On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:03:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > On 3 April 2014 11:46, <ghi...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >>> On 3 April 2014 10:55, <ghi...@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 >>> >> >> I've no criticism of that, save subjective that I still can't nail the >> common ground. Given that on the terms of 'temporarily stripping back' the >> way I said, doesn't have to satisfy the way you just said, beyond the >> minimal standard of being, alright as a gross simplification? I mean, it's >> reasonable a gross simplification would merge a distinction between the >> pattern on the backscreen and the nature intrinsic to the pattern itself, >> and the ultimate cause of that, to "the pattern on the backscreen >> representing the impact points of particles" or isn't it? >> > > Sorry I can't really parse that. > > >> If it isn't, then we can simplify back further, and just call the >> 'pattern on the backscreen'. >> >> We can simplify the 'collapse' back further and call that "the pattern >> disappears". >> >> I'm not taking the piss Liz...it will help me to see a concrete common >> ground component of what is an experimentally observed fact. It's fine if >> you don't think that's the issue...it might not be in the end, but if we >> can agree on something that is an observed fact, we can probably use that >> to work out, how gross a simplification you think it is, vs I think it is. >> As things stand, the apparent indication all considered is that you think >> it's a simplification far greater and grosser than I think it is :O) >> > > What was wrong with my statement of the observed fact - "an interference > pattern builds up from many pointlike events" ? The only thing to (perhaps) > take issue with is the meaning of "pointlike", I would say, which could be > taken to mean "small compared to the scale of the interference pattern". > Here is an illustration: > > [image: Inline images 1] > Nothing wrong with it Liz, if you are willing to state what is an observed fact, and what sense you would also accept that observed fact could be entirely defined as - probably a simplification - within the bounds of what you actually think the wavefunction is really about, or the debate pertaining to that. Because...look I know all the stuff you just defined, about the backscreen pattern being representation of where the individual bits hit, the images, and so on. So that's a form of common ground which is great. But it doesn't confirm the common ground that I suggest we need to have this particular conversation. Which you obviously are under no obligation to have, of course. But I'm being dogmatic here...I don't see how to understand the reasonable distinction you are making, such that the patern on the backscreen, however you want to define, is an observable fact, and so is its disappearance. And yet, the disappearance of the wavefunction is not observable. I'm sure there's plenty of theory sitting behind that. But surely you can also nail it directly to what is observable, and is fact, in terms of that being NOT implicate of observability of the disappearnance of the wave function..
-- 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.
