Do you collect pictures of Einstein?
Here's one I made that I may use for the FReepathon:
Posted on 01/02/2005 1:30:09 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
I didn't want to over-sell the point, but, yes, it needed to be made.
Don't have time now to read the whole thread, but...
Non-local as described is a result of experiments - EPR/Bell's Inequality..
It is spooky action at a distance in away, it definitely exceeds C, however that's not an accurate way to describe it, neither is "communication."
"Non-local" is the best word. There is no "here" or "there," no "local."
Various quantum dudes have responded in a range of ways as you might expect.
Physics, up to that point in history, had been "deterministic". Not quite, Brownian motion was know to be "random" even ifthe "hypothetical molecules" striking particles were deterministic. Einstein (again) put this on a firm footing.
It's good to see at least one biographer note that Einstein was a superb probabilist. Einstein was one of the first physicists to really use theories of fluctuations.
Hey, Doc, don't you think that by 'deterministic', the article's author probably (ahem) meant 'determined by the classical equations of motion'? Before the mid-1920s, all physicists thought that the behavior of matter at the smallest levels was determined by whatever the relevant equations of motion were. To my knowledge, Einstein's study of Brownian motion didn't include any hypotheses about fundamental indeterminism. Even now, the evolution of the state of an undisturbed quantum system is thought to proceed deterministically in accordance with the system's governing Schrödinger equation. The indeterminism (or 'true randomness') only appears when an observation of the system is made (which collapses the state vector and so, in a sense, re-sets the Schrödinger equation's description of the evolution of the probabilities of the system's observables).
Nor ought we to forget about Maxwell and Boltzmann, predecessors of Einstein who wielded statistics in physics with considerable adroitness.
bump for later read.
But, you're right, non-local effects are predicted by quantum theory and they've been established by experiments. Whatever they are, they're observable.
Agreed, Archimedes used infinitely vanishing sides of polygons to determine an accurate value of Pi to what ever accuracy desired, but did not leave a good notational system. Several people discovered ways to describe interactions of fundamental particles, but Feynman diagrams are used to make the interactions clearer.
Do you collect pictures of Einstein?
Here's one I made that I may use for the FReepathon:
There are not as many of the early years.
E = mc2 applies to a coiled spring, a gallon of gasoline or a cord or firewood, just as much as it does to nuclear reactions. Just because physicists learned to light off nuclear fireworks at the same time they learned about mass-energy equivalence doesn't necessarily mean they are directly related developments.
Ping. Here's a thread I think you'll enjoy.
"Was, du sprachend zu mir?"
Rough translation: "What, you talkin' to me?"
Think de Niro in Taxi Driver with Ah-nold's delivery.
E = mc2 applies to a coiled spring, a gallon of gasoline or a cord or firewood, just as much as it does to nuclear reactions. Just because physicists learned to light off nuclear fireworks at the same time they learned about mass-energy equivalence doesn't necessarily mean they are directly related developments.
What you say is true; however, almost all of the energy of ordinary things is locked up in the nuclei of their constituent atoms. The mechanical energy of a coiled spring, the chemical energy of gasoline or firewood, all of that is only the tiniest fraction of the total energy of the spring or the gasoline or the firewood. Hence, before Einstein noticed that special relativity implied that E=mc2, no one suspected what a vast reservoir of energy was hidden in ordinary things. And, even so, it still took another 30 or so years before the possibility of releasing energy from within the nucleus was seriously entertained.
Hence there are good reasons for associating E=mc2 with atomic energy and its uses.
Actually, nuclear reactions were observed before E=mc2, and it isn't apparent that could not have been investigated without it. I agree, E=mc2 gave researchers a useful analytic anchor, but I think the two issues are needlessly convolved in popular preception.
I touched this up a little bit to bring out details. There is no age on it.
Maybe that's better. Here's the result:
|
Makes me laugh, anyway.
That's too cool and fun! Thank you very much!
Best regards...
BTW, that color #aaaggg? I call it 'Howard Dean green'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.