On 1/2/24 01:15, Quadibloc wrote:
This group appears to be the place to put it, but i see the group looks
like it is now dead.
There are various definitions of 'death', however
the belief that 'all thought is invalid, because
all thought is 'insane'' as the only mode of
reasoning around here has choked a lot out of it.
Many of you have seen books or magazine articles where it is claimed
that quantum mechanics means that science now acknowledges that
Mind and Consciousness play an important role in the real Universe.
There is philosophic materialism and philosophic idealism,
but it seems to me that considering the idea that it is
possible for the 'universe' to be 'real' in some manner,
might be a starting point for useful discussion about
physics.
I say that this is bunk.
Schrodinger's Cat was an illustration of where the Copenhagen
Interpretation leads: since the equations of quantum mechanics are
_linear_, the collapse of the wave function never takes place.
So a cat in an insulated box could be in a superposed state of being
alive or dead at the same time.
The word 'time' is being used here, but that is also
not trivial. The wave function has to actually collapse
to determine what happens to the cat later in time.
Since nobody sees half-alive stray cats walking down the street,
when reality encounters human consciousness, it must have
already turned classical. This is the last possible moment for that
to happen.
Because we didn't have any clue as to _when_ or _how_ the wavefunction collapses - Roger Penrose had one theory, that it's when things are big enough that _gravity_ gets involved - instead of biasing people by adding
a fake nonlinear term to Schrodinger's Equatiion, the Copenhagen Interpretation was a _placeholder theory_ to add to quantum mechanics
so that it wouldn't be provably false by predicting the existence of half-alive stray cats walking the streets.
That's what the Copenhagen Interpretation was, a placeholder, a stop-gap.
I tend to think that pragmatics is viable when it comes
to quantum mechanics.
An electron or proton does not have an infinite number
of fine degrees of possible masses or charges.
Then when it comes to light, it also transfers energy
or momentum in steps based upon a 'frequency' or
'wavelength', but it takes 'time' or 'length' to
establish what that 'frequency' or 'wave length' is.
Not a discovery that Mind and Consciousness must necessarily have
control over physical reality, thus validating centuries of woo-woo.
John Savard
I have a basic question.
Who went from Plank's constant and the increments of energy
and momentum transfer in light, to derive from it the mass
and charge of the electron?
My guess is that this was done a while back, but the
grad student who did it wanted an actual professorship
at a university and did not want to be labeled as a
loonie that no one wanted to hire, and so the papers
that showed how that was done was sold as very low
key and uncrontroversial so the person could actually
get hired at a college or university.
Who did that and when?
It is clear that some things are 'quantized' in
the universe. The electron and proton do not
have an infinite number of fine degrees of possible
masses or charges.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)