On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:31:20 AM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > 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? > e > 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 >
P.S. ....thngs like 'collapse', 'wavefunction' are just words. There is no particular need for what happens to characterize something collapsed. There is no particular necessity that a wave function as you speak of it should not exist, or that it whould collapse or not. They are just words. What matters are the relations and dependencies. You, and you all,m interact about this matter as if it is my side that wants or needs there to be a wavefunction that is tied to the interference,m or wants or needs that this should collapse. I see no importance to all that in this context. What is important is that the mathematical function is discontinous. That's the hard evidence. I don't see any conflict between that and a wave function that never collapses. A discontinuity at one level does not prevent continuinity a wavefunction nevrer collapses can also ahave a discrete nature? Digital nature? It's not me or my side that that demanding there is a link toiand collapse that we observe is not a collapse at all but universex splittinhg. I mean Liz, all of that would very strongly suggest that you do asoicater the observed evetns with this wave function. You build a freaking multiverse just to say it wasn't a collapse,. So ther strong implication ithat you must think that collapse like event, is your wavefunction? Because if you don't, why all the frenzied effort to explain it isn't? It's me or myside. What I want to say isx simply what happens,The equation loses its descriptve v alue the interference pattern goes away,and a large amount of that remains a mystery ato be solved. But the problem for you, is that on the one side you say non of those oberved effects are the wavefunction, and it isn't observed to vanish. On the o0ther hand, you sxy the 'apparent'collapse is decoherance and universes splitting and the wavefunction is alive and well....the effect we see is local to u8s. So you say it is is, and i sin't the wavefucntion, effectively -- 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.
