X-Message-Number: 20929 From: "michaelprice" <> References: <> Subject: implicit assumptions & assuming the consequent Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:03:31 -0000 Robert Ettinger writes: > Michael Price writes in part: > >> If [two particles interfere with eachother] they are identical and >> therefore must be of the same colour. If they don't they're not >> identical and so may differ in colour. It's not a matter of imposing >> definitions or over-asserting, it is simply a matter of (modern) >> physics. > > Sorry again--it's rather a matter of assuming that modern physics, > or your interpretation of it, is the last word; No, merely that I do not expect future revolutions in physics to change this aspect of nature, just as (say) changes in astronomy will not change our view that the Earth orbits the Sun. And I haven't *assumed* physics isn't go to change, merely that I don't expect it to change that radically. IMO > and also of claiming the dictionary prerogative. > > First, once more, on language: To assert that an electron here is > the "same" "identical", not "same". > as an electron there is simply to make up your own definitions of what > "sameness" means. In ordinary language, something that is elsewhere > cannot be the "same," unless you carefully qualify this by saying "the > same except for location, at least." "This is the same food I ate yesterday." does not imply the food I ate yesterday is co-spatial with today's, nor that I am eating my vomit/excreta!! But, again, I must point out I used the word "identical", not "same", so this is all rather besides the point. Saying two things are identical carries no connotation that they are at the same location - except when they *are* the "one and the same" object. Note the necessity of the qualifier "one". > One CAN distinguish between an electron here and an > electron there. Granted, you can distinguish between them, but they are, nevertheless, identical and (by QED) continuously swapping identities. > Of course you are free to claim that your definition is > better, but that is just language or psychology, not physics. I claim the use of the word "identical" is better than of "same". > Second, once more, on hidden variables. It is NOT true that hidden > variables, such as internal complexity of particles, or modifications of > forces, are ruled out by quantum theory. You are mixing two concepts I carefully and explicitly distinguished between in a previous post. Modifications of forces (e.g. Bohm's quantum potential) are allowed. Extra internal particle complexity (i.e. attributes) that would distinguish same-type-particles from each other is forbidden. The possibility of extra distinguishing attributes is "absolutely forbidden" between particles that have demonstrated quantum interference. As I previously said: "My argument only rules out hidden complexity within each subatomic particle. It does not rule out all hidden variable formulations of quantum mechanics. Bohm's original (non-relativistic) formulation of hidden variables did not add complexity to particles, instead it introduced a new "quantum potential", which is a separate, non-particulate construct. (Unfortunately no one has been able relativise Bohm's theory, which also suffers from epistemological problems, but that's another story.)" > What is ruled out are hidden variables that > would affect certain types of experiments. That as well, of course. > Example. Men and women [....] This is a completely irrelevant and misleading example. Men and women (like any two non-identical objects) would never (in practice and principle) quantum mechanically interfere with each other, because they differ, by definition, in the gender attribute. Unlike (any) identical objects, which quantum mechanically interfere with each other. (For complex identical objects (e.g. elephants) this quantum interference would be hard to detect, but we are talking about matters of principle here, not practice.) > And also the reminder that (say) two electrons at different locations > MUST differ in other ways also, since they are interacting with their > environments, through gravitation if nothing else, and hence their > COMPLETE wave functions (to the extent that these can be > separated from the universal wave function) must be different from > each other. I addressed this point previously, which you seem to have ignored, when.I said: "The occurrence of the Pauli exclusion or the formation of Bose-Einstein condensates (both forms of quantum interference between identical objects) demonstrates that the entanglements [and gravitational effects] you speak of are irrelevant to the question of identity." Cheers, Michael C Price ---------------------------------------- http://mcp.longevity-report.com http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20929