God doesn't play dice: cause and effect
(causality and dependence)
======================================.

Einstein said:God doesn't play dice because he didnt accept
the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory. He thought
that behind the probabilistic arguments of quantum theory some
real process is hidden. This real process makes the situation
probabilistic. Thinking so - Einstein wasnt alone.
P. Langevin told, that to speak about crash of unity between
cause and eff More..ect is - intellectual lechery. And Lorentz,
de Broglie, Schrodinger believed that the situation in the
micro world can be explained in details. All of them considered
that the particles and fields exist in real space and time and they
can move from one point to another. And this situation is possible
to describe not only probabilistically but in details too.
#
But other group of scientists didnt agree with them.
Their leaders, Bohr and Heisenberg, said in micro world we must
refuse to describe particles behaviour to the smallest detail.
Here is enough to use Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Most scientists agreed with them saying: There isnt better
interpretation quantum physics than Heisenberg .
From time to time somebody tried to give new interpretation
and explanation quantum situation (more concrete ) but without
success. And at last Feynman said: I think I can safely say
that nobody understands quantum mechanics. And somebody
agreed with him saying, we cannot understand, but we can
accustomed to it.
Yes, they accustomed to the paradoxical quantum micro world
and now, developing it, they created new paradoxes ( quarks,
dark matter/ energy, string theory, new particles, new dimensions
and new symmetries . . .and etc)
#
I try to understand the situation.
1.
We have dualistic particle as a math point.
2.
We have two kinds of space:
a) Minkowski ( -4D) and a its shadow -
b) separate independent space and independent time (3D t)
3.
The dualistic particle/wave point can move from one point
to other, or (maybe) from one space (-4D) to another (3D t).
#
This situation was known from 1908 but it still is unsolved.
Is this situation hard puzzle ?
Isnt clear that we need to know: dualism of particle,(-4D )
and its shadow %u2013 (3D t) to solve this puzzle %u2013 problem ?
But these categories of being scientists try no debate now.
Why?
Maybe they are busy solving other problems . . . and . . .
. . . create new paradoxes . . .. . . . . . I dont know.
#
I remember that about 50 years ago I have read one interesting
book. Maybe this book will help me to understand the situation.
I must reread it again.
Where is it?
Here it is:
Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus:The Praise of Folly.
===============.
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus

========================. Less..

Posted May-10-2010 By 

socratus1 (11.20)  

socratus1

View Channel

Send Message

(0)