On 3 April 2014 10:55, <ghib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >> I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption >> which explains how we come to measure discrete values. >> > > Would mind helping me place your meaning in terms of mine Liz? > , > Say, if we imagine a process of stripping back the meaning of > 'wave-function' based on the single goal only, of finding the common ground > starting point, least open to different - likely mis-conception, very > likely my side. > > On that basis, my stripped back wave-function is the pattern made on the > in the two slit experiment, by all those particles coming through, where > each one hits. Purely on that temporary definition alone, would we be on > common ground (a) so far as it goes - given the goal - it's a legitimate > definition (b) the wave function is an observed fact, and so is its > collapse? . >
My take on this is that the wave function is what is assumed to explain the interference pattern formed by the particles, and collapse is what is assumed, in the Copenhagen view, to explain why the pattern is made up of individual pointlike events. The Bohm and MWI (and probably the time-symmetry) views make different assumptions to explain this seemingly counter-intuitive result. Hence the observed fact is that an interference pattern builds up from many discrete events, and several hypotheses have been put forward to explain this, wavefunction collapse being one of them. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
