OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS - VMS

This is a discussion on OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS - VMS ; On Mar 9, 10:52 am, Arne Vajh°j wrote: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > > In article , > > Arne Vajh°j writes: > >> AEF wrote: > >>> perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 81

Thread: OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

  1. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 9, 10:52 am, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
    > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > > In article <47d35553$0$90265$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
    > > Arne Vajh°j writes:
    > >> AEF wrote:
    > >>> perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on
    > >>> radioactive decay or some other random quantum process,
    > >> You can buy hardware cards that provides true random bits. I don't
    > >> know what they use as source. But the stuff you mention sounds
    > >> very likely.

    >
    > > Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
    > > "generate" numbers that are truly random. A method must be used to
    > > pick them and that method precludes true randomness.

    >
    > Not true.
    >
    > Certain physics stuff are considered true random. Including
    > radioactivity I believe. Around 1900 the world was considered
    > deterministic, but then came Einstein, Heissenberg and all those
    > guys and suddenly the world was random (and impossible
    > to understand).
    >
    > Arne


    Well, Einstein *was* a key player in bringing about the quantum
    theory, including taking photons (quanta of light) seriously (as
    Planck was highly reluctant to do: he considered only a useful thing
    to get the right black body radiation formula), and being the person
    who first suggested the mechanism that makes lasers work. Yet he could
    no believe that the uncertainty principle was truly unbeatable and
    that causality gave way to true randomness (though the probabilities
    of various outcomes are strictly determined by the wave function). He
    tried very hard to prove that QM was either incorrect or incomplete,
    but as I said in my other post, the case for hidden variables has all
    but evaporated in light of new ideas and experiments. And still no one
    has found a way around the uncertainty principle. It's pretty damn
    solid.

    Impossible to understand? QM is quite well understood. The problem is
    that most of us will say to ourselves upon learning about the
    intrinsic probability built into Nature and the unbelievable
    phenomenon of particles interfering with themselves as if they were
    waves, "'But how can it be like that?' which is a reflection of
    uncontrolled but utterly vain desire to see it in terms of something
    familiar." (Quoted from -- you guessed it -- Chapter 6 of The
    Character of Physical Law by Feynman.) The problem is accepting that
    causality is lost. No one liked that. But experiment shows otherwise.
    As Bohr once told Einstein, "Stop telling God what to do". (I believe
    he used the term "God" metaphorically. Einstein saw "God" not as a
    personal God as espoused by religions, but revealing Himself through
    the harmony of Physical Law, or perhaps one could think of it as
    "Nature". I don't know for sure about Bohr's view.)

    See Chapter 6 of -- you already know it -- for a quite nice
    explanation of the fundamental mystery in QM. The rest of the book is
    excellent, too.

    AEF

  2. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 9, 5:56 pm, Doug Phillips wrote:
    > On Mar 8, 6:02 pm, "John Vottero" wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > "JF Mezei" wrote in message

    >
    > >news:47d1f21d$0$25450$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

    >
    > > > Last week, I ported from VMS to OS-X a small C program that generates
    > > > lottery numbers (and postscript which then puts the squares in the right
    > > > locations on the forms).

    >
    > > > Turns out that the Apple random number generator is far better than VMS'
    > > > because on the first time I used the Mac generated numbers, I won a
    > > > whopping $10 at the lottery. Statistically, my program on a MAC is 100%
    > > > succesful at generating a winning number, whereas on VMS it rarely
    > > > generated a winning number (and it was just a free ticket :=(

    >
    > > > So there you go, undeniable proof that Macintosh is better than VMS.

    >
    > > Many lotteries are run on OpenVMS and when those systems pick the winning
    > > numbers, they *ALWAYS* get it right!

    >
    > The lottery "random number" generators have nothing to do with
    > selecting the winners; they generate "quick-pick" numbers.


    And for that they serve the purpose quite well. In fact, for lotteries
    with shared jackpots (are there any other kinds?), this is a good way
    to lower your chances of having to share your jackpot winnings with
    other winners, assuming you win, of course.

    AEF

    AEF

  3. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 9, 7:15 pm, JF Mezei wrote:
    > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > > Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
    > > "generate" numbers that are truly random.

    >
    > In a situation where a human needs to press a key (or click mouse) to
    > initiate generation of numbers, then if you use VMS time as a seed, it
    > would be pretty random since the human's interpretation of time is way
    > less precise than what VMS does, and as a result, the lowest bytes in
    > the VMS time would be randomly selected since there would be no way for
    > a human to press a key at the moment he would want all those nanoseconds
    > to be a specific value.
    >
    > But if you have a job that automatically generates a random number at
    > 20:00:00 every friday, I would agree that there would not be much
    > randomness in any seed you would use.


    You have to be careful that there aren't some hidden biases in doing
    stuff like this, as you yourself point out with one variation.

    I don't see how you can beat the ball machine. Like electronic voting,
    using a computer to generate winning numbers is problematic. I wonder
    how the gov't verifies that electronic slot machines are fair? IIRC,
    they somehow check what the chip is doing. I'll have to look into it.

    Having the ball machine televised at advertised times is also more
    dramatic. And one can see what's going on. No, one can't watch and be
    sure there is no cheating, but you can't see the electrons or bits in
    the computer. I'm sure the ball machine is better for lotteries than
    computer-generated random numbers.

    AEF

  4. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    AEF wrote:

    > Having the ball machine televised at advertised times is also more
    > dramatic. And one can see what's going on. No, one can't watch and be
    > sure there is no cheating, but you can't see the electrons or bits in
    > the computer.


    I think perhaps the biggest advantage is that it is far easier for
    auditors to certify that the draw is truly random with no bias for any
    number etc etc.

    If the draw is done by computers, it means that auditors have to scan
    thorugh not only the code, but also the code management to ensure no
    covert code is put into production without anyone knowing.

    Drawing by computer also allows speculation that the lottery scans the
    list of sold tickets to determine winning numbers. (aka: draw numbers
    that will generate one big winner, but not too many lesser prize winners
    or vice versa).


  5. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article <47d4b1c4$0$1474$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    JF Mezei writes:
    > AEF wrote:
    >
    >> Having the ball machine televised at advertised times is also more
    >> dramatic. And one can see what's going on. No, one can't watch and be
    >> sure there is no cheating, but you can't see the electrons or bits in
    >> the computer.

    >
    > I think perhaps the biggest advantage is that it is far easier for
    > auditors to certify that the draw is truly random with no bias for any
    > number etc etc.
    >
    > If the draw is done by computers, it means that auditors have to scan
    > thorugh not only the code, but also the code management to ensure no
    > covert code is put into production without anyone knowing.


    Which is pretty much impossible. See: Reflections on Trusting Trust" by
    Ken Thompson.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  6. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article <9e8ae198-931d-4702-bcfc-bcd435058de9@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes:
    >On Mar 9, 7:15 pm, JF Mezei wrote:
    >> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> > Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
    >> > "generate" numbers that are truly random.

    >>
    >> In a situation where a human needs to press a key (or click mouse) to
    >> initiate generation of numbers, then if you use VMS time as a seed, it
    >> would be pretty random since the human's interpretation of time is way
    >> less precise than what VMS does, and as a result, the lowest bytes in
    >> the VMS time would be randomly selected since there would be no way for
    >> a human to press a key at the moment he would want all those nanoseconds
    >> to be a specific value.
    >>
    >> But if you have a job that automatically generates a random number at
    >> 20:00:00 every friday, I would agree that there would not be much
    >> randomness in any seed you would use.

    >
    >You have to be careful that there aren't some hidden biases in doing
    >stuff like this, as you yourself point out with one variation.
    >
    >I don't see how you can beat the ball machine. Like electronic voting,
    >using a computer to generate winning numbers is problematic. I wonder
    >how the gov't verifies that electronic slot machines are fair? IIRC,
    >they somehow check what the chip is doing. I'll have to look into it.
    >

    ERNIE the UK premium bond winner picker is a hardware random number generator
    originally using the signal noise from a bank of neon tubes the latest ERNIE
    uses thermal noise in transistors see

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond



    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University


    >Having the ball machine televised at advertised times is also more
    >dramatic. And one can see what's going on. No, one can't watch and be
    >sure there is no cheating, but you can't see the electrons or bits in
    >the computer. I'm sure the ball machine is better for lotteries than
    >computer-generated random numbers.
    >
    >AEF


  7. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 9, 10:46 pm, AEF wrote:
    > On Mar 9, 10:52 am, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > > > In article <47d35553$0$90265$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
    > > > Arne Vajh°j writes:
    > > >> AEF wrote:
    > > >>> perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on
    > > >>> radioactive decay or some other random quantum process,
    > > >> You can buy hardware cards that provides true random bits. I don't
    > > >> know what they use as source. But the stuff you mention sounds
    > > >> very likely.

    >
    > > > Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
    > > > "generate" numbers that are truly random. A method must be used to
    > > > pick them and that method precludes true randomness.

    >
    > > Not true.

    >
    > > Certain physics stuff are considered true random. Including
    > > radioactivity I believe. Around 1900 the world was considered
    > > deterministic, but then came Einstein, Heissenberg and all those
    > > guys and suddenly the world was random (and impossible
    > > to understand).

    >
    > > Arne

    > [...]


    >
    > Impossible to understand? QM is quite well understood. The problem is


    Well, I meant that calculating the wave function, and the
    probabilities of various outcomes therefrom, is well understood. What
    the mystery is that there is no "reasonable" known mechanism that can
    produce the randomness part.

    In fact, Feynman once said, half-jokingly, "... nobody understands
    quantum mechanics". So in that sense, yes, you are right. But how to
    do the calculations *is* well understood.

    [...]

    AEF

  8. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
    >>"generate" numbers that are truly random.

    >
    >
    > In a situation where a human needs to press a key (or click mouse) to
    > initiate generation of numbers, then if you use VMS time as a seed, it
    > would be pretty random since the human's interpretation of time is way
    > less precise than what VMS does, and as a result, the lowest bytes in
    > the VMS time would be randomly selected since there would be no way for
    > a human to press a key at the moment he would want all those nanoseconds
    > to be a specific value.
    >
    > But if you have a job that automatically generates a random number at
    > 20:00:00 every friday, I would agree that there would not be much
    > randomness in any seed you would use.


    There's damned little randomness to be found there!! Remember that the
    clock is updated every ten milliseconds by adding 10,000,000 (forgive me
    if I've lost a decimal point somewhere) nanoseconds to the counter!


  9. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article <47d407a5$0$90274$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= writes:
    >
    > Certain physics stuff are considered true random. Including
    > radioactivity I believe. Around 1900 the world was considered
    > deterministic, but then came Einstein, Heissenberg and all those
    > guys and suddenly the world was random (and impossible
    > to understand).


    Plank.


  10. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article <47D542AA.5050300@comcast.net>,
    "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    > JF Mezei wrote:
    >> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
    >>>"generate" numbers that are truly random.

    >>
    >>
    >> In a situation where a human needs to press a key (or click mouse) to
    >> initiate generation of numbers, then if you use VMS time as a seed, it
    >> would be pretty random since the human's interpretation of time is way
    >> less precise than what VMS does, and as a result, the lowest bytes in
    >> the VMS time would be randomly selected since there would be no way for
    >> a human to press a key at the moment he would want all those nanoseconds
    >> to be a specific value.
    >>
    >> But if you have a job that automatically generates a random number at
    >> 20:00:00 every friday, I would agree that there would not be much
    >> randomness in any seed you would use.

    >
    > There's damned little randomness to be found there!! Remember that the
    > clock is updated every ten milliseconds by adding 10,000,000 (forgive me
    > if I've lost a decimal point somewhere) nanoseconds to the counter!


    And, all of these schemes ignore the fact that if you start with the
    same seed they repeat the same sequence. Hardly seems random when
    the numbers are generated by a fixed and predictable mathematical
    formula. There is nothing random in a computer and some of us
    seriously doubt there is any true randomness in the universe. (Hint:
    just because you don't see the pattern or can't determine all of the
    root causes doesn't mean it's random.)

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  11. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > There is nothing random in a computer and some of us
    > seriously doubt there is any true randomness in the universe.



    I agree with this. However, when you bring the word "random" back to
    human scale, there is still plenty of stuff that appears "random" to
    humans because we cannot predict it.

    To a layman, the first signal light he will encounter after exiting a
    highway will be "random" between read green or yellow, even though the
    light operates on a predictable schedule.

    A lottery remain random as long as humans are unable to predict it even
    if in theory, it is predictable.

    Eisenberg states that the act of looking at something disrupts it. But
    if studio lights are already shining on the lottery machine with the
    balls in it, having an extra camera with high precision lens some
    distance from the machine won't affect the outcome and you might be able
    to follow the movement of balls and predict which one is next to come
    out. Whether the photons emitted by the balls and machine are absorbed
    by a camera or clothing of an audience menber doesn't make much of a
    difference to the balls in the machine.

    However, prior to the draw, even if you knew the full configuration of
    the machine, balls and aerodynamic properties of the chamber and the fan
    blowing in it, you cannot predict the exact position of the rotating
    chamber at time of start, the exact time difference between start of
    rotation and the moment they drop the balls into the chamber, and the
    exact moment when some human pushes a button to get a ball to come out.
    So even if physics, aerodynamics and others sciences can explain the
    movement of balls in the machine, no human has sufficient information to
    have all the variables and thus, the outcome is random at the human level.


  12. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 10, 9:26 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > In article <47D542AA.5050...@comcast.net>,
    > "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > > JF Mezei wrote:
    > >> Bill Gunshannon wrote:

    >
    > >>>Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
    > >>>"generate" numbers that are truly random.

    >
    > >> In a situation where a human needs to press a key (or click mouse) to
    > >> initiate generation of numbers, then if you use VMS time as a seed, it
    > >> would be pretty random since the human's interpretation of time is way
    > >> less precise than what VMS does, and as a result, the lowest bytes in
    > >> the VMS time would be randomly selected since there would be no way for
    > >> a human to press a key at the moment he would want all those nanoseconds
    > >> to be a specific value.

    >
    > >> But if you have a job that automatically generates a random number at
    > >> 20:00:00 every friday, I would agree that there would not be much
    > >> randomness in any seed you would use.

    >
    > > There's damned little randomness to be found there!! Remember that the
    > > clock is updated every ten milliseconds by adding 10,000,000 (forgive me
    > > if I've lost a decimal point somewhere) nanoseconds to the counter!

    >
    > And, all of these schemes ignore the fact that if you start with the
    > same seed they repeat the same sequence. Hardly seems random when
    > the numbers are generated by a fixed and predictable mathematical
    > formula. There is nothing random in a computer and some of us
    > seriously doubt there is any true randomness in the universe. (Hint:
    > just because you don't see the pattern or can't determine all of the
    > root causes doesn't mean it's random.)
    >
    > bill
    >
    > --
    > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    > billg...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    > University of Scranton |
    > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include


    There's random, and then there's random. :-)

    What I mean is this: Is the process random enough for the purposes of
    the application? Pseudo-random numbers are very useful for certain
    purposes. I used FORTRAN's random function to generate some pseudo-
    data to test a program I was working on in physics. It worked fine.
    Such functions are also useful for the lottery quick pick. Some
    applications require higher quality random number sequences. In fact,
    back in the early 90's some mathematicians (or physicists) found some
    surprise correlated triplets for certain cases involved in Monte Carlo
    simulations (that's the physics term for it -- see the Wikipedia
    article) and for some purposes that would be a bad thing.

    Shuffling a deck of cards is a good example here. Are you going to
    tell me that shuffling is not random enough to play cards? And if you
    knew the initial positions and velocities of a set of dice, you could
    in principle predict the outcome. But dice are random enough for board
    games and the like, no?

    As for "true randomness", yes, many have questioned the validity of QM
    for that. Even Einstein, so you're in good company. But it flies in
    the face of increasingly compelling evidence to the contrary, that
    quantum processes are truly random except that the probability each of
    the possible outcomes is given by the wave function which is
    calculable via the equations of QM. I venture to guess even Einstein
    would have been convinced had he lived long enough to see today.

    Please read Chapter 6 of The Character of Physical Law by Feynman (a
    Nobel prize winner for his work on QED) and get back to me. I find
    Feynman's argument very compelling. No, it's not absolute proof. You
    never get that in science (though would you doubt the reality of
    atoms?). But trust me, it looks really, really bad for causality.

    AEF

  13. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    Bob Koehler wrote:
    > In article <47d407a5$0$90274$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= writes:
    >> Certain physics stuff are considered true random. Including
    >> radioactivity I believe. Around 1900 the world was considered
    >> deterministic, but then came Einstein, Heissenberg and all those
    >> guys and suddenly the world was random (and impossible
    >> to understand).

    >
    > Plank.


    Max Planck ?

    Arne

  14. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 10, 7:26 pm, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
    > Bob Koehler wrote:
    > > In article <47d407a5$0$90274$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= writes:
    > >> Certain physics stuff are considered true random. Including
    > >> radioactivity I believe. Around 1900 the world was considered
    > >> deterministic, but then came Einstein, Heissenberg and all those
    > >> guys and suddenly the world was random (and impossible
    > >> to understand).

    >
    > > Plank.

    >
    > Max Planck ?
    >
    > Arne


    Oui. It was he who started it all. He was trying to find a theory to
    explain the spectral distribution of black body radiation as a
    function of temperature. There were two theories at the time: one
    worked at small wavelengths and the other worked at large. He found an
    ingenious interpolation between the two but it depended on a parameter
    h (Planck's constant) that had a finite value that could be fitted to
    the data. Within two months Planck found that he could derive the
    formula by assuming that light only comes in packets of energy equal
    to the frequency of the light times this constant. But this implied
    that light comes in discrete bundles of energy. But everyone "knew"
    that light was a wave. This was an extremely radical idea for the
    time. Planck argued that for some unknown reason the light was emitted
    and absorbed in quanta. (I think I read somewhere that he resisted
    this and considered h to be only a useful trick to get the right
    equation and that for some reason.) Einstein boldly said that these
    quanta of light were real (they are known as photons) and used the
    idea of photons to explain the photoelectric effect which cannot be
    explained at all by classical physics. Later, the Compton effect
    became the most direct evidence for the particle nature of radiation.
    In the Compton effect, a photon scatters off of an electron in an atom
    and the energy loss of the photon is calculated assuming it is a
    simple billiard ball collision. When the energy loss is plugged into
    the E = h*frequency equation, you get a lower frequency since the
    energy is lower. This lower frequency corresponds to a longer
    wavelength and this is in fact observed when gamma rays are scattered
    by matter. There was then no doubt that radiation or light (and when a
    physicist says light, he means electromagnetic radiation of any
    frequency all the way from radio waves to gamma rays) has a particle
    nature. Bohr called these dual properties of light "complementarity".
    It turns out that matter also exhibits this duality.

    Enough physics for now.

    AEF

  15. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article <47d58fcf$0$1443$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    >
    > However, prior to the draw, even if you knew the full configuration of
    > the machine, balls and aerodynamic properties of the chamber and the fan
    > blowing in it, you cannot predict the exact position of the rotating
    > chamber at time of start, the exact time difference between start of
    > rotation and the moment they drop the balls into the chamber, and the
    > exact moment when some human pushes a button to get a ball to come out.
    > So even if physics, aerodynamics and others sciences can explain the
    > movement of balls in the machine, no human has sufficient information to
    > have all the variables and thus, the outcome is random at the human level.


    The random outcome of quantum mechanical behaviour is not a mere
    limitation of human capability.


  16. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article <47d5d18f$0$90274$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= writes:
    > Bob Koehler wrote:
    >>
    >> Plank.

    >
    > Max Planck ?


    Yeah, I misspelled it. The "father" of h-bar.


  17. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 11, 9:23 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
    Koehler) wrote:
    > In article <47d58fcf$0$1443$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > > However, prior to the draw, even if you knew the full configuration of
    > > the machine, balls and aerodynamic properties of the chamber and the fan
    > > blowing in it, you cannot predict the exact position of the rotating
    > > chamber at time of start, the exact time difference between start of
    > > rotation and the moment they drop the balls into the chamber, and the
    > > exact moment when some human pushes a button to get a ball to come out.
    > > So even if physics, aerodynamics and others sciences can explain the
    > > movement of balls in the machine, no human has sufficient information to
    > > have all the variables and thus, the outcome is random at the human level.

    >
    > The random outcome of quantum mechanical behaviour is not a mere
    > limitation of human capability.


    You are confusing quantum mechanics math with reality. If you mean
    that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is not concerned with
    resolving apparent randomness, then you are correct. You might want to
    look into the de Broglie-Bohm theory, more recently called Bohmian
    Mechanics.

  18. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 11, 2:16 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
    Koehler) wrote:
    > In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > > You are confusing quantum mechanics math with reality. If you mean
    > > that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is not concerned with
    > > resolving apparent randomness, then you are correct. You might want to
    > > look into the de Broglie-Bohm theory, more recently called Bohmian
    > > Mechanics.

    >
    > Quantum mechanics math vs. reality? You think reality differs?


    I believe that reality does consist of probabilities, but QM math is
    vague by design and accepts those probabilities as "good enough"
    because in most cases they are.

    If you believe that Schrodinger's Cat was really both 1/2 alive and
    1/2 dead, then you are welcome to that belief. If you believe that the
    cat is either dead or alive and the experiment simply illustrates a
    measurement problem, then you're getting closer to what I believe.

    I suggest reading what John Bell has said about some of the problems
    with QM. If you want to advance further beyond the world of dead-
    scientists, then read some of the work being done by people who are
    still alive and with whom you can actually discuss this.

    You're not too far from Rutger's, are you (or am I thinking of someone
    else)? Look up Sheldon Goldstein or one of his contemporaries and
    discuss it with them if you feel qualified.

    You might find that Schrodinger's, Einstein's, Bell's, de Broglie's,
    Bohm's (and other "non-conformist") thoughts are being taken more
    seriously these days. You'll just have to look into it yourself. I'm
    not going to get into a battle of dead-scientists.

  19. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article ,
    koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    > In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed88c@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips writes:
    >>
    >> You are confusing quantum mechanics math with reality. If you mean
    >> that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is not concerned with
    >> resolving apparent randomness, then you are correct. You might want to
    >> look into the de Broglie-Bohm theory, more recently called Bohmian
    >> Mechanics.

    >
    > Quantum mechanics math vs. reality? You think reality differs?


    I'll bet a lot of people do. When science requires faith than religion
    in order to accept that which can neither be observed nor satisfactorily
    proven I think more and more people will see the difference.

    bill


    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  20. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed88c@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips writes:
    >
    > You are confusing quantum mechanics math with reality. If you mean
    > that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is not concerned with
    > resolving apparent randomness, then you are correct. You might want to
    > look into the de Broglie-Bohm theory, more recently called Bohmian
    > Mechanics.


    Quantum mechanics math vs. reality? You think reality differs?


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast