[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

(quote Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design)

According to quantum physiks,you cannot "just" observe something.
That is , quantum physiks recognizes that to make an observation,
you must interact with the object you are observing.

For instance, to see an object in the traditional sense,we shine a light on
it. Shining a light on a pumpkin will of course have little effect on it.
But shinig even a dim light on a tiny particle-
That is, shooting photons at it-does have an appreciable effect, and
experiments show that it changes the result of an experiment in just the way
that quantum physiks describes.
END-


So, reading your comment on Dan, i have to say, it sounds pretty arrogant to
take a position based upon some home-brew.

reading your interactions with Andre and Dan, i think i can honestly say,
Mark, that i'm under the strong impression that you are
fast cycling, ..are you getting bored with progress?
are you a fast cycler?
I don't really want an answer on this question, i already know it.

greetz, Adrie


The quote is from Hawking, not mine.
i cannot show a particle, nor a photon
re-engineering is a bad habbit.

There is no measurement problem, there is the impossibility to measure
without collapsing the wavefunction,but this is not a problem, there are
many workarounds, i do not have to google anything.

but i'm quit good at it.
watch me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder


2010/11/2 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com>

> Hi Andrie,
> A comment below,
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> [Andrie]
> According to quantum physiks,you cannot "just" observe something.
> That is , quantum physiks recognizes that to make an observation,
> you must interact with the object you are observing.
>
> For instance, to see an object in the traditional sense,we shine a light on
> it. Shining a light on a pumpkin will of course have little effect on it.
> But shinig even a dim light on a tiny particle-
> That is, shooting photons at it-does have an appreciable effect, and
> experiments show that it changes the result of an experiment in just the
> way
> that quantum physiks describes.
> END-
>
>
> So, reading your comment on Dan, i have to say, it sounds pretty arrogant
> to
> take a position based upon some home-brew.
>
> reading your interactions with Andre and Dan, i think i can honestly say,
> Mark, that i'm under the strong impression that you are
> fast cycling, ..are you getting bored with progress?
> are you a fast cycler?
> I don't really want an answer on this question, i already know it.
>
> greetz, Adrie
>
> [Mark]
> Hi Andrie.  Arrogant?  OK, guilty.  Fast cycling?  Well I haven't seen more
> fast cycling than what is going on in the forum, so:  All Guilty.
>
> Now, Home Brew?
> As you know, the measurement issue arrises out of foundational problems in
> quantum mechanics.  As such it does not point to anything but such
> foundational problems.  There are attempts at rectifying such problems
> (google it).  These foundations were laid in the 1920s by a number of
> physicists.  Einstein continued to work on other foundations, but was
> unable
> to solve the problem.  This does not mean that such a solution does not
> exist.
>
> So, my admonition to Dan, and I guess now to You Andrie, is when you use
> physics to somehow support a notion in Quality, you should be careful and
> not say that such a thing has been SHOWN, because that is misleading.
>
> When you state your opinion above in terms of a pumpkin, yes, you are using
> a theory in quantum mechanics, and such interaction falls directly out of
> the Schrodinger equation.  Does that show that such a thing has been
> proven?
>  If so, you would bring up the notion of quantum vector collapse and its
> implications to Quality, but I haven't heard that from you yet, maybe that
> is coming, but I'm not sure how good your physics is.  So the Home Brew is
> yours and not mine.  You are mixing in a few theories here, a few there, a
> pinch of quality, some fantasy, a little Hawking, and poof, the stew is
> done.  Please read carefully what I write next time before reacting.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>



-- 
parser