On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> >>> *Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum >>> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in all >>> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.* >>> >>> >>> Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or >>> polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. You >>> are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything >>> else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown wrong, >>> at any scale and level. >>> >> >> >> >> *Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this >> thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you know >> it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect >> to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you >> are unable to understand simple English? OK, let me start again. I am NOT >> questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.* >> >> >> >> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ? >> > > > *That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am > arguing about. Thanks for your time. AG * > > > > What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your > replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no > superposition, >
*I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! AG* > makes me doubt you have study QM, > which is all about superposition. I do miss something, you might perhaps > try to clarify. > > Bruno > > > >> Personally by QM I mean the SWE or its Dirac Version, or DeWitt-Wheeler, >> etc. Once I understood that Bohr’s perturbation act needs FTL influence, I >> have ceased to judge the collapse plausible. >> >> >> > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- 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.
