| 1 |
On Friday, April 03, 2015 7:30:09 PM Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> Well, the quantum mechanic would say that the position of the ball was |
| 3 |
> indeterminate until it was measured. The probability of it being in |
| 4 |
> any particular position is given by some function that agrees with |
| 5 |
> experiment very well. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
And indeed he would be right, in the sense that we cannot determine it. If you |
| 8 |
measure it many times even though each measurement affect the trajectory you'll |
| 9 |
learn that some positions are more likely than others and you may even catch |
| 10 |
it sometimes :) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> The problem is that it is really hard to distinguish that "reality" |
| 13 |
> from a "reality" where the ball followed a well-defined trajectory the |
| 14 |
> whole time, and we just don't know what it is until we measure it. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> As others have pointed out, the classic quantum mechanics explanation |
| 17 |
> relies heavily on the concept of an "observer" which is a bit odd. |
| 18 |
> Should the behavior of a particle depend on whether anybody is |
| 19 |
> watching it? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I agree. And it is especially hard to tell what they mean by those words (just |
| 22 |
like in technology we use common words with a different meaning) or if they |
| 23 |
even know what they mean themselves :). Sometimes they use misleading terms in |
| 24 |
order to make the theory popular (and get funded). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Fernando Rodriguez |
Archives