On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 7:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > >> If observing a definite result doesn't collapse the wave function then >> what does? I think the experiment is meant to show collapse does not >> happen. And if there is no collapse then you have the MWI. >> >> Jason >> > Hi, > > It seems to me that we would not observe any sign of a collapse in a > local sense even if there actually was one. We only observe the end result, > no the process. No? > > Correct. But the CI says you can't learn the result of a measurement without the wave function collapsing. Actually it was never entirely defined when the collapse happened, or what did it, but it was supposed that for any observer to know a result it must have collapsed. For DD's experiment to work, there must be two definite results which are definitely measured and observed., since the collapse never occurred and yet the observer recalled measuring a definite result. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
