Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Defining Multiverses

Expand Messages
  • PaintedDevil@aol.com
    In a message dated 6/30/2003 7:35:37 PM GMT Daylight Time, ... I think perhaps there is a bit of confusion about what is being said here. The wavefunction is
    Message 1 of 188 , Jul 1, 2003
      In a message dated 6/30/2003 7:35:37 PM GMT Daylight Time,
      SimonJAnthony@... writes:


      > > A wavefunction of total amplitude 1 (i.e. one photon) is generated that
      > > consists of long collimated wavetrains heading towards double slits.
      > > The wavefunction goes through the slits and is modified in the usual way
      > > to approximate two point sources at the slits. This coherent
      > > wavefunction then propagates some distance and reaches a piece of
      > > photographic film, say.
      >
      > I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here as you seem to describe a
      > photon as being composed of waves. AFAIK, an individual photon doesn't have
      > a
      > wave function and isn't described by a wave train or wave packet. As a
      > quantum
      > of the em field, a photon has a specific value of frequency. A finite
      > length
      > wave train consists of a superposition of components of different
      > frequencies.
      > Each of these components, when detected, corresponds to photons of the
      > appropriate frequency. It doesn't seem correct to say that a photon - an
      > individual
      > event - is described by a wavefunction - which underlies a statistical
      > description (or vice versa).
      >

      I think perhaps there is a bit of confusion about what is being said here.
      The wavefunction is equivalent to a single photon only in the sense that it will
      cause one photon to be detected when it interacts with a measuring device
      (and the device has decohered from all its copies). I don't think that's
      particularly contentious - i.e. I don't think you're actually disagreeing with each
      other here (?)

      Charles


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Borzumehr Toloui
      Hi, SimonJAnthony@aol.com wrote: ... What if one wants to understand the world as best as possible? I don t think chsosng between Newtonian Mechanics and GR is
      Message 188 of 188 , Jul 19, 2003
        Hi,


        SimonJAnthony@... wrote:

        ...
        >Now one might think that GR is the "best" theory according to OR or simple
        >because it matches more measurements and reduces to N's theory in most
        >circumstances, but in practice, one chooses the theory which "works". One could put
        >forward Occam's Lazy Razor, in which in any circumstances, one chooses the
        >theory which involves the least amount of work to get answers that match one's
        >requirements. If one's interested in light being bent by the use, use GR, if
        >throwing a ball in the air, stick to Newton.

        What if one wants to understand the world as best as possible?
        I don't think chsosng between Newtonian Mechanics and GR is a matter of Occam's Razor. Newtonian Mechanics is refuted by experiments. Occam's Razor is not about choosing the best practical method for solutions, but the best explanations in our search for understanding reality (that is not refuted bt empirical tests.)


        >One could equally say that the simpler theory leaves its simplicity
        >unexplained. Just stating O's R doesn't explain, it just describes.
        ...

        I'm just curious, did you really mean what you said here?

        And let me refrase the remark in my previous email: What I meant by 'the reason for the extra unnessecary complexity' not being explained, was that there would be needless extra statements in such a theory ,since the simpler one does not contain them, without saying why they should be there.


        Cheers,
        Borzu


        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
        The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.