[Vision2020] Quantum Debate (Final)

[Phil Nisbet]

Nick

The trouble is that I never said that Einstein developed quantum mechanics, 
just that Einstein was critical to developing quantum theory.  Your 
statements, the very thing that we were actually debating, were that 
Heisenberg developed quantum mechanics and further that Einstein opposed 
quantum mechanics.

Thus, if you asked a question of any person with a background in physics, 
"Did Einstein develop quantum mechanics?", the obvious reply would be, "What 
idiot said that he did?".

The three person paper, Born, Jordan and Heisenberg, developed matrix 
mechanics, which is the basis of quantum mechanics.  I clearly stated that 
as the case in what I posted and gave a very detailed history from a lot of 
pretty good sources on the net so that you could follow developments in that 
field over time.

So, tell me, if I posted something as a statement in the field of philosophy 
and comparative religions that I attributed to you, sent it to a peer review 
and then posted a post as you did in two paragraphs suggesting that other 
philosophers had said you were an idiot, what would be your response?  Say I 
claimed that you had said that Christians are by nature evil and that this 
had been proven by your work on V2020 concerning Doug Wilson.  Then I 
shipped some of your comments in that area around to see what Bible scholars 
you know thought about your statement that all Christians are evil., telling 
them, see this is an example of Nick saying that all Christians are evil.  
If I did that Nick, you would be rightly Pissed Right Off, because I do not 
believe that you have stated that all Christians are evil.  I would have 
been making statements that you did not make and framing a debate that was 
not occuring, which would call your scholarship in general into question.

My field is Geochemistry, but I worked first for Randy Gressens who did huge 
work in Crystal Field theory, which ties chemistry of inorganics to basic 
physics.  So the subject matter involved is not my field, though I have 
worked on induced coupled plasma, atomic spectroscopy and methods for using 
mass spectrometry in ICP measurements.  I mentioned that in what I wrote and 
that I was not exactly the person able to teach that field, since I have to 
be more verbose than a good teacher to get the thing explained to layman.  I 
do not particularly like the idea of somebody thinking that I said something 
I did not claim, especially when it appears verified by the head of their 
Union.

If I went back to get a PhD, something that dropped from the cards for me 
because I got married and we had a child and then children to support,  I 
would be heading back to finish work I started on nanophase ionic solid 
state particles.  Any work that I did in that field could be hurt by the 
assumption of physicists that I was a babbling moron.

Now I will grant, that I may just be a babbling moron, but I would at least 
like to be the one making that actual statements that proved me to be such.  
My longwinded response were exactly to the point that we were actually 
discussing, that Heisenberg was not the perons who solely developed quantum 
mechanics and that Einstein was not opposed to quantum mechanicsm simply 
looking for a more 'real' version of what he saw as a mathmatical rather 
than a real world solution.

Now head down to the beach and suck some fluid refreshment.  I do not 
particularly need any or the use of mind altering meds for that matter.  
Enjoy your self.

Phil Nisbet


>From: nickgier at adelphia.net
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] Quantum Debate (Final)
>Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:26:20 -0500
>
>Greetings:
>
>Can someone on the list drop by Phil Nisbet’s house with a six-pack or a 
>couple of tranquillizers?  I’m down here in Mexico until March 13; 
>otherwise I would do it myself.
>
>The whole idea of having the potluck was meet each other face to face and 
>defuse some of the tension that has built up on the list.  After shaking 
>Phil’s hand and listening respectfully about his views of the Naylor 
>controversy, I would have hoped that we would have built a little trust and 
>that we would be more charitable towards one another.
>
>I made a mistake when I did not copy Phil when I sent out the text of the 
>quantum mechanics debate.  But I thought he would trust me to send the 
>posts verbatim and that I would conceal the participants’ identities.  I 
>did stipulate that the question at hand was “Is X correct in stating that 
>Einstein developed quantum mechanics.”  One referee did not respond but 
>the two that did reported “No.”  My hope was that they would have 
>agreed to write something, but they chose not to.
>
>As to the referees guessing the identities, I have no idea what they 
>thought.  They know me as a feisty, verbose, scholarly type, so it is 
>certainly possible that they thought that Phil’s (X’s) long winded 
>responses, which one referee said were interesting but mainly irrelevant to 
>the question at hand, were actually mine.
>
>With regard to Einstein and Heisenberg relying on others to do their 
>mathematics, my wording could have been more clear.  But far worse was 
>Phil’s lack of charity in giving my words the worse possible 
>interpretation.  I do not reject the facts that Phil found out about 
>Heisenberg’s lack of mathematical acumen.  My only point is that Phil 
>then should criticize Einstein just as hard as he did Heisenberg for not 
>doing the math for general relativity.  Will you agree to parity of 
>criticism on this question, Phil, or will Heisenberg’s membership in the 
>Nazi party discount every positive thing that he might have done?
>
>With all of your apparent knowledge about physics, Phil, I’m surprised 
>that you do not know of Grossmann, a childhood friend of Einstein’s, who 
>gave him his class notes so that he could pass his exams, whose father got 
>him the job at the Bern patent office, and who came up with the Riemannian 
>geometry that described the bending of light around gigantic celestial 
>bodies predicted by general relativity.  Most scientists rejected this idea 
>until an international team went out in the middle of the South Atlantic in 
>1919 and measured the light of the sun during a total solar eclipse.  Sure 
>enough it bent according to Riemannian geometry, a geometry that assumes, 
>among other odd things, that parallel lines do actually meet.
>
>As I sent out the text of our debate, I predicted that both sides would be 
>judged to have made mistakes.  We can now see that Phil chooses to go 
>ballistic if someone suggests that such human limitations could possibly be 
>attributed to him.  The right thing to do, Phil, is to defer to the 
>experts. This amateur is done on this topic.
>
>Yours for civil, charitable, and trust filled dialogue,
>
>Nick Y. Gier
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/