On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 7:55:21 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
> 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 travels 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 > So material particles travel as waves and therefore interfere with themselves as those waves go through both slits. No need to assume that before measurement, a system is simultaneously in all states of a superposition representing it. And no need to claim S's cat is Alive and Dead simultaneously before measurement. IMO, this is what Schroedinger was trying to demonstrate; namely, the absurdity of the interpretation of superposition to mean the simultaneity as previous described. But inexplicably many have fallen in love, deeply in love with this absurdity. So I refer to this pathology as Trump physics. 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/508f67d2-953b-4589-b789-9d23ce2e0128n%40googlegroups.com.
