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

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #461017

Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available

Show all headers | View raw

On a sunny day (Fri, 19 May 2017 17:58:28 -0400) it happened rickman
<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in <ofnpjo$skp$2@dont-email.me>:

>>> "Jan Panteltje" <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ofktj4$1usa$1@gioia.aioe.org...

>> So, anyways as to the man and his cat (Schroedinger for those
>> who have not heard of his cat), when I was in Copenhagen
>> it became clear to me there is a finite probability that he went into that park and tried LSD,
>> and since then did not know if his cat was alive or dead.
>> A rational explanation I think, I am all for simple explanations :-).
>> That not even taken into account that there were 2 other theories proposed
>> in that Copenhagen conference, one of those De Broglie's, one that makes more sense to me.

>Schroedinger never said he didn't know if his cat was alive or dead.  He 
>only has to open the box and look.  Until then it exists both alive and 
>dead... but not really.

It was worse, he said NOBODY could know if their cat was dead or alive ;-)
Just imagine, and I did not even HAVE a cat.

It was the sign of times, lots of LSD, it hit the masses, 
his 'math' worked, and so that was selected out of the three proposals.

Worth reading:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

<quote (references removed)>
 In 1952 David Bohm developed decoherence, an explanatory mechanism for the appearance of wave function collapse.
 Bohm applied decoherence to Louis DeBroglie's pilot wave theory,
 producing Bohmian mechanics, the first successful hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics.
 Collapse was avoided by Hugh Everett in 1957 in his relative state interpretation.
 Decoherence was largely[34] ignored until the 1980s.
</quote>

<quote (references removed)>
Acceptance among physicists
 Throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had overwhelming acceptance among physicists.
 Although astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin described it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s,
 according to a very informal poll (some people voted for multiple interpretations) conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 1997,
 the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists.
 In more recent polls conducted at various quantum mechanics conferences, varying results have been found.
 In a 2017 article, physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg states that the Copenhagen interpretation "is now widely felt to be unacceptable."
</quote>

It has had my attention for a long time.
Beware of mathematicians.

Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 07:57 +0000
  Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-16 07:04 -0700
    Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 14:39 +0000
      Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 14:48 +0000
      Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-16 08:28 -0700
        Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 16:42 +0000
          Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-16 10:01 -0700
            Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 19:05 +0000
              Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 16:28 +0000
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 12:51 -0400
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-18 12:27 -0700
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 19:44 +0000
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-18 16:46 -0500
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-19 19:03 +0000
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 17:58 -0400
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-20 07:05 +0000
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 04:13 -0400
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-20 09:23 -0700
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-20 20:55 +0000
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-18 12:25 -0700
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 20:04 -0400
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-18 21:07 -0700
  Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-16 10:07 -0500
    Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-16 08:31 -0700
      Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-05-16 11:58 -0400
        Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-16 09:51 -0700
          Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 19:06 +0000
            Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-16 20:37 -0400
            Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-16 19:58 -0700
              Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-16 21:30 -0700
          Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-16 20:37 -0400
      Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-05-16 13:03 -0400
        Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-16 11:21 -0700
          Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 13:50 -0500
      Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 13:01 -0500
      Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-18 10:22 +0200
        Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 10:26 +0000
    Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 16:28 +0000

csiph-web