On 3 April 2014 11:46, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > >> On 3 April 2014 10:55, <[email protected]> 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] -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
