Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   That's the kind of "observation" I don't understand.
> 
> They're still working on that one.  Someone recently proposed it's 
> actually gravity waves causing the "collapse", which is why it doesn't 
> happen until you get enough particles that gravity becomes significant. 
> Or some such.
> 
> That's another one of those "nobody is sure why yet" kind of things.
> 
Ok. Already gave and answer to why this is odd, but.. Just to let you 
clarify - How do you "measure" or "observe" what a particle as even 
done, without colliding it with something? What process do you use that 
doesn't involve a "state change" resulting directly from a scientific 
instrument *causing* the state to change? There isn't one, so the 
Copenhagen interpretation can't be arguing that "looking at something", 
without actually, you know... "looking at it", does anything. By 
definition, anything you can/do do, which looks at a particle, involves 
*other particles*, so I am unclear what the heck either one of you are 
claiming is different here from any other sort of quantum physics.

Again, we can't measure/observe a particle, without interacting with it, 
so claiming that "changing" it by observation differs from changing it 
by hitting it with another particle is just... not making any sense at all.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message