Okay I am going to give you a topical view to show how consistant we are with rules Finiter.

The background to this is Sascha is a QM scientist and a very good scientist, that is he does not disagree with any of the fundemental observations or omit observations like yourself.

Sascha had a paper rejected from publication which is the background to this spray.

What Sascha is querying is the time effects of QM there are no past and future in the QM domain time stands still thats how QM works. Again you don't think QM is real I understand all that but just giving you the background.

What Sascha is attempting to ask is causality intractable can the future affect the past given QM is blind to time.

The problem from a science point is mute, science assumes casuality we have to anything else becomes religious or philosophical.

He is struggling with double slit experiment the same as you are and seeks to resolve it a different way

Quote:

That classical paths, say those of electrons traversing the double slit in Young’s double slit experiment, destructively interfere (destroy each other), is accepted knowledge. You will not be criticized for “The dark spot in the interference pattern comes from all the paths going there destructively interfering with each other so that nothing arrives.” You are allowed to assume there ‘first’ exist such paths actually traversed by virtual particles but ‘then’ they destroy each other (in a causal rather then temporal sense). You are allowed to talk this way, because at least this interpretation toes the classical Party-line concerning time: The past and cause (interference on the paths) creates the future (observed interference pattern). Such interpretations, much like the infinity of virtual particle loops, describe the way we mathematically calculate, and we use this way to calculate because it comes easy to our classical intuition.


What he is seeking to do is say the electron knows you are looking at it in the future and conspires backwards in time to change the past. You are blissfully unaware of the change.

QM does indeed leave open that door but if you walk through it becomes not science .. science is about causality.

Sascha is arguing we are terrible people imposing an arbitrary limit and yes to remain a science in QM we have to assume causality even though QM demands no such requirement.

To the rest of us establishment (as Sascha would say) QM has to merge with physical reality and even though what Sascha implies may be not excluded from the theory we have no observation of it and if he is right you can not make observation of it, ergo it is not science.

He can see the result he will have done it many times in the lab, so he has to trust what he himself sees but his mind can't accept it. He desperately wants his solid finite world so he is willing to bend time and science says NO!!!

See what get it from both extremes :-)

The spray =>
(http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/futu...doscience-84265)


Last edited by Orac; 11/04/11 08:40 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.