"Yep, Einstein [...] didn’t accept Quantum Mechanics at the time..." Hey ScienceIsBeauty, that's just the story you get in poorly researched pop physics books. It's the story many physicists believe, but that's because they learn their history of science from popular science, not historians. Einstein did accept QM, but not Copenhagen interpretation because it wasn't radical enough. It was Einstein who proved entanglement happened! Arthur Fine's book 'The Shaky Game' tells the story well.
Hi, thanks for your comment. Actually I’m almost sure that historians (and philosophers) did not understand Quantum Mechanics either. ;-)
The Einstein’s problem with QM was the probabilistic character of the theory (i.e. the probabilistic character of nature: “God does not play dice”), but this character is intrinsic to nature, inseparable from QM, and involves the falsation of once and for all of Classical Mechanics.
Einstein never accepted this breakdown of Determinism (and neither did with Quantum Nonlocality), with implications not only in Physics but also important philosophical consequences, and died thinking that something was missing in Quantum Mechanics so that the deterministic character of nature might be recover. Well, this has not happened, is not likely to happen, and as I said in my comment, given the enormous accumulation of empirical and theoretical evidence (remember that all Particle Physics, Quantum Electrodynamics and the Standard Model, for example, lie upon Quantum Mechanics), I’m pretty sure that Einstein would not think the same nowadays… although who knows?
Being patronising doesn’t make you right :-P Just as I said - you repeating a common but false story. It was Einstein who proved mathematically that QM could not be both local and deterministic - so he did accept QM & non-locality.
C’mon, being patronising (and/or sarcastic) doesn’t make you right either. It seems to me that you have skipped the Bohr–Einstein debates, or maybe you think you can still help Einstein win the debate. Well, is not the case. I recommend you this post at The Reference Frame where is explained very clearly why it is not the case.
Also, locality is ensured because the Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein accepted “non-locality" (i.e. quantum entanglement) because it was impossible to dodge in the "new" theoretical framework, but he remains skeptics about the "completness" and other stuff of the quantum theory. In other words, he did not quite believe that quantum mechanics was the definitive answer to this alleged “non locality”.
I think all these drawbacks to the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, have been surpassed today, and the proof is that this view of the theory is the most widely used and accepted by the scientific community, and indeed are the other interpretations which often fall headlong into the pseudoscience.
By the way, could you kindly provide some links endorsing your arguments? Thanks.
“I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don’t have to waste your time in either attacking or defending.”—
I commented on the post, not sure if you read that though. In the "why are oceans salty" video it didn't explain why they are salty, rather just generally why there are minerals in water. Rocks aren't just salt or even proportionally salt and weathering doesn't just release salt. So why are they Salty as opposed to irony or whatever? Iron might be easily just heavy, but the other mentioned minerals suspend and they aren't "light"...
Nothing new? The entire field of quantum mechanics is considered brand spanking new compared to other disciplines. Einstein was the man that dubbed this phenomenon 'spooky action at a distance' because he himself was not familiar with the mechanics behind it, of course. Einstein must have thought nature was mighty spooky; we all know how he ended up being a nobody and all.
Yep, Einstein (and Schrödinger and some others) didn’t accept Quantum Mechanics at the time, and even they reneged on their (crucial) role in its development. I’m sure they would not think the same thing today (the empirical evidence is overwhelming, this experiment is only one more). Look here, for example.
[Oh, and from the very own post: “There is not new physics here, though, but a neat demonstration of physics.”]
Scientific Illustration: Conveying Information with Charm
I am a scientific and children’s illustrator, and the Artist in Residence at the science blog, BuzzHootRoar.
I am currently teaching a class on Skillshare called Scientific Illustration: Conveying Information with Charm. Skillshare is an amazing platform to learn new skills, and I think this is a class many of your readers might be interested in! My class takes students all the way through an illustration project, from researching, brainstorming, sketching, drawing, to digital production. It focuses around the topic of what I’ve dubbed “whimsical scientific illustration”, or scientific illustration that has personality, charm, and steps a bit away from reality to better communicate the true essence of the subject.
I would love for you to check out my class and if you think it sounds interesting, to consider blogging about it.
I really appreciate your time and consideration!
Thank you! Christine Fleming
Sorry for the delay, I’ve had a very busy days… so is real life!
Hi, Hope you are doing well! We are waiting for you. Where are you from last few days? No any update from last 5-6 days. This is not personal :-) you can take it personal. Please can you suggest me some good blogs for Computer Science? - Vishal
Oops, thanks for the worries… I’m reasonably ok and I’ll resume blogging in a few days.
About your petition on Computer Science, sure, I will make some posts listing some nice sites, also I will begin a new tag “big data”, because there is a lot of aesthetic beauty there too.
In the mean time, I can highly recommend that people take a look on Coursera:
“Modern theories did not arise from revolutionary ideas which have been, so to speak, introduced into the exact sciences from without. On the contrary they have forced their way into research which was attempting consistently to carry out the programme of classical physics—they arise out of its very nature. It is for this reason that the beginnings of modern physics cannot be compared with the great upheavals of previous periods like the achievements of Copernicus. Copernicus’s idea was much more an import from outside into the concepts of the science of his time, and therefore caused far more telling changes in science than the ideas of modern physics are creating to-day.”—