DavidMcC wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

campermon wrote:...hmmmmm....

The wave function of a particle tells us about the probability of finding a particle at a particular point in space. So, the y axis is a measure of how likely we can 'observe' the particle at some co-ordinate x.

Until we make that measurement, or the system is forced to be measured (by some non-conscious observer), the only certainty we have is, is that the particle is most probably to be found 'here'.

Hmmm, clearly there's much for me to learn still

I think the hardest part of this in some ways is linking the terminologies. I noticed David mentioned a "resonant wave" which suggests a harmonic frequency to me though I doubt that's what he really means. Same goes for the "relaxed state".
More reading required though it might help to "harmonize" some of the terms of the discussion as it seems people are tending to talk past each other here.
That said, Evolving seems to be doing a great job at explaining some of these concepts comprehensively.

I admit I was using some technical terms from atomic physics, but, as I've already mentioned, the phrase was "resonance line", not "resonant wave". "Relaxed state", in this case, referred to the lowest electronic state of the atom, which is what it ends up in after emission of a "resonance line" (which are usually the strongest emission lines).

DavidMcC wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

campermon wrote:...hmmmmm....

The wave function of a particle tells us about the probability of finding a particle at a particular point in space. So, the y axis is a measure of how likely we can 'observe' the particle at some co-ordinate x.

Until we make that measurement, or the system is forced to be measured (by some non-conscious observer), the only certainty we have is, is that the particle is most probably to be found 'here'.

Hmmm, clearly there's much for me to learn still

I think the hardest part of this in some ways is linking the terminologies. I noticed David mentioned a "resonant wave" which suggests a harmonic frequency to me though I doubt that's what he really means. Same goes for the "relaxed state".
...

Then you notice wrong. I did not say "resonant wave" , I said "resonance line", which you apparently don't know the meaning of! A resonance line is an emission line that connects to the ground state. Look it up. Before making jokes, you need to learn some atomic physics.

'Observers' are not required to be conscious agents.

VazScep wrote:

kennyc wrote: I'm not saying all scientists should be able to do this, but there must be scientists, journalists and inbetweeners that can translate and clarify the concepts. This is critical to society if we are to survive. (and getting rid of goat-roasting sacrifices to gods etc.)

You might help get rid of the popular goat-roaster woo-heads, only to find them replaced by quantum woo-heads. Maybe that's a small improvement.

As for segregation, no. I wouldn't have studied half the things I ended up studying without really rough translations of the concepts involved. Those translations offered the most brittle understanding, but were exciting and enticing enough for me to study further. But by having such translations available, I guess I have to put up with people who read them only to mangle them in support of their favourite brand of woo.

jamest wrote:Erm, no. I do indeed think that what the physicists are telling us about 'quanta' (the fundamental energy underpinning our observations of the world) is wholly compatible with my metaphysics. The fact, for instance, that there are no definite particles of matter (instead, energy with the potential to 'exist' anywhere within the observable space-time universe from one moment to the next which becomes like a particle when we observe or measure it, though still retains its wave-nature)... is wholly compatible with the view that definite matter does not exist except [fleetingly] within the mind/consiousness of the observer.

There are other aspects of QM I'd eventually like to discuss too, such as entanglement.

felltoearth wrote:...

Make friends easily?

DavidMcC wrote:

felltoearth wrote:...

Make friends easily?

Well, I could, until my thread about a certain JPL project about space travel technology. After that, most of the science mods started to gang up on me, just because I had said that the laws of physics rule out FTL travel (ie, Star Trek).

Thommo wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

felltoearth wrote:...

Make friends easily?

Well, I could, until my thread about a certain JPL project about space travel technology. After that, most of the science mods started to gang up on me, just because I had said that the laws of physics rule out FTL travel (ie, Star Trek).

My opinion of you dropped massively in that thread when you repeatedly lied about what other posters said, lied about what you had said and generally called names and behaved childishly.

FWIW it's still dropping now as you again bring it up out of context and continue with your ridiculous fantasy about what actually took place.

Thommo wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

felltoearth wrote:...

Make friends easily?

Well, I could, until my thread about a certain JPL project about space travel technology. After that, most of the science mods started to gang up on me, just because I had said that the laws of physics rule out FTL travel (ie, Star Trek).

My opinion of you dropped massively in that thread when you repeatedly lied about what other posters said, lied about what you had said and generally called names and behaved childishly.

FWIW it's still dropping now as you again bring it up out of context and continue with your ridiculous fantasy about what actually took place.

DavidMcC wrote:I did not lie about what any one poster said, and it was not a "ridiculous fantasy". I had noted that there was an alarming level of support on the physics forum for idiotic "physics". IIRC, you were one of the worst, so it doesn't surprise me that you are still on the attack.

Thommo wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:I did not lie about what any one poster said, and it was not a "ridiculous fantasy". I had noted that there was an alarming level of support on the physics forum for idiotic "physics". IIRC, you were one of the worst, so it doesn't surprise me that you are still on the attack.

You don't recall correctly, in particular I haven't brought it back up since I left that thread until now, despite having seen you bring it up voluntarily in a number of places, including here, for the express purpose of dragging the farce ever onward.

And as long as you continue to hark back to it (much like those feedback threads where you accused mods of deliberately abusing their positions to delete posts) you'll probably find it hard to get along with those posters you insult, misrepresent and demean.

My advice would be: let it go already.

Thommo wrote:Particles and quanta cannot exceed the speed of light in free space "c".

Panderos wrote:

Thommo wrote:Particles and quanta cannot exceed the speed of light in free space "c".

I seem to remember Feynman saying this ins't really true in QED...?

DavidMcC wrote:Not recently, but "I haven't brought it up since I left that thread" is all very well, but it suggests that you persist in supporting fantasy physics.
I would let it go, but you aren't letting me. Instead, you just fire off more ammunition, suggesting that you are still a hardcore FTL fantasist.
EDIT: I had unwittingly stirred up a hornet's nest.
[/derail]

DavidMcC wrote:

felltoearth wrote:...

Make friends easily?

Well, I could, until my thread about a certain JPL project about space travel technology. After that, most of the science mods started to gang up on me, just because I had said that the laws of physics rule out FTL travel (ie, Star Trek).

Thommo wrote:
*Although the post order and time stamps would appear to contradict your version of events.

jamest wrote:Erm, no. I do indeed think that what the physicists are telling us about 'quanta' (the fundamental energy underpinning our observations of the world) is wholly compatible with my metaphysics. The fact, for instance, that there are no definite particles of matter (instead, energy with the potential to 'exist' anywhere within the observable space-time universe from one moment to the next which becomes like a particle when we observe or measure it, though still retains its wave-nature)... is wholly compatible with the view that definite matter does not exist except [fleetingly] within the mind/consiousness of the observer.

There are other aspects of QM I'd eventually like to discuss too, such as entanglement.