Write4U:
As usual, you skipped over or ignored most of what I wrote to you in my previous replies. I doubt you can maintain concentration long enough to work through that much stuff point by point. Note, however, that my replies were
direct responses to the reams of drivel that
you continually produce without apparent thought or effort. If only you took a little time to stop and
think, once in a while...
It was the example of a mountain lake having the potential for generating electricity via gravity feed of a downstream generator (black box).
The lake's enfolded potential ability to generate energy is made manifest (unfolded) by the process of using transformative functions. Potential: "That which may become reality".
A long time ago, several people here tried to educate you about the technical meaning of the word "potential", as it is actually used in science. Obviously, none of that stuck.
Your use of the word "potential" is about as useful as unicorn theory. You seem to use the word "potential" just to mean "anything that might happen in the future". So, a mountain lake has the "potential for generating electricity". It also, I assume, has the "potential for water-skiing" and the "potential for being a fish habitat". The scientific value of such statements is negligible, in most contexts.
David Bohm used those terms . Potential is part of the underlying "Implicate Order" he speaks of.
So "potential" is just a fancy term to mean "anything that might happen at some time in the future"?
Is "implicate order" just a fancy term to mean "whatever 'potential' is physically possible"?
This isn't science.
Yes, see the double-slit experiment.
What equipment can we use to detect the pilot waves in the double-slit experiment?
The measurable waves in the double slit experiment are conventionally as wave-state of the particle.
Word salad.
Bohm, proposes that it actually represents the particle riding the underlying wave function, the pilot wave.
So, is it the pilot waves that are detected or the particles? What equipment is necessary to detect the waves?
Any differential equation will do.
You did not answer the question I asked you - again. Can't you answer the questions I ask you?
And how do these particles interact?
You're asking me how particles interact? How do you expect me to respond? Do you want me to give you a crash course in Physics 101? Why haven't you
already learned some basics?
And during their interaction do these properties relate in specific measurable ways (chirality)?
In what way is "chirality" a "relationship"?
You're just pulling out random words whose meanings you don't know, again. Aren't you? Why do you keep pretending you're talking about science?
So far I have learned very little from the "terse" responses my posts have elicited.
Whose fault is that, do you think?
Yes, a TOE, from among several models, ok?
Bohmian mechanics isn't a Theory of Everything.
When a lightwave hits your retina it collapses and you are able to observe that quantum event.
I think you're unaware of how the word "observation" is used in quantum physics.
You seem to be talking about a human being becoming aware of some kind of event.
But the event must occur before observation, right?
It would be more accurate to say, in the context of quantum physics, that the event
is the observation.
Copenhagen Interpretation proposes that the observation is causal to the event.
No. It doesn't. In fact, it doesn't make any assumptions about what
causes the "collapse of the wave function".
My idea is observation does not cause an event, the event is causal to observation (Penrose)
If you're talking about
your idea, why do you put "Penrose" at the end? Is it your idea, or Penrose's?
Either way, your failure to specify what you mean by "observation" makes it virtually impossible to extract anything useful from this claim.
Axiom: Events occur independent of observation, unless the term observation is meant as "interaction".
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to see it, it still falls? Okay, as far as that goes.
The use of the term "observation" in science is very misleading and smacks of anthropomorphism and the suggestion that observation of an event is causal to that event and that requires backward time travel.
I don't think you have a good understanding of how the term is used in science.
Observation (as defined) occurs at the point of observation and that point lies with the observer.
You haven't defined it.
Any observation she makes is of an event that has already happened in the past.
So your "observation" means a human being becoming conscious that something has happened?
The proposition that observation is causal to the event means the observer had to travel back in time to cause the event which it then observed after it had occurred? Bad logic.
I agree. But this is
your muddled version of quantum physics, which is quite different from the actual ones.
