it make a lot of sense, but lets cut right to the chase. you keep changing your story in effort to fit the data into your belief system or whatever, and its tiring to follow.
for example.. i have no idea where you stand on interpretations anymore. first you were a fan, happily claimed that TR and MW coexist. but then you learned that it was absurd to do so. now you seem to pretend it never happened and you reject all other interpretations? just like opti predicted. lol
I have always accepted that all interpretations of quantum mechanics have precisely equal scientific status and made no statement to the contrary. I like the MWI and the Hilbert Space interpretations, but I recognise that "liking" and "scientific status" are entirely separate.
but this doesn't work either. because it equal to saying that your interpretation is superior and absolute and all others are obsolete? and claim to be objective? how does that work?
you see.. opti and lola have the luxury to reject whatever they want because they dont pretend to be objective. but if you claim both objectivity and cherry picking at the same time.. kindof having the cake and eating it too, isnt it?
"Scientific status" is objective. "Liking" is subjective. One person can both recognise the scientific status of all valid interpretations and (independently) like them to different extents. Hope that clears it up.
as for valerio.. i only glanced at one of his articles. but it doesn't change anything. you make him sound like your guru or something. its understood to everyone that his conclusions are his subjective interpretation and philosophy, not some sort of the absolute truth you believe it to be. laters.
Fair comment, but all the science would be generally agreed by the physics community, and his reasoning is surely very reliable.
wait.. nobody is after you. its all just cause and effect of your behavior.
I understand: some people feel like taking potshots when someone else presents information with an air of authority.
Your post was worthwhile because you (partly) addressed points of fact in a way that allowed a constructive response. I would hope and expect my response makes sense to you.
Not sure if this is the article you referred to, but it might be interesting reading to some here:
RANDOM FOR WHOM? - Valerio Scarani
ok, I know for a fact that quite a few of the people in this discussion have some understanding of quantum mechanics. Specifically that they know the Heisenberg uncertainty relation, which says that for a quantum object there is a relationship between the uncertainty in the position and the uncertainty in the momentum (and thus the velocity if the object has mass).
Specifically:
[uncertainty in position] * [uncertainty in velocity] >= some constant.
Basically if you reduce the uncertainty in one, you increase the uncertainty in the other and vice versa.
When you start with some information and try to predict where something will be in the future, the uncertainty comes in two parts. The first part is the uncertainty in the position you started with, and the second is the product of the time by the uncertainty in the velocity.
It turns out that whatever combination you start with, there is a minimum uncertainty for any length of time. For short times it is best to make the original position very accurate and not worry so much about the velocity (because it doesn't have time to matter much), and vice versa for long times.
If you take different options for what you might know about position and velocity to start with, the way the uncertainty in position changes over time for each looks like this:
The minimum uncertainty at any time is on the lowest line at that point.
And that is why Heisenberg's uncertainty relation means predictions get increasingly inaccurate over time.
And now I am off for a slightly delayed run.