tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post5951456885479273591..comments2021-10-04T19:28:06.851+02:00Comments on The Reference Frame: Shut up and calculate, especially if you're a lousy thinkerLuboš Motlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17487263983247488359noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-53763672218364428482013-10-20T22:59:37.592+02:002013-10-20T22:59:37.592+02:00You must have been reading a different blog. I don...You must have been reading a different blog. I don't remember Luboš ever writing any of the things you are attributing to him. He has been very consistently insisting that there can be no return to the classical deterministic model - that's all. That's completely different from saying that everything in physics will forever stay as it is now.lucretiusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-44937808458045163992013-10-20T22:57:21.207+02:002013-10-20T22:57:21.207+02:00I just want to correct one thing you just stated, ...I just want to correct one thing you just stated, "He said that locality was violated and realism held" <br /><br />Not true Motl. To be sure, I'll quote what Bell said about his inequality and experiments. If you disagree with what he said that is one thing, but please don't misquote him. Here is Bell on his theorem that nobody other than a tiny number of people over the last 50 years have understood: <br /><br /><br />John Bell Said -- <br /><br />It is important to note that to the limited degree to which determinism plays a role in the EPR argument, it is not assumed but inferred. What is held sacred is the principle of ‘local causality’ — or ‘no action at a distance’…<br /><br />It is remarkably difficult to get this point across, that determinism is not a presupposition of the analysis. (Bell 1987, p. 143)<br /><br />Despite my insistence that the determinism was inferred rather than assumed, you might still suspect somehow that it is a preoccupation with determinism that creates the problem. Note well then that the following argument makes no mention whatever of determinism. … Finally you might suspect that the very notion of particle, and particle orbit … has somehow led us astray. … So the following argument will not mention particles, nor indeed fields, nor any other particular picture of what goes on at the microscopic level. Nor will it involve any use of the words ‘quantum mechanical system’, which can have an unfortunate effect on the discussion. The difficulty is not created by any such picture or any such terminology. It is created by the predictions about the correlations in the visible outputs of certain conceivable experimental set-ups. (Bell 1987, p. 150)Justin Glicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-49400958146451434732013-10-20T22:33:27.460+02:002013-10-20T22:33:27.460+02:00Lubos, you sound like a "physics is over exce...Lubos, you sound like a "physics is over except for a few clouds on the horizon" kind of fellow. Its fine if you think that QM will be the base forever, but history shows otherwise. Euclidean geometry seems like an obvious correct choice for nature, and it lasted 2000 years. Still works for NASA probes and quantum field theory. Of course really the geometry is Riemannian, but QM will work fine there, right? <br /><br />Since theoretical physics can't even explain 90% of the stuff in the universe with anything more than coffee talk, I would suggest that there is a long way to go. It took people with telescopes to find that 90%, not theory. <br /><br />I would completely agree that the postulates of QM don't allow for deformations. It will then be obvious when some experimenter finds something in conflict. My guess would be a limit to entanglement or tunnelling. <br /><br />I actually enjoy your tone, as so many people speak as if a Brussels bureaucrat was inside their mouth.<br /><br /><br /><br />Cordially, <br /><br /><br />Tomtomandersennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-22086240777721610432013-10-20T22:31:35.525+02:002013-10-20T22:31:35.525+02:00the specific "flexibility" may be quite ...the specific "flexibility" may be quite fundamental though... ;)Andrei Patrascunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-27597616215746241642013-10-20T22:28:16.687+02:002013-10-20T22:28:16.687+02:00well, I do appreciate some of the "pearls&quo...well, I do appreciate some of the "pearls" ... :) and I remember the last posts still very well... yes, what you said in the post we discussed about was indeed interesting and I keep it in my mind. I expected some new observations... :)Andrei Patrascunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-3369345766219390772013-10-20T22:27:53.775+02:002013-10-20T22:27:53.775+02:00How absurdly ignorant.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.or...How absurdly ignorant. <br /><br />http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4640586&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F85%2F4640577%2F04640586.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4640586lucretiusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-86291888631467728452013-10-20T22:27:06.789+02:002013-10-20T22:27:06.789+02:00After reading your opinions about the invention of...After reading your opinions about the invention of the von Neumann architecture etc., I can't avoid saying: You're a lunatic, James. At any rate, I noticed that your comments were circumventing moderation in some way, James.<br /><br /><br />As I can't possibly remember how and when you could have possibly be placed on a white list, I believe it must have been due to a DISQUS error and I have hopefully fixed the error now.<br /><br /><br />You're about 5 comments (similar to your last 5 comments) away from the black list.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-48299485570323014592013-10-20T22:22:05.743+02:002013-10-20T22:22:05.743+02:00He didn't invent the computer in that field hi...He didn't invent the computer in that field his big contribution was primary school level cellular automata workJames Gallagherhttp://jbg.f2s.com/quantum2.txtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-6659583035857235682013-10-20T22:18:12.840+02:002013-10-20T22:18:12.840+02:00Einstein still did the analogous things but 30 yea...Einstein still did the analogous things but 30 years before Bell - and without any socks throughout his life!<br /><br />http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Albert_Einstein_wear_socks<br /><br /><br /><br />Still, Einstein's contributions to the foundations of quantum mechanics (aside from quantum theory, like in photoelectric effect, and from the Bose-Einstein statistics) were still negligible relatively to those of the quantum fathers - even relatively to those of John von Neumann. John Bell's contributions to these matters, when discounted for the lack of originality, were orders of magnitude lower than Einstein.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-23455453006753187412013-10-20T22:18:08.814+02:002013-10-20T22:18:08.814+02:00Are you seriously claiming that converting Einstei...Are you seriously claiming that converting Einstein,Rosen and Podolsky's (admittedly very clever) "thought experiment" into a real experiment (using indeed high school mathematics) was an example of "stunning creativity", while inventing the modern idea of a computer (just to mention one of the simplest of von Neumann's ideas) was something that a "calculator" could do?lucretiusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-36791832540578076062013-10-20T22:14:37.765+02:002013-10-20T22:14:37.765+02:00Ah, so you like him a little bit - progress. (I al...Ah, so you like him a little bit - progress. (I also agree that his public commentaries were not so persuasive, but he did come up with classics like "Bertlmann's Socks")James Gallagherhttp://jbg.f2s.com/quantum2.txtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-11562958810101829342013-10-20T22:12:01.633+02:002013-10-20T22:12:01.633+02:00Thanks.Thanks.James Gallagherhttp://jbg.f2s.com/quantum2.txtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-76256069122615725702013-10-20T22:10:52.836+02:002013-10-20T22:10:52.836+02:00You're completely crazy. Bell's theorem is...You're completely crazy. Bell's theorem is an elementary math homework for an average high school student. Bell, like the average high school student, did some of the maths right but added all the verbal physics commentaries that were entirely wrong. So it's a C for the homework if it were a physics homework.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-32363040683597380212013-10-20T22:07:56.756+02:002013-10-20T22:07:56.756+02:00Sorry but you really are a psychopath, James.Sorry but you really are a psychopath, James.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-12507862629130922602013-10-20T22:03:26.160+02:002013-10-20T22:03:26.160+02:00Thanks, Tarambura, but I am not even sure whether ...Thanks, Tarambura, but I am not even sure whether I understand who was saying what. Also, you seem to focus on superdeterminism that was discussed elsewhere:<br /><br />http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/10/superdeterminism-ultimate-conspiracy.html?m=1<br /><br /><br /><br />You may be saying something new about superdeterminism but I am not understanding what it is, sorry.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-90849005099477944842013-10-20T22:02:56.975+02:002013-10-20T22:02:56.975+02:00Well, I disagree, the lunar landing was a mecahnic...Well, I disagree, the lunar landing was a mecahnical thing that a human calculator like Von meumann would have helped greatly. Bell's discovery was like a work of Shakespeare or Bach - stunning human creativity.<br /><br /><br />But more importantly, IT WAS A MILESONE IN QUANTUM PHYSICS (and science) - and the fact you don't recognise this just puts you in the same category with the crackpots you so despiseJames Gallagherhttp://jbg.f2s.com/quantum2.txtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-46749857913665162312013-10-20T22:00:11.155+02:002013-10-20T22:00:11.155+02:00It's my feeling that the demand isn't high...It's my feeling that the demand isn't high enough.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-34825646108922425482013-10-20T21:57:08.075+02:002013-10-20T21:57:08.075+02:00I am saying that none of these engineering or appl...I am saying that none of these engineering or applied physics advances - Aspect's experiment or moonlanding - changed important things about our image of the Universe because "how those things worked" had been known for decades or centuries in both cases.<br /><br /><br />But if you ask me which one was a greater advance of skillful people, applied/experimental physicists, and engineers, it was undoubtedly the moonlanding! It was also much more expensive.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-33643510855413056452013-10-20T21:52:56.366+02:002013-10-20T21:52:56.366+02:00LOL, that's hilarious, you equate confirmation...LOL, that's hilarious, you equate confirmation that we can engineer a landing on the moon (and confirm it's there) to confirmation that reality is probabilistic (barring stupid stuff)<br /><br /><br />You are serious?James Gallagherhttp://jbg.f2s.com/quantum2.txtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-3222240468877063362013-10-20T21:46:39.205+02:002013-10-20T21:46:39.205+02:00Not every experimenter has the good luck and other...Not every experimenter has the good luck and other things to perform Nobel-prize-scale experiments. 99.99+ percent of experimenters never do such a thing. <br /><br /><br />Clauser, Aspect, and Zeilinger were not wasting their time - they were doing a fair experimental work - but they didn't produce any experiments that would change the direction of physics, either.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-60162282506731281052013-10-20T21:42:24.020+02:002013-10-20T21:42:24.020+02:00yeah, nothing really fundamentally important to hu...yeah, nothing really fundamentally important to humankind though. (Unlike John Bell)James Gallagherhttp://jbg.f2s.com/quantum2.txtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-66619814852571542013-10-20T21:39:03.322+02:002013-10-20T21:39:03.322+02:00Why don't you reply to this Lubos? Were Clause...Why don't you reply to this Lubos? Were Clauser, Aspect and Zeilinger wasting their time constructing such elaborate experiments based on Bell's test?James Gallagherhttp://jbg.f2s.com/quantum2.txtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-82376161756213022102013-10-20T21:39:00.812+02:002013-10-20T21:39:00.812+02:00Dear James, I wrote that I am not sure whether von...Dear James, I wrote that I am not sure whether von Neumann deserved a Nobel.<br /><br />Still, I could name a dozen of contributions that would be much more respectable a justification for a Nobel prize for von Neumann than Bell's theorem for Bell.<br /><br /><br />Even in the foundations of QM, he introduced the density matrix. The formula for the von Neumann entropy. With the density matrix, he was really the first man who began with quantum statistical mechanics as we know it. Add ergodic theory he is really a key father of.<br /><br /><br />Spectral theory for eigenvalues. That's just one of 10 disciplines he made great contributions to. I could give you many more big insights of von Neumann in stochastic phenomena, fluid dynamics, nuclear bomb physics, and many more in ordinary mathematics and computer science.<br /><br /><br />He could have also gotten a Nobel in medicine for producing a model of a self-replicating structure that worked just like DNA, before DNA was discovered. A directly usable model was ready when DNA was found.<br /><br />A short list of things that von Neumann is known for:<br /><br />[hide]<br /><br />Abelian von Neumann algebra<br /><br />Affiliated operator<br /><br />Amenable group<br /><br />Arithmetic logic unit<br /><br />Artificial viscosity<br /><br />Axiom of regularity<br /><br />Axiom of limitation of size<br /><br />Backward induction<br /><br />Blast wave (fluid dynamics)<br /><br />Bounded set (topological vector space)<br /><br />Carry-save adder<br /><br />Class (set theory)<br /><br />Decoherence theory<br /><br />Computer virus<br /><br />Commutation theorem<br /><br />Continuous geometry<br /><br />Direct integral<br /><br />Doubly stochastic matrix<br /><br />Duality Theorem<br /><br />Density matrix<br /><br />Durbin–Watson statistic<br /><br />Game theory<br /><br />Hyperfinite type II factor<br /><br />Ergodic theory<br /><br />EDVAC<br /><br />explosive lenses<br /><br />Lattice theory<br /><br />Lifting theory<br /><br />Inner model<br /><br />Inner model theory<br /><br />Interior point method<br /><br />Mutual assured destruction<br /><br />Merge sort<br /><br />Middle-square method<br /><br />Minimax theorem<br /><br />Monte Carlo method<br /><br />Normal-form game<br /><br />Pointless topology<br /><br />Polarization identity<br /><br />Pseudorandomness<br /><br />PRNG<br /><br />Quantum mutual information<br /><br />Radiation implosion<br /><br />Rank ring<br /><br />Operator theory<br /><br />Operation Greenhouse<br /><br />Self-replication<br /><br />Software whitening<br /><br />Standard probability space<br /><br />Stochastic computing<br /><br />Subfactor<br /><br />von Neumann algebra<br /><br />von Neumann architecture<br /><br />Von Neumann bicommutant theorem<br /><br />Von Neumann cardinal assignment<br /><br />Von Neumann cellular automaton<br /><br />von Neumann constant (two of them)<br /><br />Von Neumann interpretation<br /><br />von Neumann measurement scheme<br /><br />Von Neumann Ordinals<br /><br />Von Neumann universal constructor<br /><br />Von Neumann entropy<br /><br />von Neumann Equation<br /><br />Von Neumann neighborhood<br /><br />Von Neumann paradox<br /><br />Von Neumann regular ring<br /><br />Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory<br /><br />Von Neumann spectral theory<br /><br />Von Neumann universe<br /><br />Von Neumann conjecture<br /><br />Von Neumann's inequality<br /><br />Stone–von Neumann theorem<br /><br />Von Neumann's trace inequality<br /><br />Von Neumann stability analysis<br /><br />Quantum statistical mechanics<br /><br />Von Neumann extractor<br /><br />Von Neumann ergodic theorem<br /><br />Ultrastrong topology<br /><br />Von Neumann–Morgenstern utility theorem<br /><br />ZND detonation modelLuboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-5855961060723026182013-10-20T21:36:53.934+02:002013-10-20T21:36:53.934+02:00er, no I don't. He was a human calculator who ...er, no I don't. He was a human calculator who achieved stuff no ordinary human could achieve.James Gallagherhttp://jbg.f2s.com/quantum2.txtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-9862026761987713592013-10-20T21:32:36.294+02:002013-10-20T21:32:36.294+02:00Von Neumann was a great *mathematician*. Do you re...Von Neumann was a great *mathematician*. Do you really want a list of all the things he did in mathematics (not even counting his originating of computer science or enormously important contributions to economics)?lucretiusnoreply@blogger.com