Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?


Oxidized wrote:
ave1 wrote:
So it's your contention that the electrons go through the slits as
particles instead of a wave because an observer saps energy from the
electrons? How does observing sap energy?

Here's an easy example. A solar observatory captures light from
the sun. The shadow of the observatory saps energy which would
otherwise heat the ground "behind" the observatory, now in shadow.

So exactly what does this have to do with someone knowing something
about the path the electrons are taking?

If you somehow think that the detector itself has something to do with
the way light propagates (waves or particles), you need to read the
through the website in my sig once again. The evidence is that the
detector has been ruled out as a cause, and that it's just the fact
that a single person (or more than a single person) has *knowledge*
about the path the electrons take (or had taken) through the slits
which determines the way electrons will perform.

If you really want to be famous explain how the act of observing
something can alter the form of light propagation, because no one right
now seems to know why-- well, with the exception of you and your
assertions. . . which aren't really based on any evidence.

Ha ha ha ha. Here's an old joke, reworked to describe your complaint:

You: Doctor, every time I observe the slit, the electron stops
acting like a wave!

Doctor: Then don't do that.

From the best we can tell, the form of propagation of electrons or
light through slits is determined by pre-established laws in the
universe having a direct connection to knowledge itself. It's like a
pre-programmed computer-- with one exception. It can read your mind.

What about my quasar suggestion? Would the delayed-path photons
be affected by observing the direct-path photons? Well?


Oxidized

I'm not clear exactly what you think the correlation between the slit
experiment and this delayed-path photons observation would be. Explain
that, and then I'll be a bit more likely to want to pursue this further
with you. . .

Steve
---
Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind?
Chapters 1 and 2 have your answer:
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/Intro.html

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... So it's your contention that the electrons go through the slits as ... particles instead of a wave because an observer saps energy from the ... make an actual physical measurement -- which interferes with the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... So it's your contention that the electrons go through the slits as ... particles instead of a wave because an observer saps energy from the ... What is it about these photons or waves of light that can distinguish ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... So it's your contention that the electrons go through the slits as ... particles instead of a wave because an observer saps energy from the ... What is it about these photons or waves of light that can distinguish ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... Mark VandeWettering wrote: ... particles instead of a wave because an observer saps energy from the ... which is sensitive to electrons. ... If energy is conserved, and the detector works, it implies that there ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... particles instead of a wave because an observer saps energy from the ... otherwise heat the ground "behind" the observatory, now in shadow. ...
    (talk.origins)