Einstein vs. Bohr

Cypress said:
Right.
I need to research Godel more.

Einstein accepted QM. In a sense, he was one of the founders of QM, going back to his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect.

What Einstein hated was Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Einstein was a scientific realist who could not abide by the Bohr's instrumentalist approach to the quantum wave function collapse. Einstein at heart believed in a deterministic universe, and he just thought Bohr's probabilistic interpretation of QM must be missing some fundamental variables or insights needed to make the theory compete.
Click to expand...

This is Godel and Einstein bullshitting around with each other.

050228_r13893.jpg


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/02/28/time-bandits-2
 
As another member of the institute, the physicist Freeman Dyson, observed, “Gödel was . . . the only one of our colleagues who walked and talked on equal terms with Einstein.” But if Einstein and Gödel seemed to exist on a higher plane than the rest of humanity, it was also true that they had become, in Einstein’s words, “museum pieces.” Einstein never accepted the quantum theory of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. Gödel believed that mathematical abstractions were every bit as real as tables and chairs, a view that philosophers had come to regard as laughably naïve. Both Gödel and Einstein insisted that the world is independent of our minds, yet rationally organized and open to human understanding. United by a shared sense of intellectual isolation, they found solace in their companionship. “They didn’t want to speak to anybody else,” another member of the institute said. “They only wanted to speak to each other.”


Warning: watching this video will cause a collapse of a black hole due to combined IQs.

 
Here is Einstein walking like a boss. Einstein and Godel were good friends and they feel comfortable with each other. And they hated Bohr. :rofl2:

But Godel did keep Einstein on the level. It makes sense that it is a unsolvable problem.

 
AProudLefty said:
As another member of the institute, the physicist Freeman Dyson, observed, “Gödel was . . . the only one of our colleagues who walked and talked on equal terms with Einstein.” But if Einstein and Gödel seemed to exist on a higher plane than the rest of humanity, it was also true that they had become, in Einstein’s words, “museum pieces.” Einstein never accepted the quantum theory of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. Gödel believed that mathematical abstractions were every bit as real as tables and chairs, a view that philosophers had come to regard as laughably naïve. Both Gödel and Einstein insisted that the world is independent of our minds, yet rationally organized and open to human understanding. United by a shared sense of intellectual isolation, they found solace in their companionship. “They didn’t want to speak to anybody else,” another member of the institute said. “They only wanted to speak to each other.”


Warning: watching this video will cause a collapse of a black hole due to combined IQs.

Click to expand...
I think the scientific paradigm is shifting a little away from Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of QM, back towards the scientific realism Einstein wanted. The question is if the Quantum wave function collapse really dependent on the subjective knowledge of the observer? Or is there something deterministic and objectively real there, per the MWI interpretation.
 
Cypress said:
I think the scientific paradigm is shifting a little away from Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of QM, back towards the scientific realism Einstein wanted. The question is if the Quantum wave function collapse really dependent on the subjective knowledge of the observer? Or is there something deterministic and objectively real there, per the MWI interpretation.
Click to expand...

Hence the objective/subjective problem going all the way back to Aristotle and some other Greek philosophers.

Fun fact: one of those Greek philosophers brought up the idea of atoms.

Why those ideas didn't pick up sooner is another topic.
 
BidenPresident said:
Not sure what you mean. Lucretius had an atomic theory.
Click to expand...

Ancient Atomism
First published Tue Aug 23, 2005; substantive revision Thu Dec 15, 2016
A number of important theorists in ancient Greek natural philosophy held that the universe is composed of physical ‘atoms’, literally ‘uncuttables’. Some of these figures are treated in more depth in other articles in this encyclopedia: the reader is encouraged to consult individual entries on Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus and Lucretius. These philosophers developed a systematic and comprehensive natural philosophy accounting for the origins of everything from the interaction of indivisible bodies, as these atoms—which have only a few intrinsic properties like size and shape—strike against one another, rebound and interlock in an infinite void.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/
 
AProudLefty said:
Ancient Atomism
First published Tue Aug 23, 2005; substantive revision Thu Dec 15, 2016
A number of important theorists in ancient Greek natural philosophy held that the universe is composed of physical ‘atoms’, literally ‘uncuttables’. Some of these figures are treated in more depth in other articles in this encyclopedia: the reader is encouraged to consult individual entries on Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus and Lucretius. These philosophers developed a systematic and comprehensive natural philosophy accounting for the origins of everything from the interaction of indivisible bodies, as these atoms—which have only a few intrinsic properties like size and shape—strike against one another, rebound and interlock in an infinite void.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/
Click to expand...


Yes. I knew that. What is your point?
 
AProudLefty said:
Two points:

1. The objective/subjective observation of the universe (Newtonian model and QM model).
2. the ancient philosophers have already conceived of that way before Jesus was born.
Click to expand...

Number 1, I just don't understand. Can you explain in more detail?

Number 2, historically accurate. Not sure what the point is.
 
BidenPresident said:
Number 1, I just don't understand. Can you explain in more detail?
Click to expand...

This is what the OP said:

Cypress said:
For sure. It drove Einstein nuts.
The overarching question concerns whether the quantum waveform representatives objective reality or is it just the subjective knowledge of an observer?
Click to expand...


Number 2, historically accurate. Not sure what the point is.
Click to expand...

I forgot my main point but I do remember my minor point. LOL.

With all those ideas why were they slow to progress until NOW? Took over 2,000 years.
 
AProudLefty said:
This is what the OP said:






I forgot my main point but I do remember my minor point. LOL.

With all those ideas why were they slow to progress until NOW? Took over 2,000 years.
Click to expand...

I don't think scientists ever abandoned the atomic idea. I think Galileo and others introduced the mathematical method to be more accurate in measuring things.
 
BidenPresident said:
Yes. Heisenberg (or Bohr?) wrote an actual history of science. He argued that there was no Scientific Revolution and science just evolves.
He wrote in detail about ancient Greek physics and showed it was mathematical.
Click to expand...

The Renaissance was God's gift to humanity after he said, "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"
 
BidenPresident said:
I think Heisenberg made a convincing argument. If you look closely at the history of science you see more continuity.
Click to expand...

Heisenberg is the one who created the Uncertainty Principle.

Basically one cannot state what a subatomic particle's momentum and position are at the same time after observation (notice that this one is what they are talking about subjective observation?).

For example, a hydrogen atom has one electron orbing around it. It is not accurate to say that it's "orbiting". It is more accurate to say that it has a cloud around it.

Once one observes it, it stops. How much information can one draw from it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top