From: Ian Goddard (igoddard@netkonnect.net)
Date: Sun May 31 1998 - 12:26:31 MDT
At 08:29 AM 5/31/98 -0700, John Clark wrote:
>
>On Sat, 30 May 1998 Daniel Fabulich <daniel.fabulich@yale.edu> Wrote:
>
> >Not ambiguous, UNCERTAIN. That's why they don't call it the
> >ambiguity principle and why they DO call it the uncertainty
> >principle. And despite the fact that the blueness will be
> >completely random, it WILL be either blue or not blue, despite the
> >fact that we cannot measure which while we know the position
> >perfectly.
>
>
>But it's much deeper than just a measurement problem because Heisenberg's
>Uncertainty Principle is only a small part of Quantum Mechanics, and by the
>standards of that bizarre science a conventional part. It's a little
strange
>that there's a relationship between position and momentum, and a limit on
>our knowledge of the product of both, but it's not irrational. On the other
>hand there are some aspects of modern physics can only be described as
crazy.
>Take the famous 2 slit experiment for example, shine a light on 2 closely
>spaced slits and it will produce a complex interference pattern on a film,
>even if the photons are sent out one at a time. If a photon goes through one
>slit it wouldn't seem to matter if the other slit, the one it didn't go
>though, was there or not, but it does.
>
>Even stranger, place a polarizing filter set at 0 degrees over one slit,
and
>one set at 90 degrees over the other, the interference pattern disappears.
>Now place a third filter set at 45 degrees one inch in front of the film
and
>10 light years from the slits. The interference pattern comes back, even
>though you didn't decide to put the filter in front of the film until 10
years
>after the photons passed the slits! Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle does
>not enter in any of this, it's not that the photon goes through one slit and
>we just don't know which one, it must go through the left slit only, and the
>right slit only, and both slits, and no slit at all, and it must do all
these
>things at the same time. Fundamental ambiguity in nature? Fundamental
>ignorance of some new law of logic? Backward causality? Parallel universes?
>None of the above? I have no idea.
>
>If this seems pretty stupid and completely ridiculous I don't blame you a
bit,
>but I'm the wrong person to receive the complaint, send it to God.
IAN: Nevertheless (and this was the initial point
disputed) that does not mean that the truth in the
physical reality is fuzzy, as in being less than
100% true at any time. If the physical reality is
strange and chaotic, then that is the 100% truth.
The idea that it means truth is fuzzy, is simply
a measure of a disjunction between what we think
subatomic entities SHOULD do and what they do do;
thus "fuzzy truth" measures, as it does in the
macro, a disjunction between ideas and reality.
**************************************************************
VISIT IAN WILLIAMS GODDARD --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
______________________________________________________________
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because
its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows
up that is familiar with the idea from the beginning."
Max Plank - Nobel physicist
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Those who deny individual rights cannot claim
to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:09 MST