Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 54

Thread: Light from stars really from billions of years ago?

  1. Top | #31
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    6,122
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayjay View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Schrodinger posed his cat live or dead until observed question to show how absurdly quantum physics can be interpreted.
    That may have been his goal, but unfortunately nature really is that absurd.
    For us atheists who ascribe to naturalism nature is what it is. It is the human brain that allows humans to see what is natural as absurd.

    Imterpretaion is metaphysics, philosophy, and religion. Since the 60s people have put a spin on physics. The Tao Of Physics, the Dancing Wu Li Masters.

    I listen Coast To Coast AM on the radio for entertainment. A daily stream of real science mixed with the supernatural and mysterious.

    Chopra Depak performs spell spinning talks mixing physics and mysticism.

  2. Top | #32
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    6,082
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    19,058
    Rep Power
    70
    ^ ^ ^
    True...
    Schrodinger wrote his equations to describe the probability of finding a particle in any particular position... It was a probability distribution or a curve that predicted the probability of finding the particle at any specific point under the curve.

    Bohr interpreted Schrodinger's equation to mean that the particle was physically distributed so in superposition or in all places (or everywhere allowed) under the curve at the same time... and only decides on one place when we make a measurement.

    There is no dispute that Schrodinger's equations are damned useful in QM. The dispute is in the interpretation. Schrodinger who figured out the equation disagrees with Bohr's interpretation. So did Einstein.

  3. Top | #33
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    23,716
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    34,193
    Rep Power
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    ^ ^ ^
    True...
    Schrodinger wrote his equations to describe the probability of finding a particle in any particular position... It was a probability distribution or a curve that predicted the probability of finding the particle at any specific point under the curve.

    Bohr interpreted Schrodinger's equation to mean that the particle was physically distributed so in superposition or in all places (or everywhere allowed) under the curve at the same time... and only decides on one place when we make a measurement.

    There is no dispute that Schrodinger's equations are damned useful in QM. The dispute is in the interpretation. Schrodinger who figured out the equation disagrees with Bohr's interpretation. So did Einstein.
    Maybe, but neither Schrödinger nor Einstein were gifted a house next door to a brewery with a supply of free beer. So how smart can they really have been?

  4. Top | #34
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    6,082
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    19,058
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    ^ ^ ^
    True...
    Schrodinger wrote his equations to describe the probability of finding a particle in any particular position... It was a probability distribution or a curve that predicted the probability of finding the particle at any specific point under the curve.

    Bohr interpreted Schrodinger's equation to mean that the particle was physically distributed so in superposition or in all places (or everywhere allowed) under the curve at the same time... and only decides on one place when we make a measurement.

    There is no dispute that Schrodinger's equations are damned useful in QM. The dispute is in the interpretation. Schrodinger who figured out the equation disagrees with Bohr's interpretation. So did Einstein.
    Maybe, but neither Schrödinger nor Einstein were gifted a house next door to a brewery with a supply of free beer. So how smart can they really have been?
    It could be that the unlimited supply of free bear might have played some part in his interpretation.

  5. Top | #35
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    23,716
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    34,193
    Rep Power
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    ^ ^ ^
    True...
    Schrodinger wrote his equations to describe the probability of finding a particle in any particular position... It was a probability distribution or a curve that predicted the probability of finding the particle at any specific point under the curve.

    Bohr interpreted Schrodinger's equation to mean that the particle was physically distributed so in superposition or in all places (or everywhere allowed) under the curve at the same time... and only decides on one place when we make a measurement.

    There is no dispute that Schrodinger's equations are damned useful in QM. The dispute is in the interpretation. Schrodinger who figured out the equation disagrees with Bohr's interpretation. So did Einstein.
    Maybe, but neither Schrödinger nor Einstein were gifted a house next door to a brewery with a supply of free beer. So how smart can they really have been?
    It could be that the unlimited supply of free bear might have played some part in his interpretation.
    I guess that depends on whether they were grizzly, brown, polar, or grizzly.

  6. Top | #36
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    13,877
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,090
    Rep Power
    61
    So how does one orient the grizzly, brown, polar, and grizzly dimensions of grizzly if you don't mind my being grizzly grizzly.

  7. Top | #37
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    6,122
    Rep Power
    20
    Flip a coin in a dark room. At any point in time position has any number of probabilities. A wave equation would predict the probability of coin being a in position if the light is flashed on and off.

    When the coin comes to rest on the floor the wave function has collapse into a measurable state.

    In principle not that complicated.

    BTW, from a bio I read Einstein was a party animal of his day. He played a violin. He enjoyed eating, drinking, and smoking with his peers. He was hardly the stereotypical academic.

  8. Top | #38
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    2,356
    Archived
    7,585
    Total Posts
    9,941
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Flip a coin in a dark room. At any point in time position has any number of probabilities. A wave equation would predict the probability of coin being a in position if the light is flashed on and off.

    When the coin comes to rest on the floor the wave function has collapse into a measurable state.

    In principle not that complicated.

    BTW, from a bio I read Einstein was a party animal of his day. He played a violin. He enjoyed eating, drinking, and smoking with his peers. He was hardly the stereotypical academic.
    Having been in academia for a decent chunk of my life I can say that the vast majority of academics eat, drink, and party with their peers. Some even smoke. Many play instruments. I don’t know what the stereotype is but the implication doesn’t seem to fit with my observations.

  9. Top | #39
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,016
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    5,902
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Flip a coin in a dark room. At any point in time position has any number of probabilities. A wave equation would predict the probability of coin being a in position if the light is flashed on and off.

    When the coin comes to rest on the floor the wave function has collapse into a measurable state.

    In principle not that complicated.
    Can coins also become entangled?

  10. Top | #40
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    2,356
    Archived
    7,585
    Total Posts
    9,941
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Flip a coin in a dark room. At any point in time position has any number of probabilities. A wave equation would predict the probability of coin being a in position if the light is flashed on and off.

    When the coin comes to rest on the floor the wave function has collapse into a measurable state.

    In principle not that complicated.
    Can coins also become entangled?
    No. The coherence at the microscopic level breaks down for macroscopic objects.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •