On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:14:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > This hasn't clarified matters, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you could go > back to my original comment, that wave function collapse isn't an observed > fact, and tell me if you agree with that, then once we've settled that we > can move on to the next point (whatever that is), and so on? > Liz - unless you have a component of hard science that is not the equation itself, and not the fact the equation is itself fairly describnmope as a wavefunction, andn nor either the wave/particle effects nor the interference effects. And this hard component you call the WaveFunction proper. Unless you've actually got that, then you don't have anything at all, in which case there would be a case to answer, Or just explaining this mercurial abstraction. In which QM equation may I derive this thing? I don't you have anything, and if you don't then it definitely has no legitimacy Qat you overrule the hard connections between QM equations and observed reality, on the grounds there might be something like that despite absolutely no evidence for it. Or need. Please. Hit me with this huge chunk of science I've been overlooking.
-- 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.
