(quote Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design) According to quantum physiks,you cannot "just" observe something. That is , quantum physiks recognizes that to make an observation, you must interact with the object you are observing.
For instance, to see an object in the traditional sense,we shine a light on it. Shining a light on a pumpkin will of course have little effect on it. But shinig even a dim light on a tiny particle- That is, shooting photons at it-does have an appreciable effect, and experiments show that it changes the result of an experiment in just the way that quantum physiks describes. END- So, reading your comment on Dan, i have to say, it sounds pretty arrogant to take a position based upon some home-brew. reading your interactions with Andre and Dan, i think i can honestly say, Mark, that i'm under the strong impression that you are fast cycling, ..are you getting bored with progress? are you a fast cycler? I don't really want an answer on this question, i already know it. greetz, Adrie The quote is from Hawking, not mine. i cannot show a particle, nor a photon re-engineering is a bad habbit. There is no measurement problem, there is the impossibility to measure without collapsing the wavefunction,but this is not a problem, there are many workarounds, i do not have to google anything. but i'm quit good at it. watch me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder 2010/11/2 118 <[email protected]> > Hi Andrie, > A comment below, > Cheers, > Mark > > [Andrie] > According to quantum physiks,you cannot "just" observe something. > That is , quantum physiks recognizes that to make an observation, > you must interact with the object you are observing. > > For instance, to see an object in the traditional sense,we shine a light on > it. Shining a light on a pumpkin will of course have little effect on it. > But shinig even a dim light on a tiny particle- > That is, shooting photons at it-does have an appreciable effect, and > experiments show that it changes the result of an experiment in just the > way > that quantum physiks describes. > END- > > > So, reading your comment on Dan, i have to say, it sounds pretty arrogant > to > take a position based upon some home-brew. > > reading your interactions with Andre and Dan, i think i can honestly say, > Mark, that i'm under the strong impression that you are > fast cycling, ..are you getting bored with progress? > are you a fast cycler? > I don't really want an answer on this question, i already know it. > > greetz, Adrie > > [Mark] > Hi Andrie. Arrogant? OK, guilty. Fast cycling? Well I haven't seen more > fast cycling than what is going on in the forum, so: All Guilty. > > Now, Home Brew? > As you know, the measurement issue arrises out of foundational problems in > quantum mechanics. As such it does not point to anything but such > foundational problems. There are attempts at rectifying such problems > (google it). These foundations were laid in the 1920s by a number of > physicists. Einstein continued to work on other foundations, but was > unable > to solve the problem. This does not mean that such a solution does not > exist. > > So, my admonition to Dan, and I guess now to You Andrie, is when you use > physics to somehow support a notion in Quality, you should be careful and > not say that such a thing has been SHOWN, because that is misleading. > > When you state your opinion above in terms of a pumpkin, yes, you are using > a theory in quantum mechanics, and such interaction falls directly out of > the Schrodinger equation. Does that show that such a thing has been > proven? > If so, you would bring up the notion of quantum vector collapse and its > implications to Quality, but I haven't heard that from you yet, maybe that > is coming, but I'm not sure how good your physics is. So the Home Brew is > yours and not mine. You are mixing in a few theories here, a few there, a > pinch of quality, some fantasy, a little Hawking, and poof, the stew is > done. Please read carefully what I write next time before reacting. > > Thanks, > Mark > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > -- parser Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
