Mga Archive ng Tag,,en,Swami Vivekananda,,en,Ang Pride at Prejudice,,en,Nagbigay si Swami Vivekananda ng ilang mga talumpati sa World Parliament of Religionions sa,,en,Ang mga talumpating ito ay pinupuno pa rin tayo ng mga Indiano na may magandang pagmamalaki,,en,Nagawa kong hanapin ang isang lumang pagrekord ng mga ito sa Internet at malinis ito nang kaunti,,en,Narito ito para sa iyong kasiyahan sa pakikinig,,en,Ang may pag-aalinlangan sa akin,,en,hindi papayagan itong umalis nang walang isang kritikal na pagsusuri sa sarili,,en,Ano ba talaga ang ipinagmamalaki ko,,en,Gusto kong sabihin ang kanyang malalim na pag-iisip sa pilosopong Hindu at ang kanyang masidhing paglantad dito,,en,Ngunit ang katotohanan ng bagay ay,,en,Ipinagmamalaki ko kahit na bago ko narinig o nabasa ang mga talumpati,,en,Kung proud ka rin,,en,hayaan mo akong tanungin ito,,en,talagang nakinig ka ba sa buong pagsasalita,,en,Kung wala ka,,en,ano ba talagang ipinagmamalaki mo,,en,Siya nga pala,,en,Mayroon akong huling bahagi ng pagsasalita,,en: Nobel prize

Einstein on God and Dice

Although Einstein is best known for his theories of relativity, he was also the main driving force behind the advent of quantum mechanics (QM). His early work in photo-voltaic effect paved way for future developments in QM. And he won the Nobel prize, not for the theories of relativity, but for this early work.

It then should come as a surprise to us that Einstein didn’t quite believe in QM. He spent the latter part of his career trying to device thought experiments that would prove that QM is inconsistent with what he believed to be the laws of nature. Why is it that Einstein could not accept QM? We will never know for sure, and my guess is probably as good as anybody else’s.

Einstein’s trouble with QM is summarized in this famous quote.

It is indeed difficult to reconcile the notions (or at least some interpretations) of QM with a word view in which a God has control over everything. In QM, observations are probabilistic in nature. That is to say, if we somehow manage to send two electrons (in the same state) down the same beam and observe them after a while, we may get two different observed properties.

We can interpret this imperfection in observation as our inability to set up identical initial states, or the lack of precision in our measurements. This interpretation gives rise to the so-called hidden variable theoriesconsidered invalid for a variety of reasons. The interpretation currently popular is that uncertainty is an inherent property of nature — the so-called Copenhagen interpretation.

In the Copenhagen picture, particles have positions only when observed. At other times, they should be thought of as kind of spread out in space. In a double-slit interference experiment using electrons, for instance, we should not ask whether a particular electron takes on slit or the other. As long as there is interference, it kind of takes both.

The troubling thing for Einstein in this interpretation would be that even God would not be able to make the electron take one slit or the other (without disturbing the interference pattern, that is). And if God cannot place one tiny electron where He wants, how is he going to control the whole universe?