formulations, since they have been shown to be mathematically > equivalent. And if you're referring to more philosophical interpretations > like the Copenhagen interpretation, it's important to understand that these > are more for peace of mind. In the applications of the theory to > interactions, the predictions are not ambiguous. > > > >> Most people will not accept LENR in principle because they cannot accept >> QM as meaningful in their everyday experience: it is just too weird. >> > > That's nonsense. Everything around us depends on QM, and most people > accept everything around us. People won't accept LENR because the evidence > sucks. Light a match and they'll agree there's heat. Plug in an ecat, and > wait 2 hours for a cup of tea, and no one's gonna think it's a big deal. > > And as for scientists, especially physicists, quantum weirdness has never > been a barrier to accepting phenomena. They are skeptical of LENR for the > same reason: the paucity of good evidence. > >
