Even Einstein Can Be Wrong

Regarding the below, that Einstein was 'wrong'. Curious how quick we are to suggest something (Quantum Mechanics) very few know much about, proves Einstein was incorrect. I thought I suggest something to ponder. Perhaps Einstein was right after all. Perhaps Quantum Mechanics is accurate as well. They actually can co-exist. Quite possibly it is this that has kept the blinders on humans. Consciousness can affect the mechanics of the subatomic world. Ordered consciousness will in fact alter the 'disorder' of wave-particle action. Mind over matter (pardon the pun). But this thought does seem to bind together so many facets doesn't it??? East, west... Up. Think about it... God does currently play dice here. Hardly I'd say this place is full of order consciousness. But, God does NOT have to play dice at all, if WE so choose. gsacco229@comcast.net

AlbertEinstein said "God does not play dice" to indicate his displeasure with the theory of QuantumMechanics. Trouble is, the chances are astronomically high that God does play dice. - but cf. QuantumPhysics.

Actually, the above fest pertains to open questions http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/open_questions.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics and Copenhagen is still regarded as "mainstream" with no conclusive experiment to decide the issues one way or the other being even sketched so far. But the philosophical platitudes of rk strike again.

Actually, chances are astronomically high that there is no God. It cannot be denied that, to our parochial sensibilities, the universe is a very bizarre place.

So, the next time someone quotes Albert Einstein (or anyone else to you) as an attempt to prove just how wrong you are, you should immediately respond "God does not play dice". You will win the argument for non-sequitur value, if nothing else. (-:
Ummmm - well that's not exactly true. The existence or non-existence of any divine or God-like entity whatever its form or nature is something that can't be tested empirically, by its very nature. So the whole idea that you can create a probability for God is absurd. A statement involving the probability of God is meaningless.
Of course God plays dice. Haven't you read about the UrimAndThummim? -- PatrickParker

Of course God plays dice. I beat him at craps just last tuesday ;)
Interestingly enough, quantum mechanics takes us back to minimalism and BrooksLaw. Part of the problem with quantum mechanics, as compared to the theories of relativity, is that quantum mechanics was "discovered" by a bunch of people, each of which took a slightly different approach to the problem. How does that interact with program design?

-- BillTrost

That's a wonderful question that also partly anticipated the WikiUncertaintyPrinciple by about eighteen months (program design and wiki evolution being analogous given the UltimateTestForJointOwnership aspirations described by Ward in HistoryOfExtremeProgramming). In fact, I feel like a time-traveller even being on this page.

-- RichardDrake
The following link is quite interesting: http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/06/04/stifgnusa01007.html

-- TomCrossland

Lines from the article: "SCIENTISTS claim they have broken the ultimate speed barrier: the speed of light... particle physicists have shown that light pulses can be accelerated to up to 300 times their normal velocity... transmitted a pulse of light towards a chamber filled with specially treated caesium gas. Before the pulse had fully entered the chamber, it had gone right through it and travelled a further 60ft across the laboratory."

An article with more detail and less astonishment is at http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/053000sci-physics-light.html

While the peak of the pulse does get pushed forward by that amount, an early "nose" or faint precursor of the pulse has probably given a hint to the cesium of the pulse to come.

"The information is already there in the leading edge of the pulse," Dr. Milonni said. "You can get the impression of sending information superluminally even though you're not sending information."

The cesium chamber has reconstructed the entire pulse shape, using only the shape of the precursor. So for most physicists, no fundamental principles have been smashed in the new work.
  • I have seen this in a paper which supports your last statement. - CP

My money goes on Einstein. There are numerous deterministic theories of the quantum including my own http://WikiWorld.com/wiki/index.php/QuantumEventTimeSpace. Schroedinger's equation itself is deterministic in nature. It is simply our inability to compute the effect of everything in the universe at one point that forces us to consider what happens there random. -- JimScarver
If many-worlds theory is correct, then Einstein was also correct. The evolution of the wavefunction under many-worlds is completely deterministic; you just can't "predict" which branch "you" end up in, because you end up in all of them. -- EliezerYudkowsky? One hadn't been proposed yet, so that's beside the point; it answers his objections.

EditText of this page (last edited November 9, 2014) or FindPage with title or text search