On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:25:12 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > 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]> >> 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 >
*Correction: EVER wonder why ... 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.
