From: Gabriele Betti (lbetti@dinonet.it)
Date: Fri Aug 20 1999 - 07:17:46 MDT
Hello,
I'm reading a book where I found pictures of preferred shapes( as higher
probabilities to be in that shape ) from electrons....
I'm not aware of atomic laws and related but I'd like to know more of what
could be related to time travel, counsciousness upload, theory of
probabilities and other info.
Ciao,
Gabriele
At 00.48 20/08/99 -0400, you wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Lee Daniel Crocker <lcrocker@mercury.colossus.net> Wrote:
>
> >But doesn't the experimental disproof of Bell's inequality give us
> >the answer?
>
>I don't see how.
>
> >We will see the interference pattern, because our
> >requirement that the QC be entirely reversible and maintain quantum
> >coherence throughout the experiment forbids us from assuming that
> >the electrons went through either slot.
>
>Not so, you can place detectors next to the slots and know for sure
>if an electron went through it or not, but so far whenever we do that
>the interference pattern goes away, if we perform the Deutsch
>experiment it might not. Nobody knows.
>
> >Our QC cannot by definition /record/ its observation (or even the
fact that
> >it made one), because that would be irreversible,
>
>That's why the document he signs just says the electron went through one
>and only slot but it doesn't say which one. The observer knows but then
>the memory of the outcome of the experiment is erased, it's brain is put
>into exactly the same state it was in before the experiment; if Copenhagen
>is right this will have no effect and we will still not see interference,
but if we do...
>
> >so we are forbidden from assuming that it made/ an observation;
>
>
>The observer told us he did and he's a reputable scientist , besides we
>can always repeat it with others.
>
>
> >we only want to assume it did because we have chosen to call it
conscious.
> > But the electrons don't care about our silly definitions
>
>To tell you the truth I just don't know what electrons want. Perhaps they're
>interested in consciousness or perhaps not, on the other hand perhaps they
>like to split the universe every time they must make a "decision" and
>like to rejoin the universes if they become identical again, or perhaps not.
>One thing I do know, whatever the truth is it's weird.
>
> >There's nothing special about the QC to change that.
>
>You seem very certain of that, lots of people are certain but nobody
>knows and we'll never know by just siting in a armchair and thinking about
it.
>Aristotle used some very intricate pure logic and concluded with
>certainty that women MUST have fewer teeth than men. They don't.
>Aristotle had a wife, he could have counted her teeth at any time but
>never bothered to because he already knew the truth, or thought he did.
>
> John K Clark jonkc@att.net
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5
>
>iQA/AwUBN7zeFN+WG5eri0QzEQI+7gCg9OeaSiPblYvqTlmpIEUOkM74MNMAn1Bo
>nE+/4zyJiZNb2Rwpw9Tz802C
>=FvvC
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:50 MST