Title Author Date

Interpretation of quantum mechanics Rossow, Amiel Nov 18, 2002

First of all, I’d like to thank Dr. Peter Nave for his comments. I fully agree with his main thesis. Indeed, there are various interpretation of quantum mechanics and none is universally accepted by the scientific community. I would like though to point out one discrepancy in Dr. Nave’s letter. He reproaches me for not discussing in detail the quantum mechanical model (which he refers to as model O) that underlies Poltorak’s approach. In doing that, Dr. Nave, on the one hand, states that “It does not take a long treatise to mention the unresolved state of the validity of the various models and it would have taken only a sentence to explain that model C is not the only logical one, or at least that there exist different models that still compete for universal acceptance.” On the other hand, just a couple of lines further, Dr. Nave says, “I do not want to expand on this topic any further because that would take a lot of work to dig out the references and digest them all.” So, what is Dr. Nave’s actual view – does it “take just a sentence,” or it “would take a lot of work?” I believe the second alternative is closer to the actual situation. My task was not to discuss the complex and not yet universally resolved problem of a proper interpretation of quantum mechanics but only to critically review Dr. Poltorak’s attempt to reconcile the Genesis story with scientific data. I believe that Poltorak’s attempt was unsuccessful and his discourse is inconsistent from the standpoints both of science and of the Torah’s story. Dr. Nave does not seem to object to that conclusion. The main point of my critique was not so much in regard to the difference among various models, referred to by Nave as models C, O, etc, but mainly in regard to the specific inconsistencies in Poltorak’s interpretation of what Nave refers to as model O. Delving into the comprehensive discussion of the various interpretations of quantum mechanics would , in Dr. Nave’s own words, require “a lot of work to dig out the references and digest them all,” which would lead me far beyond the goal of my critique of Poltorak’s work, more so because my review was not limited to the article by Poltorak alone but covered a number of other articles as well.

write a reply Related Article(s):
B'Tsel HaTorah

Title Author Date

Souls sipka3@attbi.com Nov 10, 2002

Hello,
I was just wandering that if you guys could so easily disprove the stories about God, Creation, etc.. then try to disprove the presence of ghosts, souls which I believe 99% of like about 98% of scientists believe in Evolution. If there is such a thing of Evolution-as in no God, then why does there seem to be ghosts and souls. I never heard Evolution adressing the phenemona of souls because in your standards, we go nowhere when we die. Right? What happens when there are souls-where does your theory go? Nowhere.

read replies (1)
write a reply

Title Author Date

'Purim Fest 1946!' Norowitz, Avi Nov 06, 2002

Would anyone happen to know how reliable the story is that Streicher did indeed shout "Purim Fest 1946!"? And if it is reliable, does anyone have any ideas why he would have said such a thing?

read replies (1)
write a reply Related Article(s):
Purim 1946? Not Exactly

Title Author Date

3 Doors (the Monty Hall show) Simon David, Nesa Nov 02, 2002

In the chapter titled "Probability estimate is often tricky" of Mark Perakh's article Improbable Probabilities the author gives the example of the Monty Hall show, where participants are asked to choose from 3 doors, of which one has a prize behind it.

The author states that the participants double their chances of winning if they change their first choice after the compere opens one of the doors. My mind was quite frankly boggled by this statement. To me it is obvious that the door opened by the compere is irrelevant (after that door has been opened).

The game only really starts after the compere has opened one of the doors, thus taking that door out of the game... and leaving just 2 doors to choose from. One of the doors is a winning door, and the other is a losing door. The probability of winning at this game is thus clearly 50%.

I felt that i couldn't accept your explanation (because i had a nagging feeling that it somehow couldn't be right), so i decided to run a simulation (in my computer). After 8692 iterations, the number of wins to the total number of games is 49.459% (actually it's been fluctuating between 51% & 49%.

What is surprising however, is that the "percentage of games won where the participant changed his/her choice" is 32.881%, but the "percentage of games won where the participant kept his/her choice is 16.578%.

However, it must be made clear that the chance of winning a game is ultimately 50%. The 32% and 16% chances are "after the fact" percentages. A person who keeps first choice has a 50% chance of winning. A person who changes choice also has a 50% chance of winning. It just so happens that 32.881% of persons who win change choice, and 16.678% of persons who win keep first choice (I still don't understand why). But the fact remains, whatever you do, change choice or keep first choice, your chance of winning is 50%.

read replies (5)
write a reply Related Article(s):
Improbable Probabilities

Title Author Date

TalkReason site Fire, Frank Nov 02, 2002

Just a quick note to thank you for your work on a GREAT web site. I am just
about neck deep in the fight in Ohio keeping the IDiots out of my kids
schools and really appreciate informative sites such as yours. Keep up the
great work and rest assured, it is being put to good use.

read replies (5)
write a reply

Previous | | Next