On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:59 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> The electron NEVER produces a smudge on that >> photographic >> plate regardless of if it went through one slit or 2 slits or no slit >> at all. >> > > > > Three strikes as follows: If it produced a mathematical point, it could > never be observed. >
Maybe that's why there is no evidence that mathematical points exist, other than in the stories mathematicians tell each other in the language of mathematics. > > > It can't do what you claim without violating the UP. > Ah but you forget to take IHA into account. > > > Moreover, you fail to take into account the finite width of the electron. > No experiment has indicated that the electron has any size at all, I think the best experiment shows that the radius must be smaller than 10^-16 meters. It's probably larger than 10^-35 meters because that's the Planck Length and if it's smaller than that we're going to need new physics to explain it. > >> >> And even if there is which way information if that information is erased >> after it passed the slits but before it hits the photographic plate there >> will be a interference pattern. Think about that for a minute, its in the >> past, the electron either went through a slit or it didn't and if the arrow >> of time is real then there is nothing you can do about it now, >> but apparently you can. Many Worlds can explain this without the future >> changing the past, Copenhagen can't. >> > > > > The interference effect is manifest in the distribution of the ensemble. I > don't what what your complaint is here. > Use Copenhagen to explain how the decision to erase or not to erase which way information made *AFTER* the electrons have passed the 2 slits but before they hit the photographic plate can produce a effect on that photographic plate and make sure that explanation is realistic and the arrow of time is respected. > >> >> >> >> Your source is fact-challenged. Weinberg thinks MULTIVERSE may have >> merit, but NOT the MWI, >> >> >> >> >> >> Then give me some facts! Where does Weinberg say that? >> > > > > Google "Steven Weinberg, Many Worlds "repellent". If you can't find it, > let me know. AG > OK I'm officially letting you know, I just did exactly what you said but I still can't find it, I still can find no evidence Weinberg thinks the multiverse may have merit but not the MWI. > >> >> how can you have a multiverse without many worlds or many worlds without >> a multiverse? >> >> > > > > You keep making the same error as Brent pointed out earlier > Brent was wrong and so are you. > > The Multiverse of String theory, aka the Landscape, arises in a totally > different context and theory than the MW of the MWI. > I agree, the context was totally different. The string theorists had their reasons for coming up with a Multiverse, Everett had completely different reasons for coming up with a Multiverse, and the reasons Eternal Inflation theorists needed a Multiverse had nothing to do with string theory or Everett. The fact that all 3 needed a multiverse gives strength to the idea, it certainly isn't a weakness! 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.
