Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #381604

Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ?

Show all headers | View raw

On 04/14/2016 02:24 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 14/04/2016 1:31 PM, Y wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:45:53 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
>> wrote:
>>> On 13/04/2016 10:02 PM, Y wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:10:16 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/04/2016 12:54 PM, Y wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:58:53 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I want to recast this the way that scientists think of
>>>>>>> this today. Let's take the case of electrons fired from an
>>>>>>> electron gun at a double slit, where there is an
>>>>>>> electron-sensitive screen behind that records where the
>>>>>>> electrons land. In what follows, you can substitute the
>>>>>>> word "photon" for "electron" everywhere, and there would be
>>>>>>> no change in the statements. (Or, for that matter, you can
>>>>>>> substitute "proton" or "pion" or "oxygen molecule" or
>>>>>>> "carbon atom" or "neutrino".)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises
>>>>>>> is an indicator of the wavelike properties of the
>>>>>>> electron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not of single electrons though - that wavelike behavior only
>>>>>> 'emerges' and becomes more apparent with the more electrons
>>>>>> hitting the screen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You can fire the electrons at the screen at the rate of one
>>>>> per hour. Eventually, the interference pattern still shows.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> The predictions aren't exactly reliable in terms of knowledge are
>> they ? If probabilistic predictions were knowledge, then casinos all
>> around the world would be out of business.
>
> So far as we can tell, the probabilities given by quantum mechanics are
> as much information as exists - the universe itself doesn't know where
> the electron will be detected before it happens.

So since probability is all you have so far, you conclude that 
probability is all that one can EVER have! I presume you used your 
superpowers to make this determination.

> OK, so you'd prefer to be able to predict exactly where the electron
> will land, but that's a philosophical point of view that the universe is
> not obliged to subscribe to.

Nor it is obliged to follow your fantasies and speculations which you 
admit are such. Yet, why is it that "modern" physics likes to present 
these speculations as if they were "Fact". That is totally anti-science. 
No theory is fact. Scientific consensus means nothing.


> In the EPR thought experiment, Einstein et. al. sought to show that
> quantum mechanics was incomplete - that there were properties that
> existed in the world that quantum mechanics left out. It turned out,
> after a considerable time, that their argument was flawed, as Bell
> demonstrated.
>
> Until you can show that there really are omitted properties, such as the
> eventual position of an electron, it's just speculation.

So you just believe that relativity is bogus and the old "action at a 
distance" theory is the correct one for QM. Well, that may be your 
religion but it isn't science.

The obvious fact is that in these matters there is a gigantic sea of 
human ignorance out there and simply talking loudly with total 
conviction really doesn't substitute for actual science.


> Sylvia.


-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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