It's not very hard to see the error. If you assume an electron, or whatever, is a particle -- meaning localized in space -- it's going to be impossible to model it as going through both slits. But if you use DeBroglie's insight and assume it ravels as a wave before detection, you're relieved of what is really a self-imposed paradox. Why the thing is always a particle when detected remains a mystery regardless of any model you adopt, but adding an unnecessary assumption in the face of DeBroglie's insight is asking for big trouble. And that trouble comes in the form of Schroedinger's cat. A word to the wise is sufficient. AG
On Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 5:37:09 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > As expected; no substance. Have you heard? Trump was acquitted. He had > nothing to do with the Capitol events on Jan 6. LOL. AG > On Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 4:21:56 PM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 5:52 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 3:47:04 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>>> Not intending to insult, but overall your response is an good example >>>> of Trump Physics. >>> >>> >> >> Not intending to insult, but you sir are an ass. >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> >> For example, you discuss measuring spin, Up or Dn, while denying you know >>>> what measurement is. You claim AG can be observed in X or Y by copies of >>>> AG, by a wave which by definition has no definite location. You ignore or >>>> to flat-out admit that the HUP implies the failure of classical >>>> determinism. And so forth. AG >>>> >>> >>> I meant to write, " ... You claim AG can be observed AT POINTS X and Y >>> by copies of AG, ... ." AG >>> >>>> >>>> On Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 4:17:31 AM UTC-7 [email protected] >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> *> Prior to the discovery of the HUP it was believed that unlimited >>>>>> precision of initial conditions was possible, depending only on the >>>>>> advance >>>>>> of technology. Now, with the HUP, we know this is not the case.* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You don't need infinite precision to state that an electron is >>>>> spinning up or down and right or left, it would only take two bits of >>>>> information to do so, and yet we are unable to obtain those two bits; we >>>>> can choose to determine with absolute certainty if the electron is >>>>> spinning >>>>> right or left but then we'd have no idea about the up or down spin, it >>>>> would be completely 50-50; or we can determine with absolute certainty if >>>>> the electron is spinning up or down but then we'd have no idea about the >>>>> left or right spin. We can do one or the other but not both. Why? Is it >>>>> because there is some physical mechanism that prevents us from having >>>>> both >>>>> bits of information and thus making complete predictions impossible, or >>>>> is >>>>> it because until it is measured (whatever the hell that is) the electron >>>>> simply doesn't have both properties? Many Worlds is a realistic >>>>> interpretation of quantum mechanics, it says particles always have a >>>>> definite spin, regardless of if it is "observed" or not, in fact the >>>>> electron has every spin not forbidden by the laws of physics, and the >>>>> same >>>>> thing is true for a position and momentum, and the change in energy over >>>>> a >>>>> time interval, although Intelligent entities in any one branch of the >>>>> multiverse may forever lack the ability to obtain all that information. >>>>> Copenhagen is not a realistic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it >>>>> says >>>>> these properties don't even exist until they are measured, and they can't >>>>> give a precise or even approximate meaning to what they meant by >>>>> "measured". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> *> Consequently, determinism is no longer a viable interpretation* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We know from experiment that Bell's inequality is violated and Bell >>>>> proved if it is violated then the universe cannot be: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Local >>>>> 2) Deterministic >>>>> 3) Realistic, >>>>> >>>>> At least one of those three things must be false. However Many >>>>> Worlds Insists that it is all 3. It can get away with that because >>>>> Bell assumed the collapse of the wave function is a real physical >>>>> phenomenon in his derivation of this inequality, Copenhagen makes the >>>>> same assumption, so it must junk at least one of those 3, maybe more. But >>>>> Many Worlds says the wave function never collapses so it can have all >>>>> 3. >>>>> >>>>> Bell on Bell’s theorem: The changing face of nonlocality >>>>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03521.pdf> >>>>> >>>>> > *It occurred to me that when solving Schroedinger's equation, one >>>>>> needs initial conditions. * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's not just Schroedinger's equation even in Newtonian physics and >>>>> even if you know every single one of the physical laws involved >>>>> perfectly >>>>> you can't make predictions at all, not even approximate ones, if you have >>>>> no idea about initial conditions. You can't predict where a pendulum will >>>>> be three seconds from now if you have no idea where it is right now. >>>>> >>>>> *> Even if matter waves are ignored in the interpretation of >>>>>> superposition, a deep mystery remains; why do those waves in the double >>>>>> slit experiment always result in particle detection at the screen? * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Because of Fourier analysis we know that even the most complex waves >>>>> can be decomposed into an infinite sum of far simpler waves, and one of >>>>> those simpler waves is Alan Grayson seeing an electron at point X, and >>>>> another of those simpler waves is Alan Grayson seeing an electron at >>>>> point >>>>> Y. Many Worlds insist that a particle is just a convenient fiction used >>>>> by >>>>> beings in any particular branch of the multiverse, aka a simpler >>>>> decomposition of the Universal Wave Function. Many Worlds says that >>>>> matter, and fundamental reality in general, consists of waves not >>>>> particles. >>>>> John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> >>>>> >>>>> , >>>>> >>>>> -- >>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0df25e1b-de6b-408e-b487-b06e8a3db61cn%40googlegroups.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0df25e1b-de6b-408e-b487-b06e8a3db61cn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e4f038bd-368d-40fc-a582-a340cf7afbfcn%40googlegroups.com.
