On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 11:46:03 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:33 PM, <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> wrote:
>
> >
>> As for collapse, it's easily seen in the double slit experiment. The
>> electron, say, moves through space as a wave -- which explains the
>> interference effects due to splitting into two waves, each emanating from
>> one of the slits
>
>
> Then after it passes the double slit and that electron hits the
> photographic why does it always produce one and only one spot, not a smudge
> as one wave should and not a interference pattern as as 2 waves should?
>
>
It probably is a smudge, consistent with the UP. AG
>
>
>> >
>> and is ALWAYS observed as localized in space, aka a PARTICLE. That is,
>> the wave collapses into a particle! There is no other reasonable
>> interpretation of results of the double slit experiment, which demonstrates
>> the collapse phenomenon for those able to see.
>
>
> So tell me exactly what this **observer** thing is.
>
> Exactly what is it about observation that allows it to collapse the wave
> particle?
>
Dunno. But using MWI without collapse, why do we get some particular value
and not others? I don't see that a big problem has gone away. AG
> How complex does a thing need to be to qualify as a observer? And why do
> you believe the moon started to orbit the earth 4.5 billion years ago, why
> do you believe the moon had any definite properties at all 4.5 billion
> years ago ?
>
Current theory, based on evidence from Moon materials compared to surface
materials on Earth, is that the Moon formed after a collision of a
Mars-sized object many billions of years ago. Of course, the final form of
the Moon took millions of years to complete. As that process proceeded the
"Moon" changed a lot, but at each point in time, like any macro object, it
had definite properties. Not a quantum problem since the system wasn't
isolated and there is no identifiable interference effects, and no
superposition of states. AG
>
> >
>> You keep ignoring the obvious 800 pound gorilla in the room; introducing
>
>
| those infinite number of observers are indistinguishable from only
one, and that's pretty simple.
As simple as a woman who gives birth to twins, millions of times over and
then some? AG
>
>> Give me a break.
>>
>
> No, you get no break from logic.
>
You can see collapse in double slit experiment. No other possible
interpretation. AG
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>
>
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
