X-Message-Number: 20899
From: 
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:41:55 EST
Subject: Pauli etc.

--part1_37.32837ae4.2b598c53_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Michael Price writes in part:

>we can actually *prove* whether two electrons (or two anythings) 
>are identical. Simply determine whether they are subject to the 
>Pauling [Pauli] Exclusion Principle (x)or can form a Bose-Einstein 
>condensate together. If the objects in question have *any* 
>differences (*including* any currently beyond our powers of 
>observation to resolve) then they will exhibit neither property.
>It's as true for electrons as it is for elephants.

Also:

> identical objects are swapping positions with each other all the time

Sorry--this is language confusion combined with unproven assumptions.

First, if  "objects" are "swapping positions" you have already said the 
number of objects is more than one. You can prop up the language by talking 
about "instantiations" if you like, but that is just more verbal 
manipulation.

Second, the implication that there are no hidden variables underlying current 
quantum theory is simply unproven, and a number of eminent people have 
thought that hidden variables do exist, and have proposed experimental tests 
(not yet feasible). 

Third, if I recall correctly, Feynman at one time speculated, perhaps half 
jokingly, that maybe there is only one electron in the world--zig-zagging in 
space and time, manifesting as an electron in forward time and a positron in 
backward time, and intersecting the present in a zillion locations. Draw your 
own conclusions.

Fourth, an analogy. Two objects differ, as far as anyone can tell, only in 
location and color. To a color-blind person they differ only in location, and 
no experiment available to him can distinguish between colors. So he has a 
choice. He can say, "These are the same except for location, as far as I can 
tell," or he can say, "They do not differ at all," meaning he isn't 
interested in location and does not acknowledge the possibility of hidden 
variables. The last type of assertion is just over-reaching, trying to impose 
your own definition.

Fifth, the whole concept of "quantum state" is easily glossed over. Every 
quantum calculation is an approximation. All systems appear to be entangled, 
according to current ideas--by gravitational effects if nothing else, and 
probably in countless other ways looking backwards. The "Bohr atom" is a 
theoretically isolated one--but in reality they aren't isolated. A perfect 
calculation would presumably require the wave equation for the whole 
universe, which won't happen any time soon.

Once more, I think we should clean up our language and use operational 
definitions. Applied to the "identities" of persons or to criteria of 
survival, the problem remains open, and for the time being at least we should 
certainly be conservative and try to maintain physical continuity.

Robert Ettinger




--part1_37.32837ae4.2b598c53_boundary

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20899