Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
Thanks for response, Thomas,

Thomas Ray wrote: You seem to be saying competence = intelligence.  I don't buy it ...

You're right. Yes, I do seem to be saying that; but I don't buy it either!

I wrote 'Very roughly, "competent" might mean "genius" IQ (160) or better.' No question: correlation between IQ and physics competence is less than 1 (.85?). Einstein's IQ is (estimated at) only 160, yet he was at the top of the heap. OTOH Voltaire's is (estimated at) 195, yet he was lousy at math. I used IQ - a well-known concept, close to the right one - just to develop my theme.

The presentation can be cleaned up easily. For IQ substitute something like "Physics Competence Quotient". I want to say that roughly 1 out of 3500 people has the mental qualities required for a "competent" physicist. One out of 5 million, roughly, is "super-competent": you can't get any better. The competent physicist is capable of figuring out any physics theory, given the requisite data; the super-competent just do it faster.

Note, I'm talking about [i]theoretical/i] physics, not experimental. There's no "recipe" for experiments, it's "limited only by your imagination". The greatest experimental conceptions are beyond a merely competent experimenter.

For examples, Schroedinger, de Broglie, Fitzgerald, Carnot, (etc) were merely competent, nevertheless responsible for key theoretical advances.

BTW Schopenhauer felt exactly this way about mathematicians. "No mathematician is a genius" - I don't agree with that, but know what he meant. I forget if he included physicists as well.

This attitude justifies all of us non-mainstream wannabe's. It's not all that hard to learn this stuff, especially with the internet. We haven't been indoctrinated, so it's easy to come up with the next great breakthrough. Just look for the dogma they're most certain of: it's bound to be wrong. Unfortunately it's impossible to sell it to the establishment. If we live long enough we'll see an establishment physicist, some day, achieve "immortality" for obvious ideas we knew decades ago. Not sure how satisfying that will be.

Of course, I could be wrong.


"Thomas Ray wrote: I should add, re intelligence: that there is no general theory of intelligence.

To create a "general theory of intelligence" you must limit definition of intelligence. A promising avenue: re-define it to apply to a computer.


Leslie Lamport is interesting. In computer science Buridan's principle can manifest as "deadlock". Another example is gimbal lock? But with a conscious being like a donkey or human, it's circumvented by free will - the ability to make an (objectively) random choice. He's right: an animal will hesitate confronted with two choices. If it's not critical he might hesitate for a long time. But a starving donkey will very quickly go to one or the other pile of hay.

Leslie Lamport wrote: Random vibrations make it impossible to balance the ball on the knife edge, but if the ball is positioned randomly, random vibrations are as likely to keep it from falling as to cause it to fall.

Wrong, he's ignoring the behavior of unstable equilibria.

Leslie Lamport wrote: In classical physics, randomness is a manifestation of a lack of knowledge. If we knew the positions and velocities of all atoms in the universe, then even the tiniest vibration could be predicted.

Even in classical physics that's not true. But it's irrelevant, because QM makes nonsense of Laplace's "Clockwork Universe".

Leslie Lamport wrote: To understand the meaning of Buridan's Principle as a scientific law, consider the analogous problem with classical mechanics. Kepler's first law states that the orbit of a planet is an ellipse. This is not experimentally verifiable because any finite-precision measurement of the orbit is consistent with an infinite number of mathematical curves. In practice, what we can deduce from Kepler's law is that measurement of the orbit will, to a good approximation, be consistent with the predicted ellipse.

I claim any competent physicist performs this sort of approximation as a matter of course. Sensing what's negligible and what isn't is a core competence in physics. Don't forget the natural philosophers of that day were very familiar with conic sections.

"Buridan's principle" is worthwhile; Lamport's point is non-trivial.


"Thomas Ray wrote: How can a connected space [SO(3)] (vice the simply connected space S^3) accommodate the time reversibility demanded by Einstein's theories of relativity?

At the moment I'm stumped!

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 09-11-2016, 12:17 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)