Re: progress in understanding

Posted by pelastration on September 03, 2003 at 04:05:01:

In Reply to: Re: progress in understanding posted by JohnCauthen on September 02, 2003 at 22:27:51:

Yes and no.

Probablity must be interpreted correctly, and we may not make conclusion
that probablity doesn't claim.

That post was about a confusion that appears in Sciences when talking
about uncertainty.

It was reaction on my post where I linked to: Cfr. on multiple EPR
experiments: GeneralInterest/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html>
: Quote:
There is another objection to the experimental tests that, at least so far,
nobody has managed to get totally around. We measure a spin
combination of, say, zero degrees and 45 degrees for a collection of
electrons and then measure another spin combination, say 45 degrees and
90 degrees, for another collection of electrons. In our classroom example,
this is sort of like measuring the number of men students whose height is
not over 5' 8" in one class, and then using another class of different
students to measure the number of students whose height is over 5' 8" but
do not have blue eyes. The difference is that a collection of, say, a billion
electrons from the source in the correlation experiments always behaves
identically within small and expected statistical fluctuations with every
other collection of a billion electrons from the source. Since that fact has
been verified many many times for all experiments of all types, we assume
it is true when we are doing these correlation experiments. This
assumption is an example of inductive logic; of course we assumed the
validity of logic in our derivation." - end of quote.
My comment on that was: "Thus a collection of electrons (sent of time x)
has another "spin combination" than another collection of electrons (sent at
time y)." So conceptual there is a problem: why has each collection another
spin? but statistical analysis will show no problem. So the concept is not
important?

Uncertainty in relation to measuring is OK (as an inventor yourself you
know that and you have seen many manufacturing limits related to
machinery limits and material limits when you were 'playing' with tennis-
racquets ) , but making from that measuring-problem a projection on
"concepts" is quiet questionable. It's like saying as an tennis-racquet
inventor to the tennis manufacture: This is the concept design in general
but I don't know exactly how you must fix the strings 10 to 15 to that part
of the tennis frame ... so please start production and finish it ... and start
to deliver to Nike".
Osher pointed out that : "There are two meaning of Uncertainty, (1) error,
like x2 - x1 or dx, and (2) standard deviation or its square variance which
is the only technically correct definition used by mathematical probability
and statistics people. Error itself is replaced by standard deviation
precisely because it is so fluctuating (negatively and positively) that it often
cancels itself out or else overexaggerates in random directions, but
standard deviation isn't a major tool for engineering or for that matter for
physical laws because most physical laws relate VARIABLES (even RANDOM
VARIABLES) rather than their statistical population standard deviations or
population means. Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohr, Heisenberg, all made the
mistake of not understanding that."

(Report this post to the moderator)

Follow Ups: (Reload page to see most recent)

• Re: progress in understanding -- DickT 9/03/03 (1)
  • Re: progress in understanding -- pelastration 9/05/03 (0)
• Re: progress in understanding -- pelastration 9/03/03 (0)

Post a Followup

Name    :     (Save your login cookie)
Password  :     (Delete your login cookie)
Subject : 

Comments:

(The following are optional.)
Link URL   : 
Link Title : 
Image URL  :