X-Message-Number: 21003 From: "michaelprice" <> References: <> Subject: Domain of quantum theory Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 02:07:36 -0000 Thomas Donaldson wrote: > For Michael Price: > If I understand the background of the debate which you > and Bob Ettinger are now engaged in, Bob was not arguing > with you about the current theories of quantum mechanics at > all. No, I think our disagreement, at least at the beginning, was more specifically about whether *current* quantum theory allows for the possibility that particles can have extra attributes that are presently hidden below our current threshold of detection. In other words whether hidden variables or extra attributes within particles are possible, within the framework of modern physics. I say this is impossible and, furthermore, can't be accommodated with any reasonable extension to quantum theory. > He was looking at those theories more generally. Today's > quantum mechanics says that electrons have no more than a > small finite list of characteristics. But then quantum mechanics > and [general] relativity continue to conflict, and who is to say > what physical theory will succeed them and what it will say about > electrons? I allowed for the possibility of successor theories but think our notion of identical particles is too basic to permit revision, just as we would not expect future advances in astronomy to dethrone the heliocentric model of the solar system (as I've said repeatedly in the course of this debate). Cheers, Michael C Price ---------------------------------------- http://mcp.longevity-report.com http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21003