Newsgroup sci.physics 244417

Directory

In article <33B35962.6A41@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>, Klaus Kassner  writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> 
> 
>> >It was my understanding that QM does state (or at least insinuate) that
>> >particles have a definite position/velocity; it is the observation of them
>> >that cannot be definite.  Am I wrong or just nit-picking?
>> >
>> Certainly not nitpicking, this is an essential issue. Well, I'll state
>> what I know and leave the field to experts.
>> 
>> QM is a wave theory. 
>
>Schroedinger's version is a wave theory. There are alternative
>formulations
>of quantum mechanics which hardly can be characterized as wave theories:
>Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, Feynman's path integral approach.
>
Heisenberg's matrix mechanics is isomorphic with Shroedinger's 
formulation, thus it is also a wave formulation though it is not 
immediately visible.  As for Feynman's path integral approach, it is 
nearly identical with the Huygens wave formalism.  The "waviness" is 
built into it.
>> Now waves cannot have a well defined position
>> and momentum at the same time, and I mean really cannot have, not just
>> "it is unobservable".  That's inherent in the nature of waves and has
>> nothing to do with QM.  It is equally valid for classical waves.
>
> >> Which leaves the question "what is the relationship between the wave
>> as defined by, say, Shroedinger Equation, and the particle it
>> represents". 
>
>
>Right. Nicely put. 
>
>
>> The Copenhagen Interpretation says in effect that "the
>> wave is the particle, period". 
>
>Maybe that is the best way to say it in a single sentence. But
>I think it does not do justice to the complexity of the Copenhagen
>interpretation.
Probably.  But, it is about as much as you can put in a single 
sentence.
>I believe, that a follower of this interpretation
>would not deny, e.g., the objective existence of, say, an
>electron. But he would deny that the wave function of this 
>electron is objective. Thus the wave function is *not* the particle.
>It is just the maximum information we can have about it.
>
Yeah, that's better.
Mati Meron                      | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu         |  chances are he is doing just the same"

Archimedes Plutonium wrote some stuff
I don't think this is really an "or" question.  Most people who believe
in the Dust Cloud Origin accept the idea that the Earth has grown since
then due to cosmic dust.
After all, it would be looney to reject the fact that dust is making the
Earth larger.  On the other hand, at its present rate of growth, it
would have taken a lot longer to form then it did if this was the only
process involved.

On 26 Jun 1997, Tom Potter wrote:
> Anthony Potts  wrote in article
> ...
> > 
> > Part of the reason I am going into the city is that you can be accurately
> > rated.
> > 
> > If I am the best, I want to know I am.
> 
> "If you can make it there,
>  you can make it anywhere,
>  it's up to you,
>  N.Y.
>  N.Y."
> 
It's actually a big part of what drives me. I like competing, and I
particularly enjoy competing at something that I can do well.
At school, and through university, that was the way with academic
subjects, and I enjoyed them a great deal. Now, though, facing 40 years
sitting in a windowless box, pushing out research papers every few months,
I have lost interest.
Perhaps motor racing would be the answer, but sadly, I haven't got the
money to see if I could do it.
Much better, from my view, is to fins something where my numeracy will be
an advantage, and get back into the ring, as it were.
I can't wait.

Demosthones wrote:
> 
> Ok, here's one:  I'm looking at my groovy lava lamp now, I've noticed
> that there always seems to be one little blob of lava stuck just under
> the meniscus of the liquid in the lamp.  Why does it always stick
> there?
Man, are you stoned or what!!!!!
"Don't bogart that joint, my friend, pass it over to me......"
(Steppenwolf, from the film "Easy Rider.")

 If you could anwer this question it would greatly add to my prestige, and
I could gain one on a guy who thinks he knows EVERYTHING.
I f a gun is level and fires a bullet and I drop the same type of bullet
at the exact time the gun is fired both bullets will strike the earth at
the same time.
I say that the mass of the bullet is neglible whether shot or dropped and
its attraction to the center of the earth is equal.  Will both bullets hit
the ground at the same 
time ?

In article <5ousev$b66$1@carrera.intergate.bc.ca>, davidwei@cybermail.net writes:
>In <01bc77c8$43c85be0$e3f9a6cd@samuel.mauigateway.com>, on 06/13/97 
>   at 07:04 AM, "Chris Lieding"  said:
>
>>This is false.  Information CAN NOT move faster than c.  For information
>>to be transmitted it must be transmitted by some moving entity.  Light
>>(photons) are the fastest means of transmitting a signal.  If the author
>>of the comment "Information can move faster" still wants to hold to this
>>notion I would be fascinated by what means it is proposed that
>>information can be transmitted faster than light.
>
>However, one must wonder, if we can build a computer that uses low energy
>Tachyons as a mean of transmitting information... Oh well... we'll see if
>we can build something that can emit Tachyons at all...
>
The first question you should ask yourself is "do tachyons exist at 
all?"  So far there is absolutely no evidence for this.
Mati Meron                      | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu         |  chances are he is doing just the same"

On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Robert Stieglitz wrote:
> Yes, both bullets will hit at the same time. The two problems are
> IDENTICAL in the vertical direction ... the bullet, in each case,
> starting from rest (vertical) and falling the same distance to the
> earth under the same (gravitational) force.
> 
You need to be a bit careful here. The bullets will hit at the same time
if the air resistance can be neglected. This is normally the case when you
use snooker balls as your examples.
If air resistance is included (remember, force increses as the square of
the velocity, so the upwards component is greater on a bullet which has
horizontal velocity), then the dropped bullet will hit slightly sooner.
Generally, though, we should not take much notice of air resistance, as
the problem isn't normally about that.

On 27 Jun 1997, Tom Potter wrote:
> 
> A person can do all kinds of "intellectually challenging work"
> without sponging off other folks. One doesn't need
> multi-billion dollar atom smashers or space probes
> to do "intellectually challenging work" that is
But you do need it to research high energy physics well.
What, did you think that we just aid we needed them to protect our jobs?

In article <5oumg0$ev4@f1n1.spenet.wfu.edu>, ostasbd4@wfu.edu (Brian D. Ostasiewski) wrote:
> 25 Jun 1997 08:33:30 -0400 - Nathan Urban (nurban@sps1.phys.vt.edu) was like:
> : Not if it's an idealized tube, whose surface is infinitely thin.  That
> : would be 2-d.  (And since we're considering an idealized line, I see no
> : reason why we shouldn't consider an idealized tube.)
> So we're basically taking something equivalent to a piece of paper (but
> infinitely thin), so therefore it's 2D?  So since I can also fold a paper
> into a cube, is that also 2D?  An idealized cube?
The surface of a cube is intrinsically two dimensional, even when embedded
in a three dimensional space such as ours.  A solid cube, however, is
intrinsically three dimensional, because three independent numbers are
required to specify the location of a point within it.  Only two are
required to specify the location of a point on its surface.

Snorty Dog wrote:
> 
>  If you could anwer this question it would greatly add to my prestige, and
> I could gain one on a guy who thinks he knows EVERYTHING.
> 
> I f a gun is level and fires a bullet and I drop the same type of bullet
> at the exact time the gun is fired both bullets will strike the earth at
> the same time.
> 
> I say that the mass of the bullet is neglible whether shot or dropped and
> its attraction to the center of the earth is equal.  Will both bullets hit
> the ground at the same
> time ?
Yes, both bullets will hit at the same time. The two problems are
IDENTICAL in the vertical direction ... the bullet, in each case,
starting from rest (vertical) and falling the same distance to the
earth under the same (gravitational) force.

mkeon@ozemail.com.au writes:
>
>Don't particle accelerators indicate that muons have extremely short
>(microsecond) life cycles? 
 Yes and no.  Muons and pions were first studied with cloud chambers 
 taken up in balloons or carried up to mountain tops.  Accelerator 
 experiments refined those numbers.  The mean life is 2 micro seconds. 
>How *do* they reach the earth? 
 Time dilation is an important part of the answer.  Of course, 
 that can also be seen in laboratory experiments, and is even 
 more important for pions (mean life of 26 nano seconds). 
>I will not
>believe {subject keyword} that they could travel the 8 minute journey
>from the sun to the earth, or from distant galaxies, at light speed
>within relative microseconds. Because these (atmospheric) muons are
>gamma ray created, I imagine that they are created at the point where
>they are detected. 
 They originate from collisions of cosmic ray protons at high 
 altitude, which makes pions which decay to muons.  Same way 
 they were made at LAMPF (no LANSCE), by the way. 
 If they were created at the point where you detect them, you 
 have to explain how the cosmic ray got there and made the muon 
 without leaving all that other junk around.  We have a very 
 simple spark chamber that shows muon tracks as a lecture 
 demonstration -- nice clean lines are all you see. 
>The constancy of the speed of light is only "relatively" correct. 
 That is why the term "invariant" is preferred. 
>The mass of the earth clearly sets our local stationary. 
 There is specific evidence against that, observations such 
 as aberration of starlight, for example. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_ 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       | desired to this or any address 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  | that resolves to my account 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    | for any reason at any time. 

Wm James includes
     Call MIT, don't take my word for it.
I called MIT, and the telephone operator said she didn't know.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) writes: > In article <5ofrnr$jiv@netra.montana.edu> gmt1810@msu.oscs.montana.edu (Mark Tarka) writes:
> In what other field than economics could you get a Nobel prize for developing 
> the theory that people will generally act in their own self-interest?
> ************************************************************
> Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
>    526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville IL 60540, USA
>    630-548-3548, fax 630-369-9618, email wpenrose@interaccess.com
I agree with you 100% that it is idiotic to reward economists for
theories like that. And, I know that MANY do get so rewarded for
equally obvious theorems.  But, the worst
economists are the all the idiot commentators on television
and radio.  GOD, what an incredibly easy job they have: to spout
off opinion continuously without any concern for self-consistency
of their theories.
But John Nash and Debreu and other mathematician/economists 
and game theorists who
do the excruciatingly hard and difficult work of building CONSISTENT
mathematical models for commidity exchanges rightfully DO deserve
their Nobel prizes.
John Nahay

25 Jun 1997 08:33:30 -0400 - Nathan Urban (nurban@sps1.phys.vt.edu) was like:
: Not if it's an idealized tube, whose surface is infinitely thin.  That
: would be 2-d.  (And since we're considering an idealized line, I see no
: reason why we shouldn't consider an idealized tube.)
So we're basically taking something equivalent to a piece of paper (but
infinitely thin), so therefore it's 2D?  So since I can also fold a paper
into a cube, is that also 2D?  An idealized cube?
 --
  /|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\
 | Chief Miscer and Keeper of the Holy Misc Torch     ostasbd4@wfu.edu   |
 |           [CMNRC]                           ostasiew@mthcsc.wfu.edu   |
  \-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/

PROJECT OMICRON
GRAVITY CONTROL RESEARCH in the INTERNET
URL : http://www.cwo.com/~omicron/
Links to the propositions about theories and experiments.
Links to the corresponding site in German.
Here's a force that's right under our feet, passes through everything,
and holds the entire universe together. It works constantly
and has little variation. Yet, it's a total mystery to physicists and
mathematicians. It's time to solve this problem.
Join the project - add to the mailing list - contribute for better
understanding how gravity and the universe operates and help to find a
new, clean energy scource for better living! 
James E. Tracy - Project Omicron Administrator
omicron@cwo.com

Allen R. Sampson wrote:
> [snipped because netscrape complained...]
> However, a tennis ball is particularily well suited to produce friction
> through air and in contact with the ground.  A tennis ball with no
> rotation hitting the ground at an incidence angle < 90 degrees would
> have some of its energy translated to rotational energy, which would
> cause the ball to be bounced off the ground at a lower angle that the
> incident angle.  A tennis ball that hits the ground with top spin would
> have less of its energy translated to rotational energy.  In fact, it
> could hit the ground at a velocity and rotation that would result in no
> additional rotational speed and an exit from contact at an angle
> identical to the incident.  A tennis ball with bottom spin would have
> more of its total energy translated to rotational momentum - in this
> case contrary to the rotational momentum already present.  This would
> cause an increasing loss of total energy as the initial rotational
> momentum is increased.  If the majority of initial energy was
> rotational, then the loss of that energy could create a 'dead ball' that
> almost seems to lay down and die on the clay.
Very well said Allen... I agree 100% with your assessment, and your
intuition is right on target... However, I think this one says it
more in plain language that most [non-practitioners] people can
understand...
> I think it's merely that a topspin, when it hits the ground, it's turning
> in the direction that it's heading, therefore there is less drag/friction
> than the slice, where the ball is turning opposite the direction it is
> heading.  Air flow is probably a factor too.
Picture this little experiment... Acquire an inverted-V ladder
that will allow a person to extend his/her arm upwards to about
three or four meters. Take the tennis ball from ground position
to the highest one can reach while standing [SAFELY!] on the 
ladder. As you drop the ball with NO forward motion, i.e. just
downward, put some "English" on it and observe the horizontal
direction of the bounce. Technically, there should be a direct
correlation between the height, amount of "English," and the
horizontal bounce distance...
The biggest problem with this will be to put a consistent spin 
on the ball as it is dropped. Perhaps it be best to let the ball 
roll at a predefined, but minute angle off of a trough-like
contraption. Something long enough to give it a dozen or so
revolutions before it went into free-fall...
Ciao,
Bill B.
PS: This is a very interesting newsgroup. My news-server just
told me about it the other day. The NNTP server I use is kind
of slow.....B.

In article <33b3743c.1722502@news.ozemail.com.au>,
stix@REMOVEozemail.com.au (Stix) wrote:
> With due respect, Nishnabotna, don't make the error of claiming that the
> use of invectives or expletives in any way indicates a lack of ability to
> argue rationally. Unless said expletives are used *in place* of argument,
> or as an attempt to discredit an opponent without addressing the argument
> itself, expletives are merely indicative of tone, NOT lack of substance.
Sorry, but such conduct isn't accepted in scholarly debate.  Tone
indicates emotion, which starts to cloud objective thought, so it is
frowned upon.
> Those who conclusively claim, "you swear, therefore you are childish or you
> have no argument or....yada yada yada..." are merely expressing a
> subjective opinion, indicative of nothing other than their personal dislike
> of swearing. They're also committing the very same fallacy of which they
> accuse their opponent - just with nicer words. 
From experience, I can pretty well say that people who have to resort to
such language are rarely of exceptional intelligence or at least have
extreme difficulty communicating ideas to other people.
Use of langauge is highly connected to the process of thought.  If a
person cannot express himself without inflammatory or objectionable
language, it reflects quite a bit about how they think.
======================================================================
|                                |                                   |
| Nishnabotna Bend Technologies  | Visit us & request a free issue   |
| Advanced Technology Consulting | of our weekly security report. We |
| Networks-Security-Computing    | summarize current security news   |
| http://www.nishnabotna.com     | and alerts for you!               |
|                                |                                   |
======================================================================

In article <33b1a71f.415258@news.psn.net>, xyz@psn.net wrote:
> Omnipresent in human terms means ALL DIMENSIONS. That is because it
> means EVERYWHERE present. If God doesn't exist in some dimensions,
> then he isn't omnipresent.
Look up "omnipresent" in the dictionary.  It doesn't say "all
dimensions".  It probably says "everywhere", but since everywhere is a
word of human origin, it most likely means it only applies to the 3
dimensions we experience.
I'd be very suprised if the person who coined the word "everywhere" had
other dimensions in mind"
> So which part of God have you come to understand yet?
Some parts expressed in Christian theology, plus a smattering of other
belief systems.  
> And still others know for a fact that it is all made up.
Well, that's their belief.  It doesn't make it true.
> Since Zeus was evil and petty, does that mean that Jesus appeared in
> his evil and petty form?
Well it is just a story, but Jesus was crucifed for sin, so maybe that was
his "punishment".  Just a story.
> The Bible also is interesting fiction...your point was?
Fiction?  Hardly.  Lot's of provable history in there.  Maybe parts are
fictional, but certainly not the whole thing.
> God can't be proved and assume is another word for make-believe.
You must have a real hard time in the sciences.  Just what is your
background, anyway?
> Yes, it is an observed property of electrons.
But why is it the value that it is?
> How about no understanding whatsoever?
That seems to sum up your viewpoint quite nicely.
======================================================================
|                                |                                   |
| Nishnabotna Bend Technologies  | Visit us & request a free issue   |
| Advanced Technology Consulting | of our weekly security report. We |
| Networks-Security-Computing    | summarize current security news   |
| http://www.nishnabotna.com     | and alerts for you!               |
|                                |                                   |
======================================================================

 Bill Vance wrote in article <5otdm9$j28$1@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
>: > Very well, all that is not consistent w/ God's character (thoughts,
>: > deeds) is evil, not good, etc.  That's absolute, -not- relative.
>:     But that's according to YOUR book.  Suppose MY book say different.
>: Suppose
>: MY book says that what YOUR book says is evil.  Who is good and who is
evil?
>: Is it
>: subjective or objective?
>
>It is interesting to note that YOUR book is strictly imaginary and
doesn't
>exist, and is therefore invalid;  God and God's book however do exist.
>Didn't you get enough of playing, "lets pretend", as a kid?
What was the point of a personal insult?  I thought you were discussing
Evil/Good/God/NoGod.
Just because 'his book' has not been written does not invalidate the
argument, it would be a trivial task to actually write the book, or even
find an existing one that states what he wants.  The existance of ideas and
concepts is what is important, not the fact that someone wrote them down.

>:   He already [defined good and evil] for us (check out the Bible) making
it simple.
>
>:     The Bible is over 2000 yrs old and full of atrocities and errors.
>
>You forgot to mention that even the Biblical, "heroes", are there with
all
>their warts and pimples intact.  This is so that everyone there serves as
>example of the results of the good/evil, attrocities and errors being
>discussed.
There are lots of texts that are FAR older than the bible that state things
very differently.  Take the Roman or Greek gods for example, they are far
older then the God of the bible, but no one (or not many people anyway:)
still believes in them.
I think on of the intresting things about religions is the way their
policies change to suit society.  Take a look at what was considered normal
christian activity 2000 years ago, and compair to today.  As society shifts
toward more conservative behavior, so, too, do religious doctrines.
Cause... or effect?  Maybe a bit of both?
--
+------------------------------+------------------------------------+
|David Knaack                  | "...scanning the sky for [signals] |
|Email replies are appreciated,| from intelligent life.  One group  |
|but not necessary.            | has improved its ability to        |
+------------------------------+ distinguish human signals from the |
|Return address mangled, use:  | real things." Science 271, 1055.   |
|User      : dknaack           +------------------------------------+
|Domain    : rdtech.com        | 'Thou art god' - The Man from Mars |
+------------------------------+------------------------------------+

Nornus  writes:
>Human conciousness also seems to defy science.
No it doesn't. We are still making progress in understanding the mind.
As long as our understanding is growing it is incorrect to claim
that it "defies science."
>  The human brain can be
>mapped and described, the network of synapses and recievers charted and
>rationally reconstructed, expained as a complex chain of cause and
>effect,
Not yet it can't. We have make crude maps ar parts of the brain, but
no one has been able to map an entire human brain yet.
> but isn't conciousness something more than this?
I see no evidence to believe that there is something more.
>  The mind is
>NOT a computer, fixed to the strict rules of mathematics.  Computers are
>unable to emulate the creative decisions, and the seemingly random mix
>of emotions, feelings, intuitions, dreams, etc that create thoughts in
>the concious mind.
Sorry, but our inability to build computers that match the mind is
*not* evidence that the mind is somehow not just a machine. All it
proves is that our computers just aren't good enough yet.
We can't build a robotic hand that works as well as a human hand either.
Would you claim that our hands are something more than machines?
>  Yet the mind CAN operate as precisly as a computer,
>as  demonstrated by autistic individuals with incredibly accurate
>mathematical abilitys.
While some autistic individuals do have unusual abilities they
still aren't as good as a computer at simple computation.
>  How is it possible for such a super accurate
>logic machine to alternate between these two functional extremes with
>such ease?
I don't see that these two areas are all that "exterme."
>  It makes a case for some sort of external influence 
>manifesting itself in the illogical biological/electrical processes of
>the brain.
No it doesn't.
>As much as science wishes to ignore so called "paranormal" experiences,
>certainly the universality of their acceptance proves there are mental
>processes (a sixth sense?) that exist despite rational scientific
>explaination.
First, the paranormal is not "universally" accepted. You own admission
that science rejects it proves that your calim is over-stated.
Second, "universal acceptance" is never proof of anything.
At one time it was "universally accepted" that the sun went around the
earth.
>  The US government recently revealed data from a 20 year
>program that studied the so-called "remote viewing" phenomena.  The
>report states that these phenomena do exist, but paradoxically cannot be
>quantified by the exacting process of controlled laboratory science. 
>Therefore they do not exist in strictly scientific terms, but affect
>reality on a extra-scientific level, fluctuating in space/time. 
Please produce this report, I don't believe there was any such report.
The very idea is nonsense. How can something have an effect on the
universe and at the same time be unmeasurable?
>So, I guess I'd have to say "I believe" because unlike you, I cannot
>surrender my faith completely to the rational sciences.  Science is
>merely a logical construct of the HUMAN MIND, unnable to see beyond the
>limits of that medium and incapable of perceiving all that reality is. 
The fact that science is limited does not validate non-scientific
beliefs. They can be even more flawed than science.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Wiegand | Remove the "$" from my e-mail address before replying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The angry people are those people who are most afraid. - Dr. Robert Anthony

Nishnabotna Bend wrote:
> 
> In article , user@srmdel.demon.co.uk
> (Michael Lacy) wrote:
> 
> > Quite so.  I would also point out that the very fact that there 
> > are so many different religions seems to indicate that faith is 
> > _subjective_ not objective.  Hence it has no real connexion with 
> > reality.  Each goup has its own shared fantasy.
> 
> But the basic roots of belief are very similar.  Why is that?  
> Don't you wonder why?
There is a basic belief that alien's are short and thin with
big eyes and no hair.  Millions claim to have seen their
flying saucers and/or been abducted by them.  However almost
all of these claims come from North America.  Why is that?
Don't you wonder why?
Visions of the virgin Mary appear to millions of people, but
they are always Christain (usually Catholic).  Why is that?
Don't you wonder why?
Many people claim to be able to channel spirits of  the
dead. Many more believe these claims.  However the
spirits can never answer specific questions about the
times they lived.  For example the 10,000 year old spirit
from atlantis can't tell us where atlantis sank.  Why is that?
Don't you wonder why?
Many people claim to have psychic powers of telepathy,
clairvoyance, teleknisis, levitation, future prediction,
etc. However these powers always fail which put to the test,
ususally with the claim that 'skepics' give off bad vibes.
Why is that?  Don't you wonder why?'
The list goes on and on bigfoot, lochness monster, Elvis
sightings, astrology, all the religions you don't happen 
to believe in.  Hello? reality check.
Why?  Because its all fantasy.  People want to believe so
they do. 
Does it matter that people believe?  Ususally not, the gulible 
are just milked out of a few dollars. Unfortunatley sometimes 
its a matter of life and death, such as the millions of 'witches'
burned in the middle ages or people with 'faith' that God will 
heal their child when they really need a shot of antibotics or 
an operation.
Justifying slavery, killing abortion doctors, or intolerance 
of blacks and homosexuals are a few other down sides.

In article <33B33C06.4C93@earthlink.com>, Nornus says...
>As much as science wishes to ignore so called "paranormal" experiences,
>certainly the universality of their acceptance proves there are mental
>processes (a sixth sense?) that exist despite rational scientific
>explaination.  The US government recently revealed data from a 20 year
>program that studied the so-called "remote viewing" phenomena.  The
>report states that these phenomena do exist, but paradoxically cannot be
>quantified by the exacting process of controlled laboratory science. 
>Therefore they do not exist in strictly scientific terms, but affect
>reality on a extra-scientific level, fluctuating in space/time. 
You have made the claim. Why don't you cite a source where we can find out about
this supposed report.
Science has not ignored paranormal phenomena. They have been investigated. 
Where good controlled experiments are performed, paranormal phenomena 
disappear. The tighter the controls, the less paranormal stuff is seen.
You may say that this is because science doesn't work with ESP, but actually the
failure of psychics in controlled experiments demonstrates that psychic
phenomena do not exist as objective phenomena. Psychic phenomena, when we look
into them invariably turn out to be the product of bias, error, or outright
cheating.
>So, I guess I'd have to say "I believe" because unlike you, I cannot
>surrender my faith completely to the rational sciences.  Science is
>merely a logical construct of the HUMAN MIND, unnable to see beyond the
>limits of that medium and incapable of perceiving all that reality is. 
But this raises the question of how you choose what to believe. If you do not
rely on objective evidence, then you can believe whatever you want. "Truth"
becomes entirely a subjective matter, and the claims made upon by our belief
by the great world religions nothing but smoke. How can you possibly say then
that the claims made by Islam in favor of the Prophet are wrong, while the
claims made by Christianity in favor of Jesus are right? How about the Jews
who disbelieve in Jesus although they believe in God? 
If there is no objective basis for belief, then how do you choose your beliefs?
arn
#650
http://walt.stcloud.msus.edu/
lesikar@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu

Nishnabotna Bend wrote:
> 
> In article <33b9ee4a.2092465@news.execpc.com>,
> Raistlin@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com (Raistlin Majere, Archmage)
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >         You are arguing ad numerum--a logical fallacy.
> 
> >         Nope. It is mysticism that clouds yours.
> 
> >         Ad numerum.
> 
> >         You mean: let's throw out a false analogy.
> >
> >         That's all you ever do.
> >
> > Raist
> > alt.atheism atheist #51
> 
> Apparently, all you seem to do is throw out what you don't like.  I
> suprised you didn't thrown in "red herring", "strawman" and few of 
> your "mystical" terms that you use without further comment.
Rasit simply pointed out your logical fallacies.
> If that's your defense mechnaism, fine.  
If a argument contains a logical fallacy its conclution
is probably in error.  You can call it a defense mechanism
if you like, I call it separating reality from fantasy.
> I wish you luck in your tiny little world of "reason and logic".  
Yeah, yeah. And may the boogy man of your world not frighten
you in the dark.
> I for one like to experience and explore what lies "beyond" 
> our wordly existance.  
I hear may people in the 60's felt the same way.  However an
LSD trip is not reality.
> My computer works by
> reason and logic, and I see what a fulfilling life it leads.
My computer is not alive, but does enhance my life.

On 26 Jun 97 13:22:42 GMT, "Craig L. Hodder"  let it
be known that:
>
>
>Raistlin Majere, Archmage 
>wrote in article <33b30682.4136044@news.execpc.com>...
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:37:25 -0600, george@nishnabotna.com (Nishnabotna
>Bend)
>> let it be known that:
>> 
>> >In article <33B1816A.71E0@tronco.com>, Martin Deen 
>wrote:
>> >
>
>{snip}
>
>> >Whoa, whoa, whoa, back the truck up.  How can you assert the physical
>> >domain is the only domain?
>> 
>> 	How can you assert that the "spiritual" realm exists w/o any proof to
>> back you up?
>
>Raist, how can you accept the existence of some things using the descriptor
>"it just is," (from one of your other posts) when you do not accept the
>"just is" existence of something else?
	Er? What are you talking about?
>  You talk of logical fallacies,
>well... there's one for you.  If you cling that "it just is" is innaccurate
>in one case, then you must make it innacurate for all cases.
	Nope. Ex.: the universe "just is". It is a pre-requisite for existence.
It makes no sense to attempt to have existence w/o the universe.
Raist
alt.atheism atheist #51
Nothing is the miracle it appears to be--Simon Stevin

In article <33c17888.7288272@news.ozemail.com.au>,
stix@REMOVE.ozemail.com.au (Stix) wrote:
: Jim Sarbeck posted the following to alt.atheism:
: 
: >Stix wrote:
: 
: >: What other tools for gaining knowledge are you suggesting exist?
: >: 
: >Well, there are:
[genetic memory rebutted rather well].
: 
: >Dreams/subconscious processes (Kekule's realization of the structure of
benzene)
: 
: Still a branch of reasoning, whether conscious or subconscious.
You declare that subconscious processes are reasoning. By definition, you
cannot be know this to be fact. It sounds like you have found Truth (TM).
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

noone@nowhere.NOSPAM wrote:
>Why?  Because its all fantasy.  People want to believe so they do.
Please note that this also leads to the conclusion that, confronted by
irrefutable fact, people will disbelieve if they want to. It is very
easy to impute that the true God does not exist because there are so
many false gods, and after all, He is really hard to understand.
>  Unfortunatley sometimes
> its a matter of life and death, such as the millions of 'witches'
> burned in the middle ages
Pardon. I think that is a few thousand all togather. You would make a
stronger point by addressing the crusades, or the war to enslave ireland
> Justifying slavery, killing abortion doctors, or intolerance
> of blacks and homosexuals are a few other down sides.
Objection. Slavery was generally opposed by Jews and Christians the
world over, still is for that mater. Some rather bizar arguments in
favor of it have been produced but I don't think they are or were
accepted as sound theology anywhere. If the issue is killing and
abortion I suggest that you consider which religion accepts a woman's
{God given?) right to have her child murdered and justifies this by
conviniently calling the child a fetus, which term meerly addresses the
stage of development of the child and not it's nature or our duty toward
it. But you must live in another universe if you think that Christian
theology (which I think you are refering to by inuendo) requires
execution of abortionests. While some specific churches and
churchmembers may have had a lot of trouble with race, I suggest that
you review the demonstrations that finally broke us of those really
nasty habits of public prejudice, not all of them but many. The church
people you hate were leaders there, and often demonstrated our best
example of how we should be.

In article <33b9ee4a.2092465@news.execpc.com>,
Raistlin@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com (Raistlin Majere, Archmage)
wrote:
> 
>         You are arguing ad numerum--a logical fallacy.
>         Nope. It is mysticism that clouds yours.
>         Ad numerum.
>         You mean: let's throw out a false analogy.
> 
>         That's all you ever do.
> 
> Raist
> alt.atheism atheist #51
Apparently, all you seem to do is throw out what you don't like.  I
suprised you didn't thrown in "red herring", "strawman" and few of your
"mystical" terms that you use without further comment.
If that's your defense mechnaism, fine.  I wish you luck in your tiny
little world of "reason and logic".  I for one like to experience and
explore what lies "beyond" our wordly existance.  My computer works by
reason and logic, and I see what a fulfilling life it leads.
dixi
======================================================================
|                                |                                   |
| Nishnabotna Bend Technologies  | Visit us & request a free issue   |
| Advanced Technology Consulting | of our weekly security report. We |
| Networks-Security-Computing    | summarize current security news   |
| http://www.nishnabotna.com     | and alerts for you!               |
|                                |                                   |
======================================================================

On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 01:45:18 -0600, george@nishnabotna.com (Nishnabotna Bend)
let it be known that:
>In article , user@srmdel.demon.co.uk
>(Michael Lacy) wrote:
>
>> Quite so.  I would also point out that the very fact that there are so many
>> different religions seems to indicate that faith is _subjective_ not
>> objective.  Hence it has no real connexion with reality.  Each goup has its
>> own shared fantasy.
>
>But the basic roots of belief are very similar.  Why is that?  Don't you
>wonder why?
	Shared stories. People travel and spread stories.
Raist
alt.atheism atheist #51
Nothing is the miracle it appears to be--Simon Stevin

In article , user@srmdel.demon.co.uk
(Michael Lacy) wrote:
> In article ,
> hgibbons@stic.net (New South) wrote:
...
> >You're just offended that Liberals have learned to play the same
> >game that Conservatives have been playing with them.  They're defining
> >terms that have nice, friendly connotations for their ideas and 
> >unpleasant connotations for contradictory ideas.  Every, and I mean
> >EVERY political group engages in this, so it's ludicrous to chastise
> >Liberals for doing it.  
> 
> It is NEVER ludicrous to chastise someone for being an arrogant, decietful,
> hypocritical, sanctamonious prick.  It is time well spent.
> >They CAN'T stop doing it because it's human nature.
> 
> Are you sure its not because they were abused by their parents?  How
> politically correct of you to avoid blaming the perpetrators, and instead
> insinuate that they are 'victims' of forces beyond their control.  
> Bullshit.  It is the duty of civilised people to rise above the baser
> aspects of human nature.  Those who fail in this duty deserve all the
> oprobrium they get. 
This is the whole basis of what you call PC speech and the Liberal
opprobrium that is directed against those that use offensive, 
demeaning language to describe other people.  
> >But let me clarify what I said before.  Liberals define the term 
> >"politically incorrect" to mean "rude, insensitive or pejorative."
> >Those who define themselve to be that are either (a) ignorant or
> >(b) making an accurate self-assessment.
>  
> Or (c) deliberately opposed to the sanctimonious PC thought police and the
> hypocracy for which they stand.
So we'll summarize.  You are proposing that we refer to people who use
Liberal terminology as:
   * perpetrators
   * arrogant, decietful, hypocritical, sanctamonious pricks
   * sanctimonious PC thought police
People like yourself are referred to as "civilized."
Glad I have it straight now.
-- 
******************************************************************
* Views expressed are the property of the Karmedian Corporation  *
* and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the poster.   *
******************************************************************

.

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in article
...
> In article <5ouphc$kop@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
ready@enad240-001.cc.purdue.edu (Paul J. Ready) writes:
> >dann corbit  wrote:
[snip]
> >Particularly in the case where you're not starting with a stable orbit
> >of a relatively large body.  The forcing functions are nonlinear
(gravity
> >is 1/r^2) and there is no analytic solution that can be found in the
> >n-body problem.  Computers are limited in the accuracy of the
simulation,
> >simulations are limited by how accurate we can measure initial
conditions,
> >which is a function of limitations of physics (wavelength, distance,
> >optics, and ultimately Heisenburg)
> 
> You confuse different issues here.  Predictability has nothing to do 
> with analyticity of solutions, that's first.  Second, any classical 
> system is predictable in the sense that initial conditions at some 
> point of time fully determine the solutions for all future times.  The 
> unpredictability you're talking about is the practical one, resulting 
> from the fact that one never has exact initial conditions and 
> calculations cannot be performed with infinite precision.  That's all 
> true but it doesn't negate the predictability of CM.
Suppose we take hundreds of thousands of measurements of planetary
positions (instead of a single initial position).  Now we use these
measurements to refine our model.  "We thought the initial position was
(x,y,z,t) but then it should have ended up here.  What initial position
would lead to this final position?"  Now we repeat this with hundreds of
thousands of measurements on a supercomputer to arrive at a better initial
condition.
I see two different views of the n-body problem.  If we have ideal,
perfectly spherical bodies with exactly known starting positions and mass,
then we can calculate end positions as accurately as we like with smaller
steps and higher precision numbers.  If, instead, we are talking about a
bunch of approximations, of course we are not going to arrive at perfect
answers.  But in real life, we won't need them anyway, since we can redo
our measurements at any time we like.
Scientists seem to be able to aim spacecraft at distant planets and have
them arrive at the right place many years later.
Many differential equations are sensitive to initial conditions,
notoriously the Lorentz transformation for weather.  There are a few that
are not (like exponential decay) but for the most part, an excellent
measurement will be needed for an excellent answer.  All extrapolations
face this property to some degree or another, don't they?
In a similar manner, we might use a large number of data points to
calculate a regression.  Once we start to extrapolate beyond the boundaries
of the existing points, if our correlation coefficient is much different
from 1, our estimates will rapidly become worthless.  That does not mean
that regressions are chaotic does it?  I really don't know much about chaos
theory (or math in general for that matter) but it seems to me that
'chaotic' is a poor choice of words.  Aren't we really talking about
uncertainty due to poor measurements?  Is there some rational, mathematical
definition for 'chaotic' or is it just some word that gets thrown around
because it sounds so darn nifty?

In article <5p0s8t$lh4$1@bignews.shef.ac.uk>,
C Lamb  wrote:
>Kevin A. Scaldeferri (kevin@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
>
>: It is almost certainly the case with Pluto (and every other planet,
>: although it is,no doubt, more pronounced for some than others).  Let
>: me repeat: n-body gravitational systems are chaotic for n > 2.
>
>Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons... Wasn't there something
>in Sci Am a few years ago about some bloke who had designed a 5 body
>(or was it 7 body?) system that was moving _and_ completely predictable?
I haven't seen the article you refer to, but I suspect it might be
possible.  I probably should have been more exact and said that
n>2-body systems are chaotic for most initial conditions.  At this
point, I'll have to leave it to others to specify just how the number
of chaotic configurations compares to the number of non-chaotic
configurations.
-- 
======================================================================
Kevin Scaldeferri			Calif. Institute of Technology
"Pragmatism! Is that all you have to offer?"

Kevin A. Scaldeferri (kevin@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
: In article <867354903.6121@dejanews.com>,   wrote:
: >
: >I think you are over simplifying the definition of chaos in an egregious
: >way.  Let's say you change the orbital speed by
: > .0000000000000000000000001 mph and the outcome changes by some delta x
: >and delta x is kinda big. Now suppose you change the speed by
: > .0000000000000000000000002 mph and the new outcome is 2*(delta x) or by
: > .0000000000000000000000003 mph and you get an output difference of
: >3*(delta x) ... is that chaos?	Not at all. Now if your differences were
: >(delta x), -3*(delta x) and 7.5*(delta x) then that would be chaotic 
: Up to here, you're doing good.
: >but how likely is that to be the case with Pluto?
: It is almost certainly the case with Pluto (and every other planet,
: although it is,no doubt, more pronounced for some than others).  Let
: me repeat: n-body gravitational systems are chaotic for n > 2.
Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons... Wasn't there something
in Sci Am a few years ago about some bloke who had designed a 5 body
(or was it 7 body?) system that was moving _and_ completely predictable?
ho hum
Chris
: -- 
: ======================================================================
: Kevin Scaldeferri			Calif. Institute of Technology
: "Pragmatism! Is that all you have to offer?"

Here is the situation.  You don't want junk email: fine
How ever your ending indicates that  unsolicited  email sent to you is 
going to be proof read at a charge of 
$100.00
When I sent you two emails about the same thing, one was returned.
My point is:  If you make use of  any news group
	a. junk emailers should not have access to  your email address.
	b. the sheer posting should be a valid reason for accepting 
email in response.
If you read the signature, it implies that you don't want to be replied 
to via email.
I can get very sarcastic:  my point was if you do not want to be told 
in private fine, lets air it where everyone 
can see.
The way to beat a bully is to let him(er)  set the rules, and then make 
him(er)  play by them.
I thought that the reason for W.W.II was because people who know what 
is best for them should not run 
the world.
  Acceptance of a right or privilege is to allow every else the same .
Harold
When any nation  is more concerned with legality than justice, it is 
time for a revolution.
when appearance is more important that substance, then that class 
should be dropped.
In article <5ov66d$52l$1@insosf1.netins.net>, sharon@netins.net says...
>
>In article <33B26710.1953@sdrc.com>, jim.batka@sdrc.com says...
>>
>>Jim Batka wrote:
>>
>>> Expectation usually falls far short of reality ;).
>>
>>Umm, that should have been:
>>
>>Reality usually falls far short of expectation..
>>
>>-- 
>>Jim Batka  | Email: jim.batka@sdrc.com |  Babylon-5: Our last best 
>Hope!
>>                                               ...for good TV...
>>Someday, I'll have a tactical nuke, and there will be justice.
>>                simulated persona = "The Cube", from Forum 2000
>>
>>Legal Warning: Anyone sending me unsolicited/commercial email WILL be 
>>charged a $100 proof-reading fee.  Do NOT send junk email to me - 
>>consider this an official notice:
>>
>>"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
>> meets the definition of a telephone fax machine.  By 
>Sec.227(b)(1)(C),
>> it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such
>> equipment.  By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned
>> Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or
>> $500, whichever is greater, for each violation."
>yes I see:  What gives you the right to deny access to your self, when 
>you want access to others.  ps. you returned the wrong one.
>
>harold
>
>Daddy fix it. please  
>Congressman fix it please.
>what is the difference?
>a (wo)man stand on His(er) own feet and kills his(er) own snakes.
>

With great joy and love, pjswan@usa.SPAMFREE.net (Peter Swanson)
wrote:
>For what it's worth, chaotic systems also have an
>"infinite period" quality: the system never repeats the same state twice,
>like a snowflake.
In nature I would agree that snowflakes are never the same, but in the
lab a snowflake can be created in such a way that they are identical.
So my real question is: "what about cloned snowflakes?" (c;
Thank you in advance,
--
David Dune
Unsolicited commercial email read for $500 per message.

 wrote:
> wayne.t.hally@tek.com (Wayne T Hally) wrote:
>> the outcome.  In other words of youc change say the orbital speed by
>> .0000000000000000000000001 mph, the outcome is completely different.
Well, we're talking more on the order of 1mph (rough order of magnitude
is of pluto's orbit is 10,000mph, it varies a lot over the orbit and
I didn't calculate min and max values just now)
>I think you are over simplifying the definition of chaos in an egregious
>way.  Let's say you change the orbital speed by
> .0000000000000000000000001 mph and the outcome changes by some delta x
>and delta x is kinda big. Now suppose you change the speed by
> .0000000000000000000000002 mph and the new outcome is 2*(delta x) or by
> .0000000000000000000000003 mph and you get an output difference of
>3*(delta x) ... is that chaos?	Not at all. Now if your differences were
You've made a bad assumption here... that the motion of planets behaves in
a linear fashion.  You can't assume that, because the forcing function
is nonlinear, and there is no analytic solution.  In fact, simulation
shows that this type of response to small perturbations doesn't happen.
>(delta x), -3*(delta x) and 7.5*(delta x) then that would be chaotic but
>how likely is that to be the case with Pluto?  Big changes for small
Quite likely, that's just the point, give it a little nudge faster
and it will move by a small delta.  Give it a double nudge and it
will be on the other side of the solar system.  At some other level
it will slip back a little.  Your assumptions only work for 2 body
systems, which have an analytical solution (so there is no need to
simulate them)
What you're not taking into account is the interactions between the planets.
A slight slip in speed affects the closest approach to adjacent planets
in terms of time and distance, and the gravitational forces from the
other planets (the perturbations to the orbit) are nonlinear.  The
effects over a single orbit, or a handful of orbits are small, but
they add up in an unpredictable manner.

In article <33B3CACE.54B0@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>, Klaus Kassner  writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> 
>> >> QM is a wave theory.
>> >
>> >Schroedinger's version is a wave theory. There are alternative
>> >formulations
>> >of quantum mechanics which hardly can be characterized as wave theories:
>> >Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, Feynman's path integral approach.
>> >
>> Heisenberg's matrix mechanics is isomorphic with Shroedinger's
>> formulation, thus it is also a wave formulation though it is not
>> immediately visible.  As for Feynman's path integral approach, it is
>> nearly identical with the Huygens wave formalism.  The "waviness" is
>> built into it.
>
>I know that these formulations are isomorphic. They have to be to some
>extent, if they are to describe the same thing:-) 
>Nevertheless, if we had
>*only* the Heisenberg version, nobody would talk about waves. They
>just don't occur. You have "states", not waves. I could also
>turn your sentence around. It is not the waviness of Schroedinger's
>approach that is built into the Heisenberg one, but the operator
>nature of dynamical variables of the Heisenberg approach that
>is built into the Schroedinger approach... 
>
You could.  But it doesn't change the fact that whatever is present in 
one is present in the other.  That's what isomorphism mean.  And 
waviness is present in one.
>Maybe the fundamental thing is the uncertainty relations and
>the waviness is just a way to express it.
Perhaps, indeed.  Just keep in mind that all classical waves have 
uncertainty relations.  Now, which is fundamental property and which 
is derived?  Can it be answered and does it matter?
Mati Meron                      | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu         |  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <33bd8ead.10084612@news.demon.co.uk>, malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) writes:
>On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:10:42 +0200, Klaus Kassner
> wrote:
>
>>Maybe that is the best way to say it in a single sentence. But
>>I think it does not do justice to the complexity of the Copenhagen
>>interpretation. I believe, that a follower of this interpretation
>>would not deny, e.g., the objective existence of, say, an
>>electron. But he would deny that the wave function of this 
>>electron is objective. Thus the wave function is *not* the particle.
>>It is just the maximum information we can have about it.
>>
>I think maybe that's a simplistic approach. A better way of putting it
>is to say that all these mathematical theories are metaphors for
>elementary particles.
>
Of course.  The point, though, is whether a metaphor is complete, in 
the sence that there is no aspect of the object that's not covered by 
the metaphor.  And if it is complete then, from information point of 
view we can consider it "to be the object" or, if you prefer, "to be 
isomorpic with the object".  In this sence, in the Copenhagen 
interpretation, the wave function "is the particle".
>
>An electron, in fact is not a particle. It's not a wave either. It
>behaves analogously to Shrodinger's equation but quantum mechanics
>doesn't _explain_ the electron, or it's behaviour. It doesn't tell you
>what it's composed of. Indeed, if it's really an elementary particle
>it isn't composed of anything.
By definition.
Mati Meron                      | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu         |  chances are he is doing just the same"

Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> An electron, in fact is not a particle. 
It is a particle by definition. It is *not* a *classical* particle.
> It's not a wave either. It
> behaves analogously to Shrodinger's equation but quantum mechanics
> doesn't _explain_ the electron, or it's behaviour. 
It does explain its behaviour pretty well.
> It doesn't tell you
> what it's composed of. 
That depends on what kind of answer you'd be satisfied with.
> Indeed, if it's really an elementary particle
> it isn't composed of anything.
So what. Is it then inexplicable?

[This thread is widely and absurdly cross-posted.  I have set
follow-ups to sci.physics,  since the discussion has now moved to
quantum mechanics,  and I ask those who value the net to do the same.]
Klaus Kassner   wrote:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>Schroedinger's version is a wave theory. There are alternative
>formulations
>of quantum mechanics which hardly can be characterized as wave theories:
>Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, Feynman's path integral approach.
Well,  aside from a few pesky factors of exp(iHt) in the time
dependent formalism,  we know of course that this is just an alternate
formulation of wave representation (except of course where the vector
space is so simple there _is_ no wave representation,  like spin).  I
know you know this,  but when the implied argument is "And therefore
there is nothing intrinsically wave like about QM",  I like to
counter:  Suppose we represented the time dependent state of a violin
string as a finite superposition of harmonics with complex phase
factors.  Does that mean there is nothing essentially wavelike about
the violin string?  :-)
As for the path integral approach,  despite his protestations of
leaving the field to the experts (not seeing any on the horizon,  I
blundered out...),  I know Mati knows this part of the picture cold,
and perhaps has already replied that the path integral formulation is
one of the _hints_ of wavelike behavior,  because exactly the same
approach can be used in classical optics.  The distinction lies in how
the waves are detected (afaik).
In which case I couldn't resist repeating each of these points,  to
demonstrate it is possible to learn _something_ on sci.physics,
however great the odds against this. 
>> Now waves cannot have a well defined position
>> and momentum at the same time, and I mean really cannot have, not just
>> "it is unobservable".  That's inherent in the nature of waves and has
>> nothing to do with QM.  It is equally valid for classical waves.
>
> 
>> Which leaves the question "what is the relationship between the wave
>> as defined by, say, Shroedinger Equation, and the particle it
>> represents". 
>
>
>Right. Nicely put. 
>
>
>> The Copenhagen Interpretation says in effect that "the
>> wave is the particle, period". 
>
>Maybe that is the best way to say it in a single sentence. But
>I think it does not do justice to the complexity of the Copenhagen
>interpretation.
Some might substitute 'obfuscation'... ;-)
>I believe, that a follower of this interpretation
>would not deny, e.g., the objective existence of, say, an
>electron. But he would deny that the wave function of this 
>electron is objective. Thus the wave function is *not* the particle.
>It is just the maximum information we can have about it.
That is something a person who identified himself as a follower of the
Copenhagen interpretation might say,  but I think another equally
qualified interpreter might say something subtly different,  and a
third something a little different yet.  In other words,  I'm not sure
there is some single 'Copenhagen interpretation',  but rather a cluster
of sort of similar sounding things 'Copenhagenists' might say.
My personal opinion,  only in case anyone is interested,  is that
usually,  or almost always,  the simple (if subtle) kind of philosophy
101 groundwork about scientific models has not been laid,  even to
the extent there exists a common language,  before jumping into the
quantum philosophical fray.  In short,  we really haven't done our
homework.  For example the pseudo-Copenhagenist you have created above
seems to be blending epistemology and ontology in some rough and ready
way without having much thought about the possible distinction,  if any.
As they say in conducting class,  if you want to be expressive,  first
you have to be able to beat a straight four.
>If I understand Bohmian mechanics correctly, it is definite only
>about the position. The momentum as well as other observables will
>still be uncertain in certain states. Only in a plane wave state
>would you be able to assign definite values to both position and
>momentum. But you can *always* assign a definite value to position.
>This  distinguished position of "position" is one of the reasons 
>why I dislike Bohm's approach.
I rather like that too,  so I hope you understand it correctly.  :-)
Interestingly,  I suppose we could assign a definite _velocity_ ,
since the particle would have a definite trajectory,  r(t).  So in
Bohm's picture the momentum is still part of the wave picture.  Does
that sound about right?
>On the other hand, it is very impressive when they give you a
>picture of the two-slit experiment with particle trajectories
>drawn in addition to the interference pattern. 
>So, if an electron arrives at a certain position
>on the screen, Bohmian mechanics tells you from which slit
>it came, unambiguously. Thus what one learns in school, that
>it is impossible to say, the electron went through that slit
>or the other, is not quite correct. However, there is a 
>catch: the Bohmina prediction is not falsifiable. If you
>try to decide by measurement whether the electron came through
>the predicted slit, you destroy the interference pattern...
I just read of a proposed experiment that might collect information
on which slit each atom of an atom beam went through without
destroying the diffraction pattern.  I'm not sure what they expect to
show;  if they really expect to bypass the uncertainty principle,  or
just verify again is a very circuitous way.  I'll try to find it
again...
I have an incredibly doltish question here:   In the two slit
experiment,  precisely _which_ form of the Heisenberg uncertainty
relation is violated?  I mean,  I don't recall one about "product of
slit variance" x "fuzziness in diffraction pattern" > h-bar.  :-)
Presumably it is the position/momentum relation in some form.
>> Now, these are metaphysical questions, not physical ones.  My tendency
>> is to employ Occam's Razor and answer "no" to both questions above.
>> But, as Ed Green used to state, Occam's Razor is double edged.
It seemed appropriate at the time.  :-)