On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:12:17 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:59 PM, <agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > >> > The electron NEVER produces a smudge on that > photographic > plate regardless of if it went through one slit or 2 slits or no slit > at all. > > > > > Three strikes as follows: If it produced a mathematical point, it could > never be observed. > > > Maybe that's why there is no evidence that mathematical points exist, > other than in the stories mathematicians tell each other in the language of > mathematics. >
I feel like I am arguing with a silly girl. It was YOU who defacto alleged "no smudge", implying the electron has a spatial extent of ZERO. I claimed it has finite width -- which is logical considering it has a finite, measured mass -- and you use my claim to make a totally irrelevant, self serving comment about no use of some mathematical concepts in physics. You want to present yourself as a master of, and respectful of logic. Consider this; if the electron has zero width, it would have infinite density. Is this logical? Experiments have placed limits on its width, and some theories allege it has zero width. But this is wrong, as simply logic shows. AG > > > > > It can't do what you claim without violating the UP. > > > Ah but you forget to take IHA into account. > > IHA? AG > > > > > Moreover, you fail to take into account the finite width of the electron. > > > No experiment has indicated that the electron has any size at all, I > think the best experiment shows that the radius must be smaller than > 10^-16 meters. It's probably larger than 10^-35 meters because that's the > Planck Length and if it's smaller than that we're going to need new physics > to explain it. > Logically, its diameter must be non-zero. Otherwise its density would be infinite. AG > > > >> > And even if there is which way information if that information is erased > after it passed the slits but before it hits the photographic plate there > will be a interference pattern. Think about that for a minute, its in the > past, the electron either went through a slit or it didn't and if the arrow > of time is real then there is nothing you can do about it now, > but apparently you can. Many Worlds can explain this without the future > changing the past, Copenhagen can't. > > Not very familiar with delayed choice experiment. Interesting, need to think about, but don't trust your conclusions. AG > > > > The interference effect is manifest in the distribution of the ensemble. I > don't what what your complaint is here. > > > Use Copenhagen > to explain how the decision to erase or not to erase which way > information made *AFTER* the electrons have passed the 2 slits but before > they hit the photographic plate can produce a effect on that photographic > plate and make sure that explanation is realistic and the arrow of time is > respected. > > > > > >> > > Your source is fact-challenged. Weinberg thinks MULTIVERSE may have merit, > but NOT the MWI, > > > > >> > Then give me some facts! Where does Weinberg say that? > > > > > Google "Steven Weinberg, Many Worlds "repellent". If you can't find it, > let me know. AG > > > OK I'm officially letting you know, I just did exactly what you said but > I still can't find it, I still can find no evidence Weinberg thinks the > multiverse may have merit but not the MWI. > I reasonably inferred that from his words. He thinks MWI "repellent", meaning "ugly", and is hugely skeptical of its claims. WRT the multiverse of string theory, he seems worried that it might be true because in that case the mass of quarks and other parameters can't be deduced from fundamental principles. Luck of the draw, good or bad, would prevail. AG > > > >> > how can you have a multiverse without many worlds or many worlds without a > multiverse? > > > > > > You keep making the same error as Brent pointed out earlier > > > Brent was wrong and so are you. > Brent is rarely wrong. See earlier comment. AG. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
