|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 15, 2010 17:02:45 GMT 1
Please stop quoting and misunderstanding the Feynman quote! It doesn't mean what you think it means............. Really? So now you have a special insight into the English language thta I also do not see? I think it is not my english that is incoherent, just that the ideas in quantum theory don't agree with our normal english usage. You keep complaining that you cannot understand, yet you don't seem to be trying very hard to do what needs to be done -- to DITCH your classical ideas as to what is possible or not, and to go beyond them. No there are multiple examples of your incoherent, illogical use of language. When that fails you (as it must) you seem to consider that telling people that they are wrong or stupid is a a reasonable atlternative Your aim seesm to be triumphalism, a common enough phenomena on MB's .........no point in continuing further. Agreed, I will not bother addressing you directly again as your style, determined to be always one up, combined with your fuddled thinking, is not conducive to enlightening discussion |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 15, 2010 18:07:06 GMT 1
naymissus, I have even had conversations in the past with Speaker where we seemed to agree about something only for her to deny it!
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 15, 2010 19:14:24 GMT 1
Knowledge of the english language is not enough, you have to understand the relevant physics in order to understand what was meant. Else you haven't considered the quote in its proper context.
No, it is not my usage, just that everyday language and common meanings of words can't be used consistently when talking about quantum theory! Instead, you have to learn the physics, and new meanings for old words (and new words).
To go back to the electron, in everyday usage, where a thing is is a sensible question, it is either at a place, or it is somewhere else. Whereas in quantum theory, where something is does not necessarily have an answer -- or rather, not just not having an answer is not quite right, because if we measure it, we get an answer! It is the ontological status of the notion of position before we make a measurement that is the issue.
A quantum object doesn't have a single position. Which in common parlance can be expressed as it is in many places at once. Yet that doesn't mean that the question as to what is at a particular position has an answer either! For an electron in two places at once, there isn't a thing which is at either position, in the usual sense.
Illogical? Only if you try and stick with the everyday meanings of things like position..................
So, what an electron IS in quantum theory is a spread-out kind of thing, but not equally spread out everywhere. What that means can be made precise using maths, but not just using ordinary language. That spreadoutness can be seen if we ask about things such as the electrical properties, where what we see corresponds to a cloud of charge, rather than a single point charge at a definite place.
But I've said all this before, and since you can't seem to get over the commonsense view that it is illogical, then you're pretty much stuck at a point which means you just don't understand the first thing about quantum theory. That is not abuse, just my professional opinion of your probable level of understanding. If you just think that being told you don't understand something is abusive, then you're not in a position to learn and progress either.
Go read a book, is the best I have to offer.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 15, 2010 19:36:46 GMT 1
What about the 'many worlds' idea?
|
|
