| Subject: Re: The best damn Paranormal Science FAQ you'll ever read!!! |
| From: The_Sage |
| Date: 18/02/2004, 03:28 |
| Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.paranet.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.misc.forteana |
Reply to article by: Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com>
Date written: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:59:44 +1030
MsgID:<38r330l4c0273tj3p29kf8b8h3os1i1j5u@4ax.com>
Chill out dude! No need to rant and rave and foam at the mouth when a few wisely
choosen facts would suffice to prove your point (assuming you have one you can
prove). I'm snipping your tirade as you obviously are trying to resort to the
logical fallacy of shouting out your opponent rather than address the issue with
facts. To reiterate that which you cannot refute with facts...
Electrons are ONLY observed as particles and never as anything else, but as soon
as one is sent down a dual-slit experiment, the electron suddenly changes into
something else that can never be observed or defined. QM cannot tell us what
that electron physically becomes as it travels down a dual-slit experiment for
it is suddenly neither a particle nor a wave, nor a particle and a wave, nor a
non-particle or non-wave. But as soon as the electron emerges from the
dual-slit, it suddenly appears as only particle again and appears as a single
small dot on a CRT screen.
Therefore, although QM can very accurately DESCRIBE what happens during a
dual-slit experiment, it cannot EXPLAIN what it describes.
Wavefunctions are not known to represent anything real or not, they are just
mathematical representations of what we observe, not anything we can actually
observe (per the collapsing wavefunction problem -- a concept which you are
unfamilar with).
Here are my references:
http://ophelia.princeton.edu/~page/single_photon.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html
http://www.fishnet.co.nz/ted/murph/wpd.html
And here are all the references you've given so far:
""
And no more of your lame comparisons to magnetic fields (which don't collapse
like wavefunctions are imagined to do).
By the way, while the Copenhagen Interpretation was developed in 1927 it was
never superseded or disproven, therefore it is STILL represents current thought
on the matter. So much for your "education" in the matter.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"My friend plans to make a fortune with his invention. It's a
big metal box with a slot on one side and a sign that says
'How gullible are you? To find out, insert $50.'" -- COMEDY
COMES CLEAN, by Bill Jones
=============================================================