On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 6:10:43 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > >>> >> >>> I've been asking all along exactly what is it that collapses the wave >>> function. If its not an observer and its not a measurement and its not >>> consciousness then what is it? >> >> >> > >> It is interaction with something with lots degrees of freedom >> > > In other words a change, a difference. > > That works for me and it works for manny worlds too. It would not > violate the laws of physics if a photon went through either slit, so the > universe splits, in one universe it goes through the left slit in the other > it goes through the right. Normally the universes stay split because they > stay different and the 2 photons continue on into infinite space, but if > you put up a photographic plate after passing the slits it hits the plate > and so no longer exists in either universe, so there is no longer a > difference between universes so they merge back together. That act of > splitting and then coming back together makes the interference pattern. >
In the double slit experiment, the photon, or electron, or whatever, travels as a wave and goes through both slits in THIS world. No need for multiple worlds to explain anything. Even wonder why, in a slit experiment, if the source is close to, and centered between the slits, anything goes through to the screen? AG > > If you want to strip "measurement" and "observation" back to their > absolute minimal essential you arrive at a simple change, and that would be > fine but then in effect you've just turned Copenhagen into Many Worlds. > > > >> I pointed out that is inconsistent with SWE to say that anything possible >> actually happens. "Possible" needs to be qualified. For example the SWE >> in a Young's slit experiment tells you that the probability of a particle >> striking the detector is zero at some places. It's logically possible for >> a particle to strike there, but not nomologically possible. > > > I'm talking about physics not mathematics. > > As far as I know > there would be no logical inconsistency if Newtonian physics (but not > Aristotelian physics) was the only physics there is, but that's not the > way things are so we need Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. > > 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.
