By all means, continue to parade your ignorance. For the rest of you who want to learn something, and unlike cafolini are able to do so, I reccomend this wonderful video which demonstrates a real experiement that has been done repeatedly for decades. The experiment emprically demonstrates that electrons have a wave-like nature -- which cafolini just denied.Originally Posted by cafolini
By the way, cafolini, does light have a wave-like nature? Hmm?
LOL
It simply depends on if you can hold your vodka and exactly what you post.
If you know the electron is in a certain place, the probability of it being there increases to 100% and the probability of it being elsewhere collapses to 0%. The other probabilities are still there, but they are now 0%.
Good. We agree. If we look at the evidence in the real world, Copenhagen is better.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
My goodness! Lookie here! Electron waves!
Who's drinking vodka now, Calofini?
1. Where was the electron before it was detected?
2. What was the electron before it was detected?
3. How did the act of measurement force the electron to declare its location?
Based on the video you linked to with Dr. Quantum, it looks like the electron is neither a wave nor a particle or both or something else. Also watch this video starting about 3:47 and you will get what happens if the electron is observed. It now displays a particle pattern on the detection screen and not a wave pattern. At the very end of the video, Dr. Quantum says, "The observer collapsed the wave function simply by observing."
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Yes. This is the issue. The observer collapsed the wave function simply by looking. How did he do that? Is it magic?
I linked the video to demonstrate to Calofini that the electron IS a wave; it becomes a point particle at the moment of measurement. This is the Copenhagen assumption. And it is perfectly fine to assume this if you wish, because you can then go on to do science perfectly well. But you get the exact same scientific results with MW.
Bear in mind that if yoiu think MW is strange, how strange do you think Copenhagen is? The observer magically collapses the wave function, with no explanation how or why this miracle takes place. The electron has no properties at all until measured -- this is a postulate of Copenhagen! It only has a probability distribution, exemplifed by its wave state. And, by collapsing a wave function at one end of the universe, you can instantaneously dictate the properties of another particle with which the first particle is entangled, even if it is on the other side of the universe!
So your Copenahgen says that there is no mind-independent reality, no cause and effect and that there is instantaneous action at a distance!
The video was showing an experiment, and not doing philosophy. Many Worlds fully explains what was shown on the video, just in a different way. And in the MW way, there is no wave function collapse, no indeterminism and no spooky action at a distance. I'd say Copenhagen is much weirder than MW -- though weirdness does not determine the truth or falsity of reality, obviously.
How certain of that are you? Is the ollapse a long term effect, or is it something that happens only as long as that observer is watching? What happened to the rest of the wavelike form?
I thought that I hedged that enough to make it clear that the Copenhagen Interpretation is as uncertain as anything can be. The particle-like form of the electron may just be an artifact of observation; that is, the electrons may simply be doing that to amused observers.Good. We agree. If we look at the evidence in the real world, Copenhagen is better.
What you expressing here is a naive form of empiricism. You could also say as follows. Good, we agree then, the earth is flat because it looks that way. Good, we agree then, the sun circles the earth, because it looks that way. Good, we agree then, space and time are absolute and not relative, because it looks that way.
The naive form of empiricism you are advocating here is especially weak with respect to this debate, because MW explains why it looks as if there is only a single world, why it looks as if there is no mind-independent reality, why it looks as if indeterminism reigns and why it looks as if there is "spooky action at a distance." The key modifier is, looks as if things are this way. MW shows why things look to be that way, but are not.
What the electron is as it travels was very well determined in the polarities of a simple battery. The electron travels from negative to positive on the outer orbit. Nothing throws in more confusion than the idea that you can think of electricity flowing from positive to negative. That's for the birds. Positive is lack of charge.Negative is excess charge. When you close the circuit, electrons flow to the positive end. If you close the circuit with your body you could get electrocuted, burned by the electrons, if the voltage is high enough. At 120 volts, changes are that you will suffer burns and a reflexive kick. But in places where the voltage is 220 volts, you are easily electrocuted, because you helplessly stick to it.
Why do you think that in a transistor the source of electrons helped by the bias is called the emitter? You should study very carefully the ins and outs of digital electronics.
And study the life and works of Tesla also. It will do you some good. Study the frequency transformer. Learn, learn, learn. Cut the Smirnoff. Drink a good Johnny black label. And have some artichoke juice for the liver. LOL
Last edited by cafolini; 03-01-2013 at 10:27 PM.
Do waves start acting like particles when you look at them? No. So the electron is also not a wave, because it is also not acting like one. The electron presents a pattern like a wave on the detection screen, but shine a photon on it and it presents a pattern like a particle would.
An electron is whatever behaves the way an electron behaves. I can't see it as either a wave or a particle.
I guess the alternative would be to magically split into trillions of spooky alternate universes without any explanation how or why that miracle happens.
How do you really know there is no non-determinism with Many Worlds? I know that is the Many Worlds dogma, and you are welcome to your metaphysics, but does it deliver?
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
The Young Earth Creationists also explain why it looks as if our universe is 13.7 billion years old, but in their view is not. They love to explain why things look to be one way, but according to their metaphysics is not. It sounds as if your position and theirs have something structurally in common.
One of the good things about empiricism is that it brings one back down to earth.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
To say we can have free will under all circumstances is a stupid idea. Can we keep on fasting for ever if we have freewill. In fact man is a slave of circumstances. Men are basically animals an I do not think animals have free will.
I don't think anyone claiming that we have free will, osho, claims that we have absolute free will under all circumstances. The question might be better put, "Do we have any free will?" If the world is deterministic then we don't.
Perhaps the question is even better put as, "Do we have enough free will?" Then the next question would be, "Enough for what?" An initial answer to that might be, "Enough to relate responsibly to each other, the universe and whatever else there is to relate to."
I look at the quantum argument as just setting up the necessary grounds for free will. If the world is deterministic at the quantum level, then there is no need to discuss free will further. It turns out that is not the case. So the necessary conditions for free will are present. Once we establish that, we can ask what the sufficient conditions are for free will. That would lead us into discussions about consciousness which might be generally defined as that which can make a choice.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
This is completely irrelevant.
You may consume booze, but I do not.
Reply With Quote
