Guest guest Posted October 6, 2001 Report Share Posted October 6, 2001 Rob, We seem to have had a communication disconnect somewhere. First, I reported that Bohm claims that key contributors to quantum theory have sewn a lot of unnecessary confusion in explaining the matter to the general public. His point implies only that one can be a genius in physics and not equally adept at explaining the physics in ordinary terms. When you replied that you would trust the inventors of quantum mechanics, I took that to mean that you assumed that Heisenberg, et al. were experts and Bohm wasn't. Apparently, your meaning was something else. Second, the issue is not trivial or stupid. If Bohm is correct, then just reading " important physicists " may be counterproductive. Third, I am not making an argument out of this. I am no expert in quantum theory. I have displayed the whole of my understanding of it in these few emails. So I'm not in a position to say that I'm right and you're wrong (whatever that would mean), only to inform Realizers of Bohm's point of view and of the possible mistake of assuming that they'll get the best understanding by going to the traditional sources. Best wishes to all, Gary > Hi Gary, > >> So as long as you're looking for someone >> to trust, don't dismiss him too quickly. > > This is silly. I didn't dismiss David Bohm. I > didn't say anything about David Bohm. > > I said that people should read books by important > physicists. > > You can't drag me into an argument about this. > It's too stupid. > > Regards, > > Rob > > Rob, > > It is the so-called Einstein-Bohm experiment that was used to test the > Bell's theorem that you mentioned. David Bohm is one of the most important > figures in the development of quantum mechanics. My impression is that he > ranks right up there with Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and Bohr. So as long as > you're looking for someone to trust, don't dismiss him too quickly. > > Gary > >> Gary, >> >> When it comes to quantum mechanics, I'll >> trust the guys who invented quantum mechanics. >> >> Rob >> >>> Rob, >>> >>>> There are so many good books about physics written for >>>> lay people by first-rank physicists that it seems best to >>>> go straight to the well in this case. Richard Feynmann >>>> wrote a very nice book on quantum mechanics for lay people >>>> called " Quantum Electrodynamics. " Einstein wrote at >>>> least two books for lay people, one on relativity and one >>>> on the whole history of physics. >>> >>> David Bohm wouldn't agree with you. He thinks that physicists have made a >>> hash of interpreting the formal theory because of inconsistent use of their >>> informal terminology. He says that things have gotten so confused among >>> physicists that they generally approve of Bohr and disagree with Einstein >>> while thinking like Einstein and failing to follow Bohr's interpretation. >>> >>> Bohm, David, and F. David Peat (1987), Science, Order, and Creativity. (New >>> York: Bantam Books). >>> >>> Gary >>> > > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > Email addresses: > Post message: Realization > Un: Realization- > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > http://www.realization.org > ................................................ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2001 Report Share Posted October 7, 2001 Hi Gary, Nope, nope. Sorry! Zero interest here in rising to the bait. I like to write silly messages, but even I am not silly enough to let myself be provoked into defending what I said in this thread. Cheers, Rob - " Gary Schouborg " <garyscho " Realization " <Realization > Saturday, October 06, 2001 3:10 PM The quantum is not next to godliness Rob, We seem to have had a communication disconnect somewhere. First, I reported that Bohm claims that key contributors to quantum theory have sewn a lot of unnecessary confusion in explaining the matter to the general public. His point implies only that one can be a genius in physics and not equally adept at explaining the physics in ordinary terms. When you replied that you would trust the inventors of quantum mechanics, I took that to mean that you assumed that Heisenberg, et al. were experts and Bohm wasn't. Apparently, your meaning was something else. Second, the issue is not trivial or stupid. If Bohm is correct, then just reading " important physicists " may be counterproductive. Third, I am not making an argument out of this. I am no expert in quantum theory. I have displayed the whole of my understanding of it in these few emails. So I'm not in a position to say that I'm right and you're wrong (whatever that would mean), only to inform Realizers of Bohm's point of view and of the possible mistake of assuming that they'll get the best understanding by going to the traditional sources. Best wishes to all, Gary > Hi Gary, > >> So as long as you're looking for someone >> to trust, don't dismiss him too quickly. > > This is silly. I didn't dismiss David Bohm. I > didn't say anything about David Bohm. > > I said that people should read books by important > physicists. > > You can't drag me into an argument about this. > It's too stupid. > > Regards, > > Rob > > Rob, > > It is the so-called Einstein-Bohm experiment that was used to test the > Bell's theorem that you mentioned. David Bohm is one of the most important > figures in the development of quantum mechanics. My impression is that he > ranks right up there with Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and Bohr. So as long as > you're looking for someone to trust, don't dismiss him too quickly. > > Gary > >> Gary, >> >> When it comes to quantum mechanics, I'll >> trust the guys who invented quantum mechanics. >> >> Rob >> >>> Rob, >>> >>>> There are so many good books about physics written for >>>> lay people by first-rank physicists that it seems best to >>>> go straight to the well in this case. Richard Feynmann >>>> wrote a very nice book on quantum mechanics for lay people >>>> called " Quantum Electrodynamics. " Einstein wrote at >>>> least two books for lay people, one on relativity and one >>>> on the whole history of physics. >>> >>> David Bohm wouldn't agree with you. He thinks that physicists have made a >>> hash of interpreting the formal theory because of inconsistent use of their >>> informal terminology. He says that things have gotten so confused among >>> physicists that they generally approve of Bohr and disagree with Einstein >>> while thinking like Einstein and failing to follow Bohr's interpretation. >>> >>> Bohm, David, and F. David Peat (1987), Science, Order, and Creativity. (New >>> York: Bantam Books). >>> >>> Gary >>> > > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > Email addresses: > Post message: Realization > Un: Realization- > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > http://www.realization.org > ................................................ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.