While I may have quite a bit to discuss on this point, I'm currently working and this thread already has plenty of chatter. I do *not* think the superposed states are physical in any way. Pilot waves and Transactional Interpretations provide mechanisms to grant discrete values to quantum states "prior" to measurement. It's our usage of time-asymmetric words like "prior" which are obstructing our understanding, in my opinion.
So you don't like Feynman diagrams? Because the meaning of "prior" is quite clear in them: to the left on the time axis.
OK, so how do you explain how your spread apart wave ceases to interact anywhere other than one specific location? If it is propagating at c, there are many other places it should also interact.
You do vehemently refuse to do the mathematics of Einstein and any detailed science.
But Feynman diagrams are time-symmetric whereas I'm discussing the problem of granting any physical significance to a wave function "collapse". You can read a Feynman diagram in either direction, but you cannot reproduce the state of a wave function at time T with all information from time T+1. I believe the wave function is purely epistemological in nature.
No, they're not. They're CPT symmetric. I believe I said that.
The "wavefunction collapse" is the point in the Feynman diagram where the interaction occurs.
And reading it backwards implies reversing not just time, but also charge and parity. And no matter which way you read it there's that irreversible interaction in the middle.
You just said interactions are irreversible which exactly what I'm telling you.
Then how can it give exact probabilities?
"Bumps"? "Bunch of gravity fields"? I am simply describing the limit case that spacetime is devoid of energy-momentum. I claimed that the field of primary interest here is the metric field, and tried to explain that all other components in the field equations are in some sense derived from the metric
So you asserted earlier - I tried to show why this is incorrect. Obviously I failed, I apologize
Empty assertion
Thank you very much
What a team you will make in discussions of GR!!
I wasn't discussing the limit case as anyone who was paying attention would know.
I assume you'll agree that the epistemological nature of measuring the outcomes of rolling a die also gives "exact probabilities". I'm not even sure what we're arguing here. I claim that the wave function should not be considered physical because it breaks time symmetry, and that time symmetry can be recovered if we choose to adhere to certain interpretations. Which part of that do you disagree with? The pilot wave, for example, is DETERMINISTIC. Perhaps you aren't fully considering that Bohm's pilot wave completely removes the need for the wave function, save for our knowledge of the system. With Bohm's interpretation the wave function serves the same purpose as our stochastic predictions of rolling a die do, with an equivalent amount of physical significance.Schneibster said:
I'm saying the metric is an abstract thing related to your measurements at different locations in that equatorial slice of space. When you measure those optical clock rates you're employing light moving through space. Not spacetime. It's like what Ben Crowell said here: Objects don't move through spacetime. Objects move through space.
I'm just trying to make it clear to your that what's actually there is space. It isn't nothing. It's this gin-clear ghostly elastic thing that cannot be defined in terms of anything else. See things like this. When space isn't homogeneous, your measurements are different in different locations. Your optical-clock readings are different at different elevations because the speed of light is spatially variable. When you plot this, you plot a curve.
He wasn't wrong according to his own general theory. IMHO you should read the Einstein digital papers, then you might appreciate that it's people like Wheeler and Penrose who got things wrong.
The wavefunction is not a particle. It is a mathematical entity which contains everything that can be known about the system. E.g. the probability density. But there is no way that it can be thought of as actually being the particle.Farsight said:
That's wrong too. A photon is an elementary particle, a quantum of electromagnetic radiation. It's not a wave. It merely has wave properties, namely that its wavefunction determines is distribution in space.Farsight said:
Sure, if you skip all the mathematics of Einstein, then he looks like someone who never used math.
yes... and no--you are nowhere near in the vicinity of mistaken. i am going to wait for his name dropping shenanigans in order to show him how the names that he drops does not have any clue of his existence(which i actually confirmed myself, by simply conversing with the name drop-ed individuals).
Who said anything about optical clocks? Are you saying there is a metric on 3-space, but there is no metric on spacetime? If so, you would have very few supporters, and most definitely not Einstein.
hilarious-- yes-yes--it is obvious-- which is odd since you consider yourself as an intellect.
and what exact element of time are you referring too?
ahh--
the wannabe intellects and their endless " interpretations "(which is always flawed). why not simply comprehend the words and such that are used? (shakes head)--carry on.
No, you are not. This is Peter M. Brown who lives in the Boston, Mass area, and uses Comcast as his service provider. Also known as pmb, PhyMan among many others on various internet fora. (All of which banned him).
Umwut? You can't replace CPT symmetry with T symmetry just by choosing an interpretation. Let me repeat this because it appears you didn't read it, and that's evidenced by the fact you didn't quote it: QM is not T-symmetric. More to the point, "T-symmetry" does not mean there are no interactions; it just means if you run them backward no physical laws are broken. The interactions are still there, and still represent irreversible changes to the state of a particle.
I did. You place your optical clocks throughout an equatorial slice of space, and you plot your clock readings. What you get looks like this:
No, because light moves through space "over time".
Now that I definitely disagree with. What you're really plotting is the variation in the size of the clock.
I'm sorry Pete, I must insist. A photon has an E=hf wave nature. It has a wavelength, as per E=hc/λ. The h which gives it its quantum nature is a wave characteristic. See Susskind talking about the Higgs boson in this video? At 2 minutes 50 second he rolls his whiteboard marker round saying angular momentum is quantized. Take a look at some pictures of the electromagnetic spectrum. Notice how the depicted wave height is the same regardless of wavelength? And you doubtless know that a sine wave is associated with rotation? The quantum nature of light is to do with that. Roll your marker round fast or slow, but roll it round the same circumference, because Planck's constant of action h is common to all photons regardless of wavelength. IMHO it's best to think of the photon as a singleton electromagnetic wave. You can diffract and refract photons. It isn't some magical mysterious point particle surrounded by a cloud of probability. Nor is the electron.