On Thursday, April 3, 2014 7:56:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > On 3 April 2014 16:56, <ghi...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >>> On 3 April 2014 14:39, <ghi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >>>>> >>>>> gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that >>>>> wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly >>>>> reasonable statement, because we can't observe entities like >>>>> wavefunctions >>>>> directly, and we certainly can't observe their collapse directly. Some >>>>> people would say we can't observe *anything* directly, but under the >>>>> normally understood meaning of "observe" it seems reasonable to say that >>>>> we >>>>> observe the images on our retinas, and hence that we can observe the dots >>>>> on a screen, and we can also be reasonably said to be able to observe the >>>>> pattern they make. I'm not saying anything about the MWI or Copenhagen or >>>>> whatever here, merely that (in normal usage of "observe") we can observe >>>>> dots on a screen, and we can't observe abstract theoretical entities like >>>>> wavefunctions, or their collapse. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I apologize for the extensive subset of my much more extensive range of >>>> shortcomings causing up to all of that confusion. >>>> >>>> May I try again...this time boiling it all down to a single >>>> request? Based on what was at the time the widely accepted proxy for >>>> the more problematic meaning of 'observation', what was observed that gave >>>> rise in the first place to the widely perceived, arguably urgent, need for >>>> an Interpretation of what it meant? >>>> >>> >>> The observation described above, and shown in the pictures. The need for >>> interpretation comes from the fact that the objects (electrons or photons, >>> for example) involved are assumed to be far too small to be influenced by >>> both slits in the experiment (the fact that they form localised dots on the >>> screen also indicates that they are very small). Yet all these small >>> objects manage to build up a global interference pattern involving the >>> presence of both slits (a pattern that vanishes if one slit is covered). >>> >>> This doesn't at first seem paradoxical, because a similar phenomenon >>> occurs when a wave in water passes through two gaps of the right size, for >>> example. In this case there is a medium present at each point through which >>> the waves are travelling, so the influence has something to transmit it, >>> and the resulting effect is easily explanied. >>> >>> So one's first guess is likely to be that the photons or electron in the >>> 2-slit experiment are just be interfering with each other in a similar >>> manner ... which wouldn't be paradoxical , of course ... except for the >>> additional fact that the intensity of the source can be turned down until >>> only one particle is passing through the apparatus at any given time - yet >>> even in this case, the interference pattern still appears (eventually). >>> >>> This situation appears in need of "urgent" explanation because the >>> apparent smallness of the particles in relation to the size of the >>> equipment suggests that a single electron or photon can't possibly "know" >>> about (be influenced by) a slit which it doesn't pass through, and which >>> is, relatively speaking, a large distance away. Assuming a photon passes >>> through the left hand slit, say, there is no known physical mechanism >>> available to tell it about the existence of the right hand slit. Yet it >>> will hit the screen in a position that is (statistically) determined by >>> what looks like interference between waves passing through both slits. >>> Hence the paradox. >>> >> >> I'd agree that's a component but why is that on its own a more urgent >> problem than the action at a distance problems with Newton's force when >> gravity? Or all those contradictions that accumulated in the late 19th >> century, that people felt were pretty incomprehensible and shocking, yet no >> one at any time started talking about the need for an 'interpretation' that >> made it all feel explained at any price? How come everyone was willing to >> leave all those problems wide open for up to hundreds of years, until not >> just an interpretation and explanation but scientific next generation >> theory, complete with all the traits science the way they knew and loved >> were explicit and visible. They had worse problems than this electron? On >> there own terms, as the knowledge they had, that was important to them, >> that was being upended by the contradictions that they faced. Was it worse >> for them, or where they just willing to live with it, because they knew >> they just had not accumulated enough knowledge yet to begin to answer the >> questions? >> > > I'm not sure who you're arguing with here, if anyone. All I said was that > the collapse of the wave function hasn't been directly observed. I guess > you've agreed with that comment, if you want to move on to something else. > > Hi Liz,
Let's call it something other than the wavefunction. On one side we have an equation, and the other we have a two slit expoeriment. The equation describes the interference behaviour. But when the interference behaviour gtoes away, the equation loses its empirical connection. So when we observe the interference patter coll.apses, from the other diretion what we can seay is the equation descriptive value also collapses. That a really substantiveset of reations. Something describes. That something wass ioriginally referred to, along wht theobserved interference, as th4 wavefnction. An on that conception, the collapse is observed, and the collapse is multidiemnsional including the viability of thre eqution. What I think you are doing Liz, is you are tacitly invoking the coneption the wave function is fundamental iun nature. Part and parcel of that is the aht there is neer colllaopse. LThe on,y way to make that viable is by inventing a mutliverse. Part of the debate has been whether MWI, indeed the denial of empirical fact....purely for purpose of making two equations people thought should be linear now linear? Denial of empirical fact and invoking a multiverse for that? I think I am now beginning to see why bruno is never ablet to understand what UI am sayung,. He's doiung what you are doloing. Simply continuing to hold up the infrastruction this thing, and try to use that - that assumed fact of nature effectively - to make sense of me...when I'm challenging whether it's an idea at root that would ever haver stood up. Ordinarily when someone makes a hallenge a challenge likethe other side is willing to talk, then itsers are not assumed foir the duration. I don't think you and bruno o0r any of you have been doing this since the beginning.. Can you explain how this sort of communication is supposed toi wiorjk>?> So I makje variuioys arguments that challenge the underpoinnning assumptions of this theory. And what you all do, is look at what I'm saying through the prism of assuming tthat same theory is true and fact. Hi Liz, Let's call it something other than the wavefunction. On one side we have an equation, and the other we have a two slit expoeriment. The equation describes the interference behaviour. But when the interference behaviour gtoes away, the equation loses its empirical connection. So when we observe the interference patter coll.apses, from the other diretion what we can seay is the equation descriptive value also collapses. That a really substantiveset of reations. Something describes. That something wass ioriginally referred to, along wht theobserved interference, as th4 wavefnction. An on that conception, the collapse is observed, and the collapse is multidiemnsional including the viability of thre eqution. What I think you are doing Liz, is you are tacitly invoking the coneption the wave function is fundamental iun nature. Part and parcel of that is the aht there is neer colllaopse. LThe on,y way to make that viable is by inventing a mutliverse. Part of the debate has been whether MWI, indeed the denial of empirical fact....purely for purpose of making two equations people thought should be linear now linear? Denial of empirical fact and invoking a multiverse for that? I think I am now beginning to see why bruno is never ablet to understand what I am sayung,. He's doiung what you are doloing. Simply continuing to hold up the infrastruction this thing, and try to use that - that assumed fact of nature effectively - to make sense of me...when I'm challenging whether it's an idea at root that would ever haver stood up. Ordinarily when someone makes a hallenge a challenge ad other side is willing to talk, it is logically impossible that you simply continue trying to understand me through the prism of your theory. All you would be doing - on the terms of the process we were in, would be cronically begging the question for your the4ory., Which is what all of you have been doing. -- 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.
