How many of you guys accept quantum theory?

[Bible Thumper]

By ways, I mean, how many of you guys accept that there is only meaninglessness behind "things we can't know anything about?" How many side with Dirac? Or, are you with Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in at least thirsting for some tenable explanation for phenomena such as entanglement?
Are you at all like me, in thinking Wolfgang Pauli's opinion with regard to the non-locality of quantum phenomena is akin to the Communist dictator, demanding the social rule be followed without explanation? From Pauli:

“One should no more rack one’s brain about the problem of whether something one cannot know anything about exists all the same, than about the ancient question of how many angels are able to sit on the point of a needle. But it seems to me that Einstein’s questions are ultimately always of this kind.”

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think DaveC426913 said it best (in a similar thread of yours that ended up locked): "I am fairly certain the universe is not obliged to arrange itself in a way that fits within your day-to-day experiences."

 

[Bible Thumper]

I think DaveC426913 said it best (in a similar thread of yours that ended up locked): "I am fairly certain the universe is not obliged to arrange itself in a way that fits within your day-to-day experiences."

Now I don't know, but suppose there are instances of entanglement occurring all around us (we can't see it, of course, because the iron-fisted rules prevent us from seeing entanglement in the classical way). In that instance, Davec426913 would still fall in category 1, since he's saying Mother Nature isn't obligated to show us how the rules of QM work (even if, as in the case of spontaneous entanglement, they happen on a "day-to-day" basis).
But what's DaveC's rationale?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Now I don't know, but suppose there are instances of entanglement occurring all around us (we can't see it, of course, because the iron-fisted rules prevent us from seeing entanglement in the classical way).

Stuff and nonsense. Entanglement is an engineering fact of life at not one but two particle accelerators: KEK-B in Japan and PEP-II in California. If you didn't have entanglement, the machines would have to be designed very differently.

You know, if you put the same effort into understanding what QM actually says that you do proclaiming your superior wisdom to us poor, deluded physicists, you might learn some really neat things.

 

[Bible Thumper]

Stuff and nonsense. Entanglement is an engineering fact of life at not one but two particle accelerators: KEK-B in Japan and PEP-II in California. If you didn't have entanglement, the machines would have to be designed very differently.

You know, if you put the same effort into understanding what QM actually says that you do proclaiming your superior wisdom to us poor, deluded physicists, you might learn some really neat things.

Can you give me some words to google so I can put in that effort to which you recommend? In other words, how exactly are the accelerators built around entanglement? Do you have a few words I may google to learn more? Your help would be appreciated. 'KEK-B PEP-II entanglement' didn't return anything concrete.

 

[Vanadium 50]

From Google:

Results 1 - 10 of about 488 for pep-ii entanglement. (0.29 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 573 for kek-b entanglement. (0.22 seconds)

Are you sure you are using the same Google we are using?

 

[Bible Thumper]

I was looking for returns that were explicit in how entanglement and its properties necessitated a different design parameter for these accelerators.
Thanks

 

[Vanadium 50]

Which is what many of those references show.

Like it says in the Good Book (Jeremiah, I believe), "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not".

 

[Fra]

By ways, I mean, how many of you guys accept that there is only meaninglessness behind "things we can't know anything about?" How many side with Dirac? Or, are you with Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in at least thirsting for some tenable explanation for phenomena such as entanglement?
Are you at all like me, in thinking Wolfgang Pauli's opinion with regard to the non-locality of quantum phenomena is akin to the Communist dictator, demanding the social rule be followed without explanation? From Pauli:

“One should no more rack one’s brain about the problem of whether something one cannot know anything about exists all the same, than about the ancient question of how many angels are able to sit on the point of a needle. But it seems to me that Einstein’s questions are ultimately always of this kind.”

To me "the explanation of the rule" is simlpy a modest demand for basic constructivity which is pretty much synonymous to self-preservation which I consider to be a basic trait of life and nature.

Given that asking questions is an investment in a particular direction, why insist asking questions, in which there seems to be no difference in utility of the possible answers? It doesn't come out as constructive behaviour to me. Constructive behaviour is to invest your best where you think you have best gain/loss ratio. ie you choose to ask the questions that are likely to give you best gain and minimum loss in the competition.

I think nature tends to be constructive, so it still begs the question to explain why some humans which are certainly part of nature insist asking these questions. I think it's because they do see a possible difference, that others don't. But then it's their gain and their loss to pursue these questions.

And only time will tell which is more successful, that's the essence of selection I guess.

/Fredrik

 

[russ_watters]

To me, the answers don't match the question in the title very well and the question really isn't well posed anyway. If you use the parameters of science (ie, how well does it measure up to other theories according to how the scientific method says they should work), then it is essentially an objective fact that QM is the most successful theory in the history of science. But "accept" isn't really a scientific word - it must have the hedge that any theory is only "accepted" insofar as the limitations of the experiments used to prove it are not exceeded.