Ambiguous univalence (was Frequentist probability confusion) [Archive]

Italo Vecchi

Apr11-04, 11:44 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\nfrisbieinstein@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers) wrote in message news:<9511688f.0404012122.5212c558@posting.google. com>...\n\n> Actually, I think experimentalists use the Baysian approach. Usually\n> an experiment is undertaken with the expectation of some result. If\n> the results do not match this expectation, the equipment is tweaked\n> until the expected result is obtained. If this doesn\'t work either\n> the experiment is dropped or (rarely) some other explanation is found.\n>\n\nYou\'re raising a huge issue.\nData must be interpreted and "unbiased interpretation" is certainly\nan idealisation and arguably an oxymoron. Besides, noone ever lost\nhis job for bowing to mainstream consensus.\n\nAn interesting example of experimental evidence yielding divergent\ninterpretations concerns the univalence (or boson-fermion)\nsuperselection rule ([4]). Observables exhibiting lack of periodicity\nfor 2pi rotations are ruled out by the superselection rule (sic),\nwhich stems from the postulate of rotational invariance and is deeply\nimbedded in modern physics.\nEmbarassingly, there are experimental results ( [1], [2], [5] , [7])\nexhibiting broken 2pi-periodicity.\nThe interpretation of the experimental results is controversial\n([3],[6]), also because the idea of invariance is a rather subtle one.\nAccording to the critics "the standard response is that the\nexperiments are beautiful, but they are not the ones involved in the\nunivalence superselection rule where you must rotate the entire\nisolated system" ([6]). I find the objection rather bizarre, since\nthere is no such thing as invariance of an isolated system. Invariance\ncan be meaningfully formulated and tested only for two non-isolated\nsystems, one of them including the observer.\n\n\nCheers,\n\nIV\n\n---------------------------------------------\n\n"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,\n"it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."\n\n"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so\nmany different things."\n\n"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that\'s\nall."\n\nLewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, Chapter VI\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>frisbieinstein@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers) wrote in message news:<9511688f.0404012122.5212c558@posting.google.com>...

> Actually, I think experimentalists use the Baysian approach. Usually
> an experiment is undertaken with the expectation of some result. If
> the results do not match this expectation, the equipment is tweaked
> until the expected result is obtained. If this doesn't work either
> the experiment is dropped or (rarely) some other explanation is found.
>

You're raising a huge issue.
Data must be interpreted and "unbiased interpretation" is certainly
an idealisation and arguably an oxymoron. Besides, noone ever lost
his job for bowing to mainstream consensus.

An interesting example of experimental evidence yielding divergent
interpretations concerns the univalence (or boson-fermion)
superselection rule ([4]). Observables exhibiting lack of periodicity
for 2pi rotations are ruled out by the superselection rule (sic),
which stems from the postulate of rotational invariance and is deeply
imbedded in modern physics.
Embarassingly, there are experimental results ( [1], [2], [5] , [7])
exhibiting broken 2pi-periodicity.
The interpretation of the experimental results is controversial
([3],[6]), also because the idea of invariance is a rather subtle one.
According to the critics "the standard response is that the
experiments are beautiful, but they are not the ones involved in the
univalence superselection rule where you must rotate the entire
isolated system" ([6]). I find the objection rather bizarre, since
there is no such thing as invariance of an isolated system. Invariance
can be meaningfully formulated and tested only for two non-isolated
systems, one of them including the observer.

Cheers,

IV

---------------------------------------------

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so
many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's
all."

Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, Chapter VI

Ralph E. Frost

Apr12-04, 10:06 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n"Italo Vecchi" <vecchi@weirdtech.com> wrote in message\nnews:61789046.0404090046.d6383e8@posting. google.com...\n>\n>\n>\n> frisbieinstein@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers) wrote in message\nnews:<9511688f.0404012122.5212c558@postin g.google.com>...\n>\n> > Actually, I think experimentalists use the Baysian approach. Usually\n> > an experiment is undertaken with the expectation of some result. If\n> > the results do not match this expectation, the equipment is tweaked\n> > until the expected result is obtained. If this doesn\'t work either\n> > the experiment is dropped or (rarely) some other explanation is found.\n> >\n>\n> You\'re raising a huge issue.\n> Data must be interpreted and "unbiased interpretation" is certainly\n> an idealisation and arguably an oxymoron. Besides, noone ever lost\n> his job for bowing to mainstream consensus.\n>\n> An interesting example of experimental evidence yielding divergent\n> interpretations concerns the univalence (or boson-fermion)\n> superselection rule ([4]). Observables exhibiting lack of periodicity\n> for 2pi rotations are ruled out by the superselection rule (sic),\n> which stems from the postulate of rotational invariance and is deeply\n> imbedded in modern physics.\n> Embarassingly, there are experimental results ( [1], [2], [5] , [7])\n> exhibiting broken 2pi-periodicity.\n> The interpretation of the experimental results is controversial\n> ([3],[6]), also because the idea of invariance is a rather subtle one.\n> According to the critics "the standard response is that the\n> experiments are beautiful, but they are not the ones involved in the\n> univalence superselection rule where you must rotate the entire\n> isolated system" ([6]). I find the objection rather bizarre, since\n> there is no such thing as invariance of an isolated system. Invariance\n> can be meaningfully formulated and tested only for two non-isolated\n> systems, one of them including the observer.\n>\n\nAre you saying there is a substantial body of experimental results from\nparticle studies that are routinely and consistently thrown out because, to\ninclude them would require a significantly different explanation than that\nprovided by the current version of the Standard Model?\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Italo Vecchi" <vecchi@weirdtech.com> wrote in message
news:61789046.0404090046.d6383e8@posting.google.co m...
>
>
>
> frisbieinstein@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers) wrote in message
news:<9511688f.0404012122.5212c558@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Actually, I think experimentalists use the Baysian approach. Usually
> > an experiment is undertaken with the expectation of some result. If
> > the results do not match this expectation, the equipment is tweaked
> > until the expected result is obtained. If this doesn't work either
> > the experiment is dropped or (rarely) some other explanation is found.
> >
>
> You're raising a huge issue.
> Data must be interpreted and "unbiased interpretation" is certainly
> an idealisation and arguably an oxymoron. Besides, noone ever lost
> his job for bowing to mainstream consensus.
>
> An interesting example of experimental evidence yielding divergent
> interpretations concerns the univalence (or boson-fermion)
> superselection rule ([4]). Observables exhibiting lack of periodicity
> for 2pi rotations are ruled out by the superselection rule (sic),
> which stems from the postulate of rotational invariance and is deeply
> imbedded in modern physics.
> Embarassingly, there are experimental results ( [1], [2], [5] , [7])
> exhibiting broken 2pi-periodicity.
> The interpretation of the experimental results is controversial
> ([3],[6]), also because the idea of invariance is a rather subtle one.
> According to the critics "the standard response is that the
> experiments are beautiful, but they are not the ones involved in the
> univalence superselection rule where you must rotate the entire
> isolated system" ([6]). I find the objection rather bizarre, since
> there is no such thing as invariance of an isolated system. Invariance
> can be meaningfully formulated and tested only for two non-isolated
> systems, one of them including the observer.
>

Are you saying there is a substantial body of experimental results from
particle studies that are routinely and consistently thrown out because, to
include them would require a significantly different explanation than that
provided by the current version of the Standard Model?

Italo Vecchi

Apr13-04, 03:43 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Ralph E. Frost" <ralph@REMOVErefrost.com> wrote in message news:<107ke21bgu0pvf3@corp.supernews.com>...\n> "Italo Vecchi" <vecchi@weirdtech.com> wrote in message\n> news:61789046.0404090046.d6383e8@posting.google.co m...\n> >\n> > frisbieinstein@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers) wrote in message\n> news:<9511688f.0404012122.5212c558@posting.google. com>...\n> >\n> > > Actually, I think experimentalists use the Baysian approach. Usually\n> > > an experiment is undertaken with the expectation of some result. If\n> > > the results do not match this expectation, the equipment is tweaked\n> > > until the expected result is obtained. If this doesn\'t work either\n> > > the experiment is dropped or (rarely) some other explanation is found.\n> > >\n> >\n> > You\'re raising a huge issue.\n> > Data must be interpreted and "unbiased interpretation" is certainly\n> > an idealisation and arguably an oxymoron. Besides, noone ever lost\n> > his job for bowing to mainstream consensus.\n> >\n> > An interesting example of experimental evidence yielding divergent\n> > interpretations concerns the univalence (or boson-fermion)\n> > superselection rule ([4]). Observables exhibiting lack of periodicity\n> > for 2pi rotations are ruled out by the superselection rule (sic),\n> > which stems from the postulate of rotational invariance and is deeply\n> > imbedded in modern physics.\n> > Embarassingly, there are experimental results ( [1], [2], [5] , [7])\n> > exhibiting broken 2pi-periodicity.\n> > The interpretation of the experimental results is controversial\n> > ([3],[6]), also because the idea of invariance is a rather subtle one.\n> > According to the critics "the standard response is that the\n> > experiments are beautiful, but they are not the ones involved in the\n> > univalence superselection rule where you must rotate the entire\n> > isolated system" ([6]). I find the objection rather bizarre, since\n> > there is no such thing as invariance of an isolated system. Invariance\n> > can be meaningfully formulated and tested only for two non-isolated\n> > systems, one of them including the observer.\n> >\n>\n> Are you saying there is a substantial body of experimental results from\n> particle studies that are routinely and consistently thrown out because, to\n> include them would require a significantly different explanation than that\n> provided by the current version of the Standard Model?\n\nI don\'t know. Not necessarily anyway, even accepting that univalent\nsuperselection doesn\'t hold. However I wonder how eagerly such\nviolations are being sought by QED experimentalists.\n\nBelow are the references for my previous post.\n\nCheers,\n\nIV\n\n[1] Rauch H. et al. "Verification of Coherent Spinor Rotation of\nFermions" Physical Letters 54A (1975) pp 425-427.\n[2] Greenberger D.M. "The neutron interferometer as a device for\nillustrating the strange behaviour of quantum systems" Rev.Mod. Phys.\n55\n(1983) , pp 875-905.\n[3] Hegerfeldt G. and Kraus K. "Critical remark on the observability\nof\nthe sign change of spinors under 2pi rotations" Phys. Rev. 170 (1978)\n,\npp 449-457.\n[4] E. P. Wigner " Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" (1981) in\nQuantum Theory and Measurement, Wheeler and Zurek eds. pp. 260-314.\n[5] Rauch H. et al. "Precise determination of the 4pi-Periodicity\nfactor\nof a Spinor Wave Function" (1978) Zeitschrift für Physik B29 pp\n281-284.\n[6] A.S. Wightman "Superselection Rules:Old and New" (1995) Nuovo\nCimento 110B (5-6) pp 752-769.\n[7] Badurek et al. "Polarized neutron interferometry: a survey" (1988)\nPhysica B 151, pp 82-92.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Ralph E. Frost" <ralph@REMOVErefrost.com> wrote in message news:<107ke21bgu0pvf3@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Italo Vecchi" <vecchi@weirdtech.com> wrote in message
> news:61789046.0404090046.d6383e8@posting.google.co m...
> >
> > frisbieinstein@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers) wrote in message
> news:<9511688f.0404012122.5212c558@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > Actually, I think experimentalists use the Baysian approach. Usually
> > > an experiment is undertaken with the expectation of some result. If
> > > the results do not match this expectation, the equipment is tweaked
> > > until the expected result is obtained. If this doesn't work either
> > > the experiment is dropped or (rarely) some other explanation is found.
> > >
> >
> > You're raising a huge issue.
> > Data must be interpreted and "unbiased interpretation" is certainly
> > an idealisation and arguably an oxymoron. Besides, noone ever lost
> > his job for bowing to mainstream consensus.
> >
> > An interesting example of experimental evidence yielding divergent
> > interpretations concerns the univalence (or boson-fermion)
> > superselection rule ([4]). Observables exhibiting lack of periodicity
> > for 2pi rotations are ruled out by the superselection rule (sic),
> > which stems from the postulate of rotational invariance and is deeply
> > imbedded in modern physics.
> > Embarassingly, there are experimental results ( [1], [2], [5] , [7])
> > exhibiting broken 2pi-periodicity.
> > The interpretation of the experimental results is controversial
> > ([3],[6]), also because the idea of invariance is a rather subtle one.
> > According to the critics "the standard response is that the
> > experiments are beautiful, but they are not the ones involved in the
> > univalence superselection rule where you must rotate the entire
> > isolated system" ([6]). I find the objection rather bizarre, since
> > there is no such thing as invariance of an isolated system. Invariance
> > can be meaningfully formulated and tested only for two non-isolated
> > systems, one of them including the observer.
> >
>
> Are you saying there is a substantial body of experimental results from
> particle studies that are routinely and consistently thrown out because, to
> include them would require a significantly different explanation than that
> provided by the current version of the Standard Model?

I don't know. Not necessarily anyway, even accepting that univalent
superselection doesn't hold. However I wonder how eagerly such
violations are being sought by QED experimentalists.

Below are the references for my previous post.

Cheers,

IV

[1] Rauch H. et al. "Verification of Coherent Spinor Rotation of
Fermions" Physical Letters 54A (1975) pp 425-427.
[2] Greenberger D.M. "The neutron interferometer as a device for
illustrating the strange behaviour of quantum systems" Rev.Mod. Phys.
55
(1983) , pp 875-905.
[3] Hegerfeldt G. and Kraus K. "Critical remark on the observability
of
the sign change of spinors under 2pi rotations" Phys. Rev. 170 (1978)
,
pp 449-457.
[4] E. P. Wigner " Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" (1981) in
Quantum Theory and Measurement, Wheeler and Zurek eds. pp. 260-314.
[5] Rauch H. et al. "Precise determination of the 4pi-Periodicity
factor
of a Spinor Wave Function" (1978) Zeitschrift für Physik B29 pp
281-284.
[6] A.S. Wightman "Superselection Rules:Old and New" (1995) Nuovo
Cimento 110B (5-6) pp 752-769.
[7] Badurek et al. "Polarized neutron interferometry: a survey" (1988)
Physica B 151, pp 82-92.

Arnold Neumaier

Apr13-04, 12:31 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nRalph E. Frost wrote:\n\n> Are you saying there is a substantial body of experimental results from\n> particle studies that are routinely and consistently thrown out because, to\n> include them would require a significantly different explanation than that\n> provided by the current version of the Standard Model?\n\nThis happened already long ago with positron tracks,\nbefore the positron was officially shown to exist.\nIt takes courage to be against mainstream even when you are right,\nsince the chance that you are wrong and just misinterpreting\nsomething is much much higher. Thus a competent physicist goes\nagainst mainstream only if the evidence is overwhelming.\n\n\nArnold Neumaier\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Ralph E. Frost wrote:

> Are you saying there is a substantial body of experimental results from
> particle studies that are routinely and consistently thrown out because, to
> include them would require a significantly different explanation than that
> provided by the current version of the Standard Model?

This happened already long ago with positron tracks,
before the positron was officially shown to exist.
It takes courage to be against mainstream even when you are right,
since the chance that you are wrong and just misinterpreting
something is much much higher. Thus a competent physicist goes
against mainstream only if the evidence is overwhelming.

Arnold Neumaier

Italo Vecchi

Apr15-04, 11:33 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<407BE49C.70606@univie.ac.at>...\n....\n> Thus a competent physicist goes\n> against mainstream only if the evidence is overwhelming.\n>\nIndeed. Nothing to the tune of "the standard model is flawed because\nunivalence superselection is testably false" has ever been published\nor posted. Even the people who demonstrated broken 2pi-symmetry (guys\nof Aharonov and Zeilinger caliber) seem uninterested in pressing the\npoint, although the factual evidence is rock solid. Wightman, who\nco-invented superselection, acknowledes that the experimental results\nare beautiful. He just explains them away with an argument (first set\nforth in [1]) that appears meaningless, at least to me.\n\nPossible violations of Lorentz symmetry are apparently a hot topic in\ncurrent physics research (see [2]), but the results on 2pi-rotations\nof fermions are nowhere mentioned.\n\nCheers (oh well ... ),\n\nIV\n\n[1] Hegerfeldt G. and Kraus K. "Critical remark on the observability\nof the sign change of spinors under 2pi rotations" Phys. Rev. 170\n(1978), pp 449-457.\n\n[2] http://physicsweb.org/article/world/17/3/7\n\n---------------\n\nFools rush in where angels fear to tread.\n\nA. Pope\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<407BE49C.70606@univie.ac.at>...
....
> Thus a competent physicist goes
> against mainstream only if the evidence is overwhelming.
>
Indeed. Nothing to the tune of "the standard model is flawed because
univalence superselection is testably false" has ever been published
or posted. Even the people who demonstrated broken 2pi-symmetry (guys
of Aharonov and Zeilinger caliber) seem uninterested in pressing the
point, although the factual evidence is rock solid. Wightman, who
co-invented superselection, acknowledes that the experimental results
are beautiful. He just explains them away with an argument (first set
forth in [1]) that appears meaningless, at least to me.

Possible violations of Lorentz symmetry are apparently a hot topic in
current physics research (see [2]), but the results on 2pi-rotations
of fermions are nowhere mentioned.

Cheers (oh well ... ),

IV

[1] Hegerfeldt G. and Kraus K. "Critical remark on the observability
of the sign change of spinors under 2pi rotations" Phys. Rev. 170
(1978), pp 449-457.

[2] http://physicsweb.org/article/world/17/3/7

---------------

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

A. Pope

Ralph E. Frost

Apr22-04, 03:44 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Italo Vecchi" <vecchi@weirdtech.com> wrote in message\nnews:61789046.0404140305.371fdd79@posting .google.com...\n> Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote in message\nnews:<407BE49C.70606@univie.ac.at>...\n> ...\n> > Thus a competent physicist goes\n> > against mainstream only if the evidence is overwhelming.\n> >\n> Indeed. Nothing to ...\n....snip...\n> of Aharonov and Zeilinger caliber) seem uninterested in pressing the\n> point, although the factual evidence is rock solid.\n\nAre you both saying that univalence superselection is testably false but\nthat this is an absolutely irrelevant fact?\nOr, are you both saying there is sound scientific evidence of a valid\nanomally, but that it is presently, seemingly insufficient, or deemed\ninsufficient, by itself, to modulate the mesmerizing chant of the dominant\ntrial theory?\n\nAlso, if it is an anomally, how does this small anomally compare with --Was\nit?-- the "UV catastrophe" at the start of the 20th century?\n\nThanks, in advance, for any additions or corrections you or others can\noffer.\n\nRalph Frost\n\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Italo Vecchi" <vecchi@weirdtech.com> wrote in message
news:61789046.0404140305.371fdd79@posting.google.c om...
> Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote in message
news:<407BE49C.70606@univie.ac.at>...
> ...
> > Thus a competent physicist goes
> > against mainstream only if the evidence is overwhelming.
> >
> Indeed. Nothing to ...
....snip...
> of Aharonov and Zeilinger caliber) seem uninterested in pressing the
> point, although the factual evidence is rock solid.

Are you both saying that univalence superselection is testably false but
that this is an absolutely irrelevant fact?
Or, are you both saying there is sound scientific evidence of a valid
anomally, but that it is presently, seemingly insufficient, or deemed
insufficient, by itself, to modulate the mesmerizing chant of the dominant
trial theory?

Also, if it is an anomally, how does this small anomally compare with --Was
it?-- the "UV catastrophe" at the start of the 20th century?

Thanks, in advance, for any additions or corrections you or others can
offer.

Ralph Frost

Arnold Neumaier

Apr24-04, 12:17 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Ralph E. Frost wrote:\n> "Italo Vecchi" <vecchi@weirdtech.com> wrote in message\n> news:61789046.0404140305.371fdd79@posting.google.c om...\n>\n>>Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote in message\n>\n> news:<407BE49C.70606@univie.ac.at>...\n>\n>>...\n> >\n>>>Thus a competent physicist goes\n>>>against mainstream only if the evidence is overwhelming.\n>>>\n>>\n>>Indeed. Nothing to ...\n>\n> ...snip...\n>\n>>of Aharonov and Zeilinger caliber) seem uninterested in pressing the\n>>point, although the factual evidence is rock solid.\n>\n>\n> Are you both saying that univalence superselection is testably false but\n> that this is an absolutely irrelevant fact?\n> Or, are you both saying there is sound scientific evidence of a valid\n> anomally, but that it is presently, seemingly insufficient, or deemed\n> insufficient, by itself, to modulate the mesmerizing chant of the dominant\n> trial theory?\n\nI was saying nothing about anomalies, only warning that to seriously\ngo against mainstream opinion (no matter about which subject)\nrequires much higher standards of care than when npresenting\nmainstream research.\n\n\nArnold Neumaier\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Ralph E. Frost wrote:
> "Italo Vecchi" <vecchi@weirdtech.com> wrote in message
> news:61789046.0404140305.371fdd79@posting.google.c om...
>
>>Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote in message
>
> news:<407BE49C.70606@univie.ac.at>...
>
>>...
>>
>>>Thus a competent physicist goes
>>>against mainstream only if the evidence is overwhelming.
>>>
>>
>>Indeed. Nothing to ...
>
> ...snip...
>
>>of Aharonov and Zeilinger caliber) seem uninterested in pressing the
>>point, although the factual evidence is rock solid.
>
>
> Are you both saying that univalence superselection is testably false but
> that this is an absolutely irrelevant fact?
> Or, are you both saying there is sound scientific evidence of a valid
> anomally, but that it is presently, seemingly insufficient, or deemed
> insufficient, by itself, to modulate the mesmerizing chant of the dominant
> trial theory?

I was saying nothing about anomalies, only warning that to seriously
go against mainstream opinion (no matter about which subject)
requires much higher standards of care than when npresenting
mainstream research.

Arnold Neumaier

Italo Vecchi

Apr27-04, 02:42 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Ralph E. Frost" <ralph@REMOVErefrost.com> wrote in message news:<1088k823eui7jc1@corp.supernews.com>...\n\n>\ n> Are you both saying that univalence superselection is testably false but\n> that this is an absolutely irrelevant fact?\n> Or, are you both saying there is sound scientific evidence of a valid\n> anomally, but that it is presently, seemingly insufficient, or deemed\n> insufficient, by itself, to modulate the mesmerizing chant of the dominant\n> trial theory?\n\nI guess it depends on people\'s agendas. Zeh for example writes that\n"in spite of the success of the superposition principle it is evident\n[huh?] that not all superpositions are found in nature. This led some\nphysicists to postulate superselection rules which restrict this\nprinciple by axiomatically excluding certain superpositions" but then\nhe adds "most disturbing ... seem to be superpositions of states with\ninteger and half-integer spin (bosons and fermions). They violate\ninvariance under 2pi rotations ... but such a non-invariance has been\nexperimentally confirmed ... ." [1]. The brackets are mine. Zeh has\nhis own recipe to deal with weird superpositions. It goes under the\nname of decoherence theory and is very fashionable this days.\n\n>\n> Also, if it is an anomally, how does this small anomally compare with --Was\n> it?-- the "UV catastrophe" at the start of the 20th century?\n\nCall it small. Besides, anomaly is in the eye of the beholder. I find\nthe very idea of superselection fishy.\n\nIV\n\n[1] http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9506/9506020.pdf\n\n----------------------------------------\n\n"If you\'re so so smart, how come you\'re a scientist?"\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Ralph E. Frost" <ralph@REMOVErefrost.com> wrote in message news:<1088k823eui7jc1@corp.supernews.com>...

>
> Are you both saying that univalence superselection is testably false but
> that this is an absolutely irrelevant fact?
> Or, are you both saying there is sound scientific evidence of a valid
> anomally, but that it is presently, seemingly insufficient, or deemed
> insufficient, by itself, to modulate the mesmerizing chant of the dominant
> trial theory?

I guess it depends on people's agendas. Zeh for example writes that
"in spite of the success of the superposition principle it is evident
[huh?] that not all superpositions are found in nature. This led some
physicists to postulate superselection rules which restrict this
principle by axiomatically excluding certain superpositions" but then
he adds "most disturbing ... seem to be superpositions of states with
integer and half-integer spin (bosons and fermions). They violate
invariance under 2pi rotations ... but such a non-invariance has been
experimentally confirmed ... ." [1]. The brackets are mine. Zeh has
his own recipe to deal with weird superpositions. It goes under the
name of decoherence theory and is very fashionable this days.

>
> Also, if it is an anomally, how does this small anomally compare with --Was
> it?-- the "UV catastrophe" at the start of the 20th century?

Call it small. Besides, anomaly is in the eye of the beholder. I find
the very idea of superselection fishy.

IV

[1] http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9506/9506020.pdf

----------------------------------------

"If you're so so smart, how come you're a scientist?"

Esa A E Peuha

Apr28-04, 02:49 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>vecchi@weirdtech.com (Italo Vecchi) writes:\n\n> Embarassingly, there are experimental results ( [1], [2], [5] , [7])\n> exhibiting broken 2pi-periodicity.\n\nYou seem to have left out the references in your post. Could you post\nthem again?\n\n--\nEsa Peuha\nstudent of mathematics at the University of Helsinki\nhttp://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>vecchi@weirdtech.com (Italo Vecchi) writes:

> Embarassingly, there are experimental results ( [1], [2], [5] , [7])
> exhibiting broken 2pi-periodicity.

You seem to have left out the references in your post. Could you post
them again?

--
Esa Peuha
student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/

Italo Vecchi

Apr28-04, 03:28 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:<86poepdn87t.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi>...\n> vecchi@weirdtech.com (Italo Vecchi) writes:\n>\n> > Embarassingly, there are experimental results ( [1], [2], [5] , [7])\n> > exhibiting broken 2pi-periodicity.\n>\n> You seem to have left out the references in your post. Could you post\n> them again?\n\nThey are in my subsequent post:\nhttp://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=61789046.0404120953.585cdad5%40posting.google .com\n\nIV\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:<86poepdn87t.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi>...
> vecchi@weirdtech.com (Italo Vecchi) writes:
>
> > Embarassingly, there are experimental results ( [1], [2], [5] , [7])
> > exhibiting broken 2pi-periodicity.
>
> You seem to have left out the references in your post. Could you post
> them again?

They are in my subsequent post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=61789046.0404120953.585cdad5%40posting.google .com

IV