Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #381766
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? |
| Date | 2016-04-16 18:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dneca0Fk3t3U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <d52ed321-9be8-40ab-bdbc-1a0754fae17a@googlegroups.com> <dn8eiuF54ftU1@mid.individual.net> <%vIPy.7527$Gx3.7198@fx42.iad> <dn93g7F9v8eU2@mid.individual.net> <dndtvtFgp85U1@mid.individual.net> |
On 16/04/2016 2:39 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 14.04.2016 10:42, schrieb Sylvia Else: > >>>>> Yes, but maybe it's not a wave doing this, but rather waves just are >>>>> a useful way to model what happens ? :) Maybe instead of wave >>>>> interference, what we have is a distribution ? >>>> >>>> You're trying to look beneath the model. Essentially, you're trying to >>>> construct a different model. If it's different, it must make different >>>> predictions about the results of measurements, or it will be >>>> mathematically equivalent, and not really be a different model at all. >>>> >>>> So what you're trying to do is an exercise in futility unless you can >>>> show that the current model does not correctly predict the results of >>>> some measurements. That would require some actual measurements to be >>>> done. >>> >>> So, if you can fire electrons (or photons) one at a time at one per hour >>> and the pattern still shows then that means it's NOT an "interference >>> pattern, right? What are the waves? What is "interfering" with what? >>> It's a gigantic mess that people try to "explain" with some Lord of the >>> Rings type fantasy. >> >> There is interference, but the waves that interfere exist in the >> mathematics of quantum mechanics. >> > > Mathematics is not 'existing', hence no real object could eventually > exist in it. > > Mathematics is a human artefact, by which we human beings describe > certain phenomena found in nature. > > Whether or nature does itself utilise similar methods as we use in our > calculations, this is a question of debate. It's philosophy, akin to the noise made by trees falling in the forest when there's no one there to hear them. We use mathematics to model the behaviour of the universe. It's not possible to access the reality beneath the model, because if one tries, one just ends up with another model. As far as physics goes, once we have a correct model, the job is done. Philosophers may seek to peer deeper, but they can never know whether their speculations are correct. Sylvia.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:15 -0700
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:23 -0700
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:20 -0500
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:34 -0700
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 14:01 -0500
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 18:55 -0700
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 07:55 -0500
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 14:58 -0500
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:54 -0700
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:03 -0500
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 03:21 -0700
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 11:55 -0500
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 18:25 -0700
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:05 -0500
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-13 21:10 +1000
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 05:02 -0700
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 12:45 +1000
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 20:25 -0700
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 20:31 -0700
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 16:24 +1000
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:13 -0400
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 18:40 +1000
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 02:44 -0700
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:11 -0700
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 05:07 -0700
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:15 -0500
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:27 -0400
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 18:42 +1000
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-16 06:39 +0200
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-16 18:43 +1000
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-16 05:57 -0700
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:19 -0500
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 05:10 -0700
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:45 -0700
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-12 06:45 +0200
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-14 04:24 +0200
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:52 -0700
Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? bruntlybunky <bruntlybunky@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 15:12 -0700
csiph-web