[Vision2020] Quantum Debate (Final)

[Phil Nisbet]

Nick

The excahnge was me saying Einstein's quantum theory and you rejoindering 
quantum mechanics.  Several people at the time suggested that we were 
talking past each other.  The debate was on your statement that followed 
that intial set stating that Einstein did not 'believe' in quantum mechanics 
and that Heisenberg was the person who developed Quantum Mechanics.

Einstein developed a significant portion of early quantum theory.  Without 
that, there would have been no quantum mechanics for the Three Person team 
to develop.

Its about precise semantics of science and credit where credit is due.  If 
you think that it can be bad in Social Sciences or Philosophy, you have 
never seen science folks in a semantic food fight.  We be very nasty on 
subtle points that can seem pretty esoteric to those outside of our fields.

Perhaps, as some suggested early into this, we are talking past each other 
and since you did not realize there was a difference between quantum theory 
and quantum mechanics, it stuck in your mind that this was something else we 
were talking about.  That most likely being the case, as pointed out by Joe 
Campbell a week or so ago again, I will gladly offer you my apology for 
seeing this as a food fight and acting in that manner.

Phil Nisbet


>From: nickgier at adelphia.net
>To: Phil Nisbet <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Quantum Debate (Final)
>Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 0:12:20 -0500
>
>Hi Phil,
>
>I thought I was quoting you directly about Einstein developing quantum 
>mechanics, and I tried to find the post that started the entire debate, but 
>to no avail.  I believe that it was the post in which you were also 
>defending yourself on punctuated equilibrium vs. neo-Darwinian gradualism, 
>which, now that I think about it, you handled in the same way as you 
>handled this exchange.
>
>Can you find that crucial post?  If it says that you claim it does, then I 
>will post an apology, and if it says what I thought it did, then it's an 
>apology from you.
>
>If what you say is true, why didn't you say "crucial to developing" the 
>theory in the first place?  That strikes me as strange that you are just 
>now qualifying your claim instead of doing it in your first response.
>
>Nick
>

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963