Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/27/2019 8:18 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 4:47:41 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



    On 10/27/2019 3:41 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


    On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 4:27:09 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



        On 10/27/2019 2:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


        On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 2:52:01 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



            On 10/26/2019 11:43 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
            Here's what I understand about an electron in the
            double slit experiment. It doesn't occupy two locations
            simultaneously as a particle. Rather, when *not*
            observed it behaves like a wave, goes through both
            slits, and interferes with itself. When observed, it
            behaves as a particle. 

            There's your problem.  You're insisting that the
            electron is changing around because it "behaves"
            differently.  The behavior is in your interpretation. 
            It's not in the mathematics.  So the fact that it seems
            to jump around in ontology is the fault of your
            interpretation trying to impose a medieval idea of
            substance.


        And your interpretation is that the mathematics says the
        electron has two positions or paths simultaneously, and goes
        through both slits?

        The wf goes thru both slits.


    That's more or less what I said. AG


        Where does the mathematics assert that unintelligible claim?
        Waves can go through both slits, but not particles.

        In your classical world view.


    Not necessarily classical, but rather interpreting the "particle"
    as a wave when we don't look; a quantum pov. My interpretation
    explains why interference disappears in which-way experiment,

    Your interpretation being what exactly?  Does it work for the
    Buckyball C60 experiment?


It's just an application of the wave-particle duality. When you're not 
looking, it acts like a wave (and goes through both slits without a 
baffling contradiction if it's considered a particle); and when you're 
looking it acts like a particle, and hence goes through one slit or 
the other, and no interference. I expect it would work for C60. The 
main advance represented by C60 is the demonstration of interference 
for a quasi-macro object. AG

But nobody looks at the C60s.  The interference pattern disappears 
anyway.  The trouble with the interpretation you cite is that it depends 
on an ill defined process called "looking at it".

Brent

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/414d7eda-6b3a-cbd8-1445-f27471813593%40verizon.net.