Free will?

[YesNo]

The Copenhagen Interpretation says that the wave ceases to be a wave when it is measured.

This is somewhat different from Calidore's question, but do you see the electron as physically being a "wave" because a "wave function" models probabilities related to it? They are also modeled by Heisenberg's matrix formulation which I understand is equivalent to Schroedinger's wave function. Because of Heisenberg's formulation would the electron physically be a "matrix" as well?

This is related to other posts in this thread about the Platonic paradigm and mathematics and whether the electron actually is a "wave" rather than just displaying some wave-like behavior.

[cafolini]

There is no wave behavior displayed by the electron. The imagination without knowledge is like a toilet without water. The wave happens in the toilet. Mathematics can be used for calculation, but it has absolutely no bearing on physics. To offer a mathematical model to affect physical facts is bad musicology.

And again: Nothing comes from nothing? More nothing than nothing? LOL

[PeterL]

This is somewhat different from Calidore's question, but do you see the electron as physically being a "wave" because a "wave function" models probabilities related to it? They are also modeled by Heisenberg's matrix formulation which I understand is equivalent to Schroedinger's wave function. Because of Heisenberg's formulation would the electron physically be a "matrix" as well?

It is also different from what I wanted people to understand. The precise nature of subatomic particles is not truly known; although there are many descriptions of them. They are described by analogy as having wave-like" and "particle-like" characteristic, but they are different from waves and from particles. When they are detected as individual things, they show the characteristics of particles, but at other times they show the characteristics of waves. I do not consider electrons to be either waves or particles. How about you?

[cafolini]

Schroedinger's wave function was a mathematical notation, not a physical description. Also, subatomic particles have absolutely nothing to do with atomic particles like the free electrons in the outer orbit of a wire.
Another interesting situation is Einsteinsaurus description of space as netted, which was taken again and again by the prominent blind to be the make of actual, physical space. Ridiculous at max.

[YesNo]

It is also different from what I wanted people to understand. The precise nature of subatomic particles is not truly known; although there are many descriptions of them. They are described by analogy as having wave-like" and "particle-like" characteristic, but they are different from waves and from particles. When they are detected as individual things, they show the characteristics of particles, but at other times they show the characteristics of waves. I do not consider electrons to be either waves or particles. How about you?

I agree. It looks like cafolini and Cioran would agree as well.

[cafolini]

If we are going to use fantasy, let's have a genuine purpose. Faraday and Coulomb advise to cut down the vodka. You are not cool when you are loaded. LOL

I'm going to have to hire some more assistants to respond just as fast as you fart.

[YesNo]

I've started reading Roland Omnes, Quantum Philosophy, as a result of this thread. He is not in favor of Many Worlds, and describes it as a metaphysics claiming "reality is not unique" and since it cannot be verified it is outside science entirely. The view he supports is "reality is unique." What one misses in any measurement is the "uniqueness of facts." That means there is no unique state of events.

I don't see how one can come up with a unique state of events even in a Many Worlds environment since these worlds would manifest themselves when decoherence occurs which happens in the measuring device when a measurement is performed which would be needed to get the state information. Also one cannot get all the information from one measurement because of complementarity. So I don't see how a deterministic state can even be constructed in a Many Worlds environment.

Suppose it turned out, because Many Worlds violated a hidden variables constraint, or because a unique state could not be calculated, or for some other reason, that Many Worlds could not introduce determinism back into science, that is it could not deliver on its promise, what value would it have even as a metaphysics?

[cafolini]

To continue with the fantasy for a genuine purpose, received a message from Ohm: just let it be. Do not need alternate current. Vodkadriven CapacitBobo responded: Ladies and Farters, I'm losing charges into an open circuit.

[cacian]

To continue with the fantasy for a genuine purpose, received a message from Ohm: just let it be. Do not need alternate current. Vodkadriven CapacitBobo responded: Ladies and Farters, I'm losing charges into an open circuit.

Sorry? is that a loss of free will speech?!

[YesNo]

I was in a rush yesterday since the library was about to close when the first thing I saw was Omnes work and so I checked it out. So far he seems pretty good. A spur of the moment, let-it-be, decision seemed almost providential. I think I'm finally figuring out what "decoherence" is.

I'll have to thank Ohm.

[Cioran]

Precisely. And analogously to how Henry Ford put it, if you think it's silly, it is, and if you think it is not silly, it is not. Looks like we are also bird watching without Audobon. LOL

Except, as usual, you, and now Calidore, are not understanding it correctly. Derp! Read what PeterL wrote!

[Cioran]

There is no wave behavior displayed by the electron. LOL

LOL, indeed. Did you google up the "blackbody problem" and "ultraviolet catastrophe" as I recommended? No, of course you didn't!

Long story short: if the electron did not behave as a standing wave, the universe would fail to exist. Derp!

[cafolini]

There is no loss of free will provided we choose from the determined possibilities given by God, which also include the free will to fart.

Quanta has nothing to do with electron behaviour. It has to do with particles as they travel in space. Sine waves are the mathematical notations to describe the packets, the quanta. The quanta is the reality of QM, not the notation. The notation, posing as QM is the great, nebulous fart of the prominent blind.

It looks like the deluge of nebula about the subject is due anytime, as the farters do their useless research of a few new words. This gives time to hire my assitants before the farts start hitting the fun. LOL

[cafolini]

LOL, indeed. Did you google up the "blackbody problem" and "ultraviolet catastrophe" as I recommended? No, of course you didn't!

Long story short: if the electron did not behave as a standing wave, the universe would fail to exist. Derp!

The universe failed to occur a long time ago. But it will never fail to be or exist, because the Verse of the UNI is a prominent blind fart.