X-Message-Number: 21003
From: "michaelprice" <>
References: <>
Subject: Domain of quantum theory
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 02:07:36 -0000

Thomas Donaldson wrote:

> For Michael Price:
> If I understand the background of the debate which you
> and Bob Ettinger are now engaged in, Bob was not arguing
> with you about the current theories of quantum mechanics at
> all.

No, I think our disagreement, at least at the beginning, was more
specifically about whether *current* quantum theory allows for the
possibility that particles can have extra attributes that are presently
hidden below our current threshold of detection.  In other words
whether hidden variables or extra attributes within particles are possible,
within  the framework of modern physics.  I say this is impossible and,
furthermore, can't be accommodated with any reasonable extension
to quantum theory.

> He was looking at those theories more generally. Today's
> quantum mechanics says that electrons have no more than a
> small finite list of characteristics. But then quantum mechanics
> and [general] relativity continue to conflict, and who is to say
> what physical theory will succeed them and what it will say about
> electrons?

I allowed for the possibility of successor theories but think our
notion of identical particles is too basic to permit revision,
just as we would not expect future advances in astronomy to
dethrone the heliocentric model of the solar system (as I've said
repeatedly in the course of this debate).

Michael C Price

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21003