tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post3841476684708374990..comments2019-06-15T19:09:45.022+02:00Comments on The Reference Frame: There is no classical worldLuboš Motlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17487263983247488359noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-55890219409432524262013-06-17T17:37:03.837+02:002013-06-17T17:37:03.837+02:00http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/01/poll-about-found...http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/01/poll-about-foundations-of-qm-experts.html?m=1<br /> <br />Shows that among purports experts there is much disagreement. I don't know why. You like many of them, in spite much thinking, obviously have not understood yet that one cannot require reality to be one size fits all. Rather well developed ground. I think LM earlier suggestion that you consider the prior postings and the directions they lead would be useful.Rehbocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-64563707943530966992013-06-17T15:44:37.293+02:002013-06-17T15:44:37.293+02:00Dear Patrick, the fact that the quantum revolution...Dear Patrick, the fact that the quantum revolution ended an era of physics in which the physical theories were constructing a model of "objective reality" is not an "option to consider" but a scientific fact.<br /><br /><br />I have already explained why quantum mechanics - with its predictive scheme rejecting the existence of objective reality - does not imply solipsism and I have disproved all your other idiotic claims, too. Could you please stop flooding my blog's comment sections with this garbage? You probably have enough time to waste - but I don't - and you may think that 100 times repeated lie becomes the truth but I am one who won't tolerate this Goebbelsian spamming and I will ban you after you repeat one of your idiocies once again.<br /><br /><br />Deal.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-39214596999803747892013-06-17T14:21:06.913+02:002013-06-17T14:21:06.913+02:00" it's strange when you say that we'r..." it's strange when you say that we're in agreement about most things. <br />When I read your comments, I don't agree with a word, at least I haven't<br /> found such a word yet."<br /><br />When I read what you write about how you read what I write, I don't recognize my writings either. One of us, or both, has thus a serious comprehensive reading problem :-)<br /><br />To give you just a few examples, I *do* consider the option that there is no objective reality at the fundamental level, contrary to what you claim I do. Only, that amounts to solipsism, and at the same time, that there's nothing to say about the non-existent objective reality and its fundamentals. So I do not claim that there has to be an objective reality... only then you have to face the consequences of your working hypothesis.<br /><br />Another example where you don't seem to read what I write, is that you keep repeating that I claim a classical paradigm while MWI is NOT a classical paradigm. You confuse the paradigm of objective reality with the classical paradigm, and put that confusion on my side.<br /><br />Finally, you seem to deify the godfathers of quantum mechanics with their Copenhagen interpretation and then accuse others of religious fanaticism.<br /><br />It is not because these people did important work and merit fully all the admiration for that work, that they have to be the sole possessors of the philosophical view on their new ideas. Galileo can be considered the founder of the concept of space-time relativity, but when you read his texts there were still quite some interpretational issues he had which have been corrected only much later. For instance, for him, the principle of inertia only concerned *circular* motion. Even Newton thought he needed some kind of absolute space to define force.<br /><br />So the brilliant originators of an idea are not always the people who have the clearest view on things - which is normal, they only just discovered it, and they didn't have all the other, later views on it.<br /><br />So in as much as I respect the originators of quantum theory, I do maintain that their interpretations were still garbled. Which is understandable. It was so strange that they had to say *something*. I don't deify them. You do.Patricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-77365354588743052542013-06-17T11:06:22.924+02:002013-06-17T11:06:22.924+02:00Dear Patrick, it's strange when you say that w...Dear Patrick, it's strange when you say that we're in agreement about most things. When I read your comments, I don't agree with a word, at least I haven't found such a word yet.<br /><br /><br />There is no objective reality at the fundamental level, 90% of your comments are all about some theories based on the assumption that the reality is fundamentally classical, so they're waste of time and crackpotterty. If there's something in your comment that isn't self-evidently wrong and a waste of time, could you please extract it and post it separately? Thanks.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-1860738980552331762013-06-16T21:55:11.102+02:002013-06-16T21:55:11.102+02:00Dear Patrick, as always, there is no objective rea...Dear Patrick, as always, there is no objective reality at the fnudamental level but all your sentiments you try to attach to quantum mechanics, including labels like solipsism etc., are demagogy.<br /><br />Quantum mechanics doesn't support any solipsism because one may derive, using QM rules only, that different observers will agree whenever they agree and none of the observers is more fundamental than others. Still, quantum mechanics is a tool for computing observations of a particular observer, probabilities chosen from a well-defined subjective framework, which isn't unique.<br /><br />See texts like<br /><br />http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/01/quantum-physics-doesnt-depend-on.html?m=1<br /><br /><br />http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/11/why-subjective-quantum-mechanics-allows.html?m=1Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-24122411713092861622013-06-16T21:29:23.235+02:002013-06-16T21:29:23.235+02:00I hope you realize that the Copenhagen view (what ...I hope you realize that the Copenhagen view (what I called the positivist view) was a kind of trick to couple quantum theory to classical physics. It is all right if you take on 2 possible stances, but I thought I understood that neither is yours, maybe I'm wrong.<br /><br />The first stance is that quantum theory is not fundamental. That the whole trick with quantum states, wave functions and so on is just a calculational tool but that there is "really" an underlying physical mechanism, of which one can one day show that it results in similar or identical statistical results with quantum calculations. That was essentially Einstein's view, and many others have tried so. I would call THIS the "classical view". There is some classical physics that mimicks statistically as calculated by quantum theory, but quantum theory is just a happy trick that has nothing to do with "nature" except cranking out the right numbers for god knows what funny mathematical coincidence.<br /><br />The other stance is a truly positivist vision, but if you apply it totally, you will end up in a form of solipsism. If quantum theory *is* fundamental, and there is only observation, and no ontology outside of raw observation, then you will end up only keeping your own subjective observations. There is no objective ontology that is not observed, and "other observers" don't exist either: if you think you have seen other observers sharing observations with you, then that is only because you have an observation of those observers. Those observers then don't exist but are an unessential construct - only your observation of the observers exists - like everything else in quantum mechanics apart from your subjective observations.<br /><br />However, if you want to posit any form of objective reality as described by a fundamental quantum formalism that is universal, I don't see how you can get around taking the quantum state or any equivalent for "real" (not OBSERVABLE, just ontologically real). And then you necessarily end up in some or other Everettian vision.<br /><br />It is a bit strange to work on "a theory of nature" when you posit that no nature exists, isn't it ? That "nature" is just the set of your own personal subjective experiences, and that's it.<br /><br />Because, again, you can only take the probabilistic vision of quantum theory (denying any kind of ontology to the mathematical objects in the quantum formalism - it is just a trick to calculate probabilities and that's it), if you accept some kind of classical background ontology (which is exactly what the Kopenhagen interpretation posits). This completely fails if you postulate (as I thought you did), that quantum theory is universal and fundamental.Patricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-66499608963721237872013-06-16T19:38:17.518+02:002013-06-16T19:38:17.518+02:00Dear Patrick, quantum mechanics *does* predict the...Dear Patrick, quantum mechanics *does* predict the objective values of probabilities of outcomes or perceptions that *are* perceived subjectively. That's what any quantum mechanical theory does; that's how a particular quantum mechanical theory is compared to the observations.<br /><br />Every quantum mechanical theory uses a Born rule.<br /><br />Your references to von Neumann seem to be deliberately obscuring the situation, too. Von Neumann was "almost" a member of the inner ring of the fathers of quantum mechanics but he wasn't a full-fledged member. His opinions and interpretations aren't representative of what we call the Copenhagen interpretation. <br /><br />His proclamations about these conceptual things were always a bit different from the proclamations by the true fathers of QM - Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, Pauli, and perhaps a few others - and I would say that a bit wrong.<br /><br />The Copenhagen or any viable interpretation always includes some form of the Born rule - squared absolute values of complex amplitudes are interpreted as probabilities - because it's totally essential to connect the maths to observations.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-2480018274898187412013-06-16T13:45:24.931+02:002013-06-16T13:45:24.931+02:00If you place yourself in the paradigm of NR QM (to...If you place yourself in the paradigm of NR QM (to keep it simple) and you return to von Neumann, then there are 2 state evolutions: process 2, the hamiltonian-driven unitary evolution, and process 1, the projection and the Born rule.<br /><br /><br />Now, *that* only makes sense if we take the somewhat schizzophrenic assumption that nature "jumps" from classical state to classical state with in between them some unitary evolution. It is the switching from a quantum evolution (process 2) to a "classical instant" (process 1) that involves the Born rule. The unitary evolution itself doesn't contain it. State projection is not unitary.<br /><br /><br /><br />It is this difficulty which has given rise to the positivist view (there's no ontology to the mathematical structures of quantum theory) and in general, to the "measurement problem".<br /><br /><br />The more traditional way of doing physics, where the formalism describes an objective reality and is not just a calculational trick to link observations without any ontological contents, automatically leads to Many-World like interpretations. That is, if you take quantum theory seriously, you cannot avoid postulating universal unitarity "all the time", and you cannot avoid the world to end up in a huge decohered superposition, in which every term remains (these terms are what are colloquially called the "many worlds"). However, there's no room at all in this for the Born rule, except for the matter of subjective experience. There's no way to DEDUCE the Born rule from just process 2. The reason why a conscious (?) observer has experiences in agreement with (only) ONE branch of all these terms is not explained, but it has to be postulated that this is drawn according to the Born rule. But it has nothing to do anymore with the "ontological" or objective physics, but only with subjective experience (of which branch you happen to experience).<br /><br /><br /><br />So in as much as unitarity is kept as a fundamental physical principle (and hence process 1 is not ontologically, but only subjectively possible because not unitary), there's no Born rule in the objective physics.<br /><br /><br />To come to your remark, it is true that in toy systems there exist coherent states which are full quantum solutions which continue to remain in approximate relationship with the equivalent classical problem.<br /><br /><br />But most decohered solutions are SUPERPOSITIONS of coherent states, and hence superpositions of near-classical states. These are exactly the "many worlds" or the "branches". The particular case of a coherent solution in a potential is a very special case where there is, and remains, only one branch. Real-world systems are not like this. They give rise to several branches.<br /><br /><br />So there is no classical limit. The branches look a bit like several classical states, but they split in several branches most of the time. There is not a *single* classically-looking solution which remains classically-looking, because it almost always ends up spitting in a superposition of SEVERAL classically-looking terms. Only very special cases, like coherent solutions to certain potentials, are an exception to this.<br /><br /><br /><br />This is exactly the whole Schroedinger-cat issue.<br /><br /><br />There's no interference between the dead cat and the live cat, but both classically-looking branches are present. Through the Born rule, we only subjectively experience one of these branches, but if you adhere to strict unitarity, there's no way to get rid of the other.<br /><br /><br />A superposition (even non-interfering) of a dead cat and a live cat is NOT a classical state, but TWO distinct classical states.<br /><br /><br />That we only experience one of these branches, and that the probability for experiencing a particular branch is given by the Born rule, is then not part of the physics proper.Patricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-48680460943314587682013-06-16T13:25:51.035+02:002013-06-16T13:25:51.035+02:00The Sunnis are being used in Syria like they were ...The Sunnis are being used in Syria like they were used in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet-supported regime of "leftist-secular," monarchy <br />connected, Afghan ruling class, who called in the Soviet army when the going got hot, just as Assad is doing today. <br /><br />There is a direct parallel between Kabul 1979 and Damascus 2012/2013. <br /><br />And the US is behind the same cabal here that produced bin Laden, <br />Mullah Omar and the Talibans in Afghanistan, ten-fifteen years down that<br /> road post 1979.<br /><br />It's totally Machiavellian, aka the enemy of my enemy is my friend.<br /><br />Remember, the US did the same thing in Iran 1953 and paid for it in Iran 1979! <br /><br />With friends like that once installed and in place it leads to: Cairotoday, Benghazi tomorrow and Mali the day after that in the MENA, like <br />it did Iran before and maybe Pakistan tomorrow.<br /><br />What we sow now we then reap afterwards.cynholtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-63190223017738855482013-06-16T12:00:03.358+02:002013-06-16T12:00:03.358+02:00Sorry off topic:
It seems that Mike Duff (one of ...Sorry off topic:<br /><br />It seems that Mike Duff (one of few people who do that) is fighting the anti-string zealots again. <br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jun/16/has-physics-gone-too-far<br /><br />Sometimes I think these guys should not be left unchallenged and other times I think that if people like Mike Duff debate as equals with such people, they legitimate them.<br /><br />Again an almost unmistakable measure of crackpotism is how often Einstein’s name is brought up; this guy seems to prove it…Giotisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-59195082457727810172013-06-16T10:25:43.130+02:002013-06-16T10:25:43.130+02:00Natural sciences IS all about extracting a finite ...Natural sciences IS all about extracting a finite set of data from nature (that you can map to natural numbers or 0's and 1's if you like).<br /><br />These serve for building (mathematical) models of nature, be they classical or quantum, that's all there IS !<br /><br />Forget about philosophizing about the "IS" in this context, it's a complete waste of time.<br /><br />It's pretty much an old hat and thus I'll stop here with an appropriate quote by Bohr (although it IS tautological as IS all what I am saying): <br /><br />"There IS no quantum world. There IS only an abstract physical description. It IS wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature IS. Physics concerns what we can say about nature..."<br /><br />Best.MarkusMhttp://www.markus-maute.de/trajectory/trajectory.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-446576736595295742013-06-16T10:02:23.733+02:002013-06-16T10:02:23.733+02:00Dear Lubos, I saw you endorse my statement but I m...Dear Lubos, I saw you endorse my statement but I meant accepting these <br />theorems without trying to evade them by introducing supercharges which <br />will probably make you less happy but maybe that's what we have to accept from the LEP and LHC results.Marcel van Velzennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-49081286664163242702013-06-16T09:25:39.781+02:002013-06-16T09:25:39.781+02:00Gravity is a force suppressed by an energy scale o...Gravity is a force suppressed by an energy scale of the <br />order of the Planck-scale. A bunch of electrons and protons would only <br />know about the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces until "they" decide to <br />build the Large Planck Machine of the order of the Sun or the Earth, <br />exploding the fact that gravity always adds up. But even then they would<br /> only probe the classical description of gravity. For a quantum <br />mechanical Planck-scale probing machine they would have to build a black<br /> hole.Marcel van Velzennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-83387579209686834342013-06-16T09:05:28.104+02:002013-06-16T09:05:28.104+02:00Dear Patrick, the "problem" with time...Dear Patrick, the "problem" with time's being a variable is just an illusion. There is no problem. A theory is Lorentz-covariant - produces Lorentz-symmetric predictions - if one can find the Lorentz or Poincare generators as operators acting on the HIlbert space of the given theory. Whether the Lorentz symmetry is manifest in a particular formalism is a different question from the question whether the Lorentz symmetry is obeyed.<br /><br /><br />I have discussed the "monstrous Schrodinger cat" experiment many times on this blog. Indeed, the Hilbert space contains (and will typically evolve) into states that are linear superpositions of macroscopically different states - in the case of astrophysics, this includes superpositions of a neutron star state and a black hole state. The existence of these superpositions in the Hilbert space is an inevitable implication of universal principles of quantum mechanics that have been known for 85 years so string theory obviously won't change anything about them.<br /><br /><br />Yes, the metric is a dynamical variable (operators, probabilistic predictions) in a gravitating theory as well and yes, it's a bit subtle to define what unitarity means when the spacetime background itself is a quantum variable. Well, as you formulated it, it's not a really difficult problem in most contexts - assuming a scheme for the Hilbert space by describing all states as excitations of a particular background, the unitarity works just like in a QFT and boils down to the Hermiticity of the stress-energy tensor. Here, I was assuming a gauge-fixed version of GR or its extension. In this picture, a black hole state may be constructed as an excitation or a neutron star background or vice versa - or both of them may be viewed as excitations of a third background (more vacuum-like).<br /><br /><br />The further the two microstates are, the more awkward it is to assume that decoherence doesn't reduce the superposition into ordinary classical probabilistic alternatives but even if you imagine that you have the credentials to write down the accurate description without a decoherence, it can be done. In particular, light-cone-gauge superstring field theory is a theory that contains gravitons, black holes, and neutron stars, but it is manifestly unitary.<br /><br /><br />A definition of quantum GR-like theory that is not gauge-fixed is less understood and requires things like the Wheeler-DeWitt equation which remain vaguely known. But there is no guarantee that looking for such a manifestly covariant description is a promising path. There's no guarantee that this is how the correct theory may be described.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-9586790341402080762013-06-16T08:55:12.563+02:002013-06-16T08:55:12.563+02:00Sorry, Patrick, but the Born rule is one of the un...Sorry, Patrick, but the Born rule is one of the universal postulates of quantum mechanics so it's preposterous to say that one "can't deduce it from unitary quantum mechanics".<br /><br /><br />I don't know why you say that quantum theories don't have classical limits. A classical particle moving in a potential V(x) is the classical limit of a quantum particle moving in V(x).Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-64934442879191457782013-06-16T07:41:50.811+02:002013-06-16T07:41:50.811+02:00But *no* quantum theory has a "classical limi...But *no* quantum theory has a "classical limit". At most you have a decoherence in several almost non-interfering classically-looking branches. But there's no way to pick only one single branch, which would be the true classical approximation. There's in other words, no way to deduce the Born rule from unitary quantum physics. The Born rule is simply an effect of our subjective perception (the strange happening that I perceive only one branch).Patricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-73915149617167872112013-06-16T07:26:13.169+02:002013-06-16T07:26:13.169+02:00I would like to ask a naive question concerning th...I would like to ask a naive question concerning the consistency of GR and QM in ST. The difficulty noted by Penrose about any consistent solution keeping both sets of fundamental principles resides, as I understood, in the fact that time is a parameter in QM (the unitary evolution operator maps states between time slices). With SR, this is solved in QFT because it so happens that you still keep unitarity no matter what set of time slices you use (so it remains frame independent). However, in GR you have the problem that the time slicing becomes dependent on the evolution itself.<br />You could do a monster-Schroedinger-cat experiment in principle by having a huge nuclear explosion being triggered by a photo-detector detecting or not a photon reflected from a half-permeable mirror, and that nuclear explosion will push a big amount of mass just enough to have it plunge into a neutron star to form a black hole (say).<br /><br /><br />So you end up with a superposition of a black hole and a neutron star in the end (entangled with all the rest but that doesn't matter). Now how does ST or whatever unification of GR and QM handle the fact that the time slicing itself, determining the unitary evolution, is different in different branches (the one with the black hole and the one with the neutron star will clearly have different behaviors of whatever we call the time parameter near the star/hole ?Patricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-90604546769546320132013-06-16T06:25:30.689+02:002013-06-16T06:25:30.689+02:00Nice, Luke, it's clearly a metaphor but I woul...Nice, Luke, it's clearly a metaphor but I would personally endorse it. While not perfect, it is appropriate in many respects, and if you meant particular optical illusions we know, the analogy could become really close and quantitative.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-55182935419370171942013-06-16T06:21:41.311+02:002013-06-16T06:21:41.311+02:00Dear Gene, we almost always agree but sometimes we...Dear Gene, we almost always agree but sometimes we seem to be far from it.<br /><br />Looking at Syria whose Assad is supported by Iran and where chemical weapons were used and where 60,000 people died in a civil war, not to mention the terror and deaths in many other countries in the region, I really can't understand what you may mean by saying that Iran causes no harm by supporting its allies in the region.<br /><br />Clergy would surely suck for us - or me - but in that region, pretty much everyone has been trained to be a believer so the election of people who are more-than-average-people believers is sort of a natural product of democracy even if there's one. But just someone's being or not being in clergy isn't the last thing that may decide about the evolution of a country.<br /><br /><br /><br />I think that Israel's odds of attacking Iran will drop substantially unless they do so rather quickly because things are changing. It may be much more awkward to attack a country whose president claims he wants to peace with everyone. I agree with you that people in such nations use enemies to advance internal agendas but when such enemies were historically talked about in this way, an actual conflict erupted in a big fraction of the situations so it would be silly and irresponsible to assume that every violent talk about enemies has to end up with no event.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-3462380404466167272013-06-16T06:12:59.390+02:002013-06-16T06:12:59.390+02:00Yes, Jiří, haven't I already said it? The spac...Yes, Jiří, haven't I already said it? The spacetime curvature much like everything that can be measured by a "device" is and has to be a Hermitian linear operator on a complex Hilbert space so that the complex coefficients in front of the eigenstate in a decomposition to eigenstates express - after squaring the absolute value - the probabilities that the corresponding eigenvalue is realized.<br /><br /><br />The spacetime curvature much like everything else in the Universe has to obey the laws of quantum mechanics. Gravitons have to exist. I have given the proof of all these statements - via contradiction - several times on this blog. If you missed or misunderstood the proofs, maybe you did, but that changes nothing about the fact that physics has established these things.<br /><br /><br />There can be no fundamentally and accurately classical objects or phenomena in our quantum world. No, it is not a working assumption. It is, on the contrary, an *outcome* of the scientific process.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-53853777694170635672013-06-16T05:35:18.039+02:002013-06-16T05:35:18.039+02:00When talking to a child would it be incorrect or m...When talking to a child would it be incorrect or misleading to say that the classical world is a sort of "optical illusion" in the same way that the continuous motion on a movie screen is, which in reality is 24 frames flashing a second? I mean an illusion which is tightly constrained by the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of large numbers (or whatever you call it when macroscopic objects are observed with zillions of particles)?lukeleanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-34615843269858138672013-06-16T04:33:49.418+02:002013-06-16T04:33:49.418+02:00I really enjoyed being told the Czech meaning of t...I really enjoyed being told the Czech meaning of the new Iranian president! ;-]Peter F.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-29728094931214480152013-06-16T03:46:12.143+02:002013-06-16T03:46:12.143+02:00and that's probably the best reason why animat...and that's probably the best reason why animations aimed at school <br />children - introducing these concepts - is IMHO the right thing to do...MarkSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-74268396174283849302013-06-16T01:47:07.532+02:002013-06-16T01:47:07.532+02:00The sun and the earth are Planck-scale probing mac...The sun and the earth are Planck-scale probing machines? I don’t think so.Gene Daynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-16512497576557621612013-06-16T01:38:02.210+02:002013-06-16T01:38:02.210+02:00My Iranian friends don’t think much of either Rouh...My Iranian friends don’t think much of either Rouhani or Khatami but they are generally bitter about what has happened to them personally as a result of the clergy’s ascendance. My sources may not be very objective. <br />Certainly Iran is mis-managed and serves mainly the interests of the Revolutionary Guards and, of course, the mullahs, both of whom are still solidly entrenched. <br />Neither they nor I view Iran as much of a threat to its neighbors nor to the US or israel. Iran is supportive, generally, of Shiite movements outside the country but, so far, has not acted aggressively and probably won’t. Of course they are a principal supplier to Hezbollah and don’t want to see Assad fall. <br />People, including you, have been claiming for years that Israel would attack Iran but it hasn’t happened and likely won’t.Gene Daynoreply@blogger.com