On Friday, April 11, 2014 5:47:43 AM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Thursday, April 3, 2014 7:56:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >> On 3 April 2014 16:56, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >>> >>>> On 3 April 2014 14:39, <[email protected]> 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. >> >> So, after that you moved on to what was the problem with the two slit >> experiment. OK, so I've explained that, and since you've moved on from >> that, I must assume you understood and agreed with the explanation. >> >> So what are you moving on to now? Why it was considered an urgent >> problem? You mean as opposed to why everything else in science is >> considered an urgent problem (phlogiston, planetary orbits, what the stars >> are, whether the luminiferous aether exists, what happens to Maxwell's >> equations when you travel at the speed of light, why the perihelion of >> Mercury advances, how entropy can increase from time-symmetric molecular >> collisions, whether the universe is expanding, what happens when an object >> collapses under its own gravity, whether atoms exist...) Well, the short >> answer is that it wasn't. Scientists worry about all sorts of problems, >> some have even been burned at the stake for trying to solve them. >> > > Liz - you would haver to be willing to identify a basic model of her w MWI > came to ,.,.,as well as a large number of other properties, such mwi > itself. You need to hace something like this in order to meaningfully > undertake a process of deliberation whether and how MWI fits into > scientific history. > > What you say above wouold be fine as a summary, but you seem to want to > pass that for a way that everything is always urgent or whatever. You must > see it's totally meaningless as a point like that? > > If you want to address the matter you've have to entify at least a few > common propertties of theories, timelines, historirs......also of mwi too. > > Otherwise all you are going to be able to say in history model is words to > the effect "Evertything is always the same". Urgent...it was always urgent! > Just empty statements. > > Sorry liz...no intention to be harsh. > >> >>> The Interpretation Movement, was pretty unprecedented in that sense. >>> >> >> It wasn't. Read up on the history of science and you will find plenty of >> people worrying about stuff they couldn't explain. That is largely what >> drives science, after all. >> > > > History of science is major long point of focus for me. If you believe > there are parallels then please present one (make it from the major > arterial threads of discovery). Please do, and we'll discuss it. > > It's up to you if you want to define all of science as an interpretation > movement or identify yourself with a philosophy that s how science > turns. All I m saying is that statements about unifirormity, everything the > same, say absolulutely nothing of value. > >> >> >>> That an explanation,....a way to make sense of....was raised over >>> everything else, including whether and what extent that explanation >>> inherited any of the traits moHst fundamental, most unique, to science and >>> science only. MWI hasn't got one. Not one. Or name one, and explain why >>> it's fundamental to science, and unique to science and only science. >>> >> >> As I understand it, the "QM interpretation movement" stalled for about 30 >> years before the MWI came along. Everyone more or less agreed to "shut up >> and calculate" but a lot of people were vaguely dissatisfied with the >> situation (including Einstein).on >> > > The truth is there a lot f misrepresenting all round in the various > interpretation camp0s. In my view, givren no one had a good idea, shut up > nf calculate was the least harmful approches > > The mwi people have created stereotypica, ideas about what was meant by > shut up and calculate.ough > how long long ius kong enough,. > > And right Liz, you have your contradiction with the interpretation > movement. I'm saying science waits snd never hurries the pace. My assertion > makes predicftions that we can check. > > So on my reading, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of shut > uo and calculate, so long as it reflects a real dearth of ideas how to > procreedf. That is the way it's always been. > > > The problem are ideas under pinninhg interpretations, You will not find > that in scientific history...exceopt up failed cul de sacs. > > Prove me wrong. But please don't try to that by simple not setting > anything up such that it is comparable. Or 'everythings is the same". > > You are saying > What was implicit in that statement, was no one had good ideas for how > push ahead. > to what pacer things go > Liz...science has always waited during periods like that, for the big > ideas. Science waits. Hundreds of years if necessary. And science is > willing to go aazingly slow. Science has never attached any priority > nd > And that' > > >> Also, I suppose one of the "scientific" traits the MWI has (allegedly) is >> that it takes the equation(s) of QM at face value, rather than postulating >> extras like the collapse of the wave function - although whether it >> succeeds or not is a different matter. There seems to be a lot of people >> who think it doesn't. >> >> >>> There are some parts you didn't mention unless I missed it.....like the >>> way that pattern goes away when we try to look at see which slit the >>> electron goes through. And the way the same pattern shows up even if >>> electrons are fired one at a time. Even if the interval is a year or a >>> million years. >>> >> >> Yes I mentioned that. Here, to be exact - "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)." >> > I just to say sorry for the problems in my texts. the keyboard jumps the cursor. I've fixed it now. Also I made a second reply to liz, but it seems lost
-- 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.
