"Tani Jantsang©" <tjsrno@spampost.com> wrote in message
news:13n97aa5q32um1a@corp.supernews.com...

There is an article in SciAm, Dec. 2007, "The Many Worlds of Hugh
Everett."

I have a question, but first up, I have an opinion, too.

Ok, imo, the Copenhagen interpretation is right. However, the way they
explain it SUCKS.

Imo, Hugh Everett and the string/brane and guys talk mystical rubbish
that's gotten in the way of real physics, even obstructed people from
getting jobs or grants in real physics (instead of having to settle for
string/brane philosophy/theology).

That's imo. I'm not a physicist, but I was taught the basics in 1960s
and imo, and in the opinion of two other students, it wasn't hard.

Anyway... Why can't they simply say that:

1. An isolated electron IS an isolated electron, a microscopic subatomic
particle or quantum object.
2. If you DO abc to it, it behaves like a particle (as we define
particle).
3. If you DO xyz to it, it behaves like a wave (as we define wave).

Either way, you are DOING something TO the electron. You have to DO
something to even SEE an isolated electron. That's the whole bit about
the "observer affecting it" - which sounds rather mystical! They could
make that clearer and not so mystical sounding - such as - you are DOing
something TO the electron in order to even see it - and that of course is
going to change something. What you actually are seeing is "isolated
electron affected by what you did." That's just SO clear. Analogy: in
order to feel what someone's skin feels like, you have to DO something to
that person - touch them. In which case, the skin might not feel the
same as it would had you not touched them. You caused a change. REAL
simple analogy, concrete.

There seems to be a problem, for some, that regular objects in a room, or
people, don't behave like electrons, like micro quantum objects. I have
to scratch my head - HUH? Macro objects are not "just isolated
electrons" or isolated particles of any kind. Macro objects are a
combination of these micro objects acting together, interacting and so
forth. That's THE difference.

Electrons are in the air and in my handbag. Obviously, air is not like
bag. I can pick up bag, lift it up, carry it, put things in it. I can't
pick up air like that and carry it - I mean the way I pick up the bag.
In both bag and air, there are (almost??) no isolated electrons. Both
air and bag are macro. Both air and bag are a COMBINATION of particles
and forces. Micro quantum objects are not combinations. They are
solitary, isolated subatomic things.

Make two holes in a wall. I can throw the bag through 1 of the 2 holes,
but not both at the same time. I can't throw air, but air can go through
2 holes at the same time. Is it a mystery to anyone that air and bag do
not act the same even though both are made up of atoms? No, I don't
think it is! Is it a mystery that sodium and chlorine do what they do -
but combined they do something else? I don't think anyone had to make up
two realities for that. But they invent two realities for micro objects
and macro objects? Why?

OK, so you can measure how fast I'm moving and also locate me, both, at
the same time. You can't do that with an electron. Could it possibly be
that when subatomic particles are isolated/solitary, that they interact
with space/time differently than they do when they are combined? I'd
assume that straight up. NO need to invent other universes.

IMO, that COMBINATION state, common to all macro objects, IS the
so-called "boundary" between the micro and the macro that they speak
about. It's not two realities. It's the difference between isolated and
combined.

Can we see an electron in its "natural state?" OK, what temperature is
natural? You can't even define "electron in a natural state." Is "in the
sun" natural? Or "in a room?" Is it natural for electrons to be bound
to other particles? Or not? In stars, electrons behave like high energy
waves, I assume. In planets, electrons are bound to other particles -
which makes big macro objects, including the planets themselves.

Imo, it's not hard to explain this at all, but the Copenhagenists obscure
it terribly. Imo, it's not some huge problem at all; there is no
contradiction. I'm not a physicist, and I never had trouble understanding
this - but the way they explain it - UGH.

ANALOGY:
If you subject H2O to 32 degrees F or lower, it behaves one way.
If you subject H2O to 33 degree F or above, it behaves another way.
And so on, various temperatures.
But H2O is still H2O. Is it ice, gas, liquid or plasma? It's H2O. It
behaves differently dependent on what you DO to it. "What is the natural
state of H2O?" Is that even a valid question? No.

This, imo, is a very simple and clear analogy for the whole electron
thing spoken of in the article, something physics is all twisted up
about.

There is no need for "more than one reality." That kind of mystical
sounding talk, imo, led to the stuff I think is a total waste of time -
all that multiple universe and string/brane crap.

The article complains that physicists are taught that equasions of QM
work in one part of reality, the micro, but are not relevent in the
macro. PHEW! I disagree. It's not 2 parts of reality. It's ONE reality.

Physicists should maybe be told that equasions for QM work on ISOLATED
subatomic quantum objects - but are not relevent when these quantum
objects are COMBINED with each other to make even a macro object like an
atom, or a brick, or a person. They are bound to each other,
interacting - that is WHY they behave differently.

Why not say that macro objects are a COMBINATION of particles and forces.
Micro objects are isolated subatomic quantum objects, not combined with
anything. The moment such a micro object is combined, it becomes macro
and no longer behaves "so strangely." NO macro object is "just
electrons." Even at the tiny, but macro, size of an atom, that's a
combination, acting together, affecting each other.

The combination IS the so-called boundary - but this is not some boundary
between two realities. Micro quantum objects are solitary subatomic
objects. Macro non-quantum objects are combinations of these subatomic
objects interacting together. That's the difference. Sure they don't
behave the same way.
Depending on the combination in the macro world - my bag doesn't behave
like the air, either.

This, imo, is SIMPLE. It's not 2 realities at all. Isolated particles
behave as they behave - and we can't know how they "REALLY" behave
because we have to DO something to them to see them - and so far well, we
see electrons behave like particles or waves. Has anyone even theorized
that the "oddness" of solitary quantum objects might have to do with the
way they interact with space/time WHEN they are not combined with
anything?

The boundary is 1. micro: isolated solitary quantum object and 2. macro:
combination of these objects interacting that make another kind of
object.

Why don't they explain it this way? They go overboard to muddle it up
so badly that we end up with imo waste of time diversions into
string/brane rubish. Years of it, so bad that people had to be "INTO"
that bs to get jobs.

At least there is solid real evidence, reproducable, for the Copenhagen
people. So big deal, it's not possible to "really see" isolated quantum
micro object because you have to DO things to it to see it - or not
possible to know some "natural state of quantum objectness" because the
whole "natural state" makes no sense to begin with (as with my H2O
example). So what? What's the problem?

Everett coming to the crazy idea of applying QM to macro objects,
concluding that there are more than one version of him looking at the
electron - oh, there must be an infinite number of hims - that's wacked,
imo. It's great science fiction - on TV!

One other thing: for ONE physicist that argued about this with Andy
Jones. I seem to remember Andy Jones having a theory about the cosmos
expanding, some kind of dark force doing it - and gravity being something
that opposes this force. Heh - HE WAS RIGHT. He said that before they
discovered dark energy causing exactly this expansion - defeating
gravity.

My basic question, btw, was - WHY don't the Copenhagen guys explain this
in terms that are a LOT easier to understand? Or don't they themselves
realize that isolated little micro things do not behave the same as
combined bigger macro things? Don't they know that there are not 2
realities, but just two states: solitary versus combined?

One more thing, mass can be turned into energy; long before anyone DID
it, back in school I said, "then sound can be turned into light." Having
a clue about HOW to do such a thing - well, heh, way over my head. Well
well, someone actually DID IT, Seth Putterman, I think. Why isn't this
being sought after as a source of clean energy?

Thanks Please don't eliminate the groups - that one physicist I said
something to tends to see things on one of the groups I posted to.

When the base assumptions of anything is wrong, the justifications can get
very tangled. Heisenberg was wrong. Quantum theory is wrong. The
evolutions of this mess is where we stand. Truth: we are 4 dimensional
creatures living in a 4 dimensional universe. We are blind to anything
outside of our immediate 3 dimensional situation. Math has a
predisposition to numbers making it a poor tool for analysis. New
approaches are necessary.

There is an article in SciAm, Dec. 2007, "The Many Worlds of Hugh
Everett."

I have a question, but first up, I have an opinion, too.

Ok, imo, the Copenhagen interpretation is right. However, the way they
explain it SUCKS.

Imo, Hugh Everett and the string/brane and guys talk mystical rubbish
that's
gotten in the way of real physics, even obstructed people from getting
jobs
or grants in real physics (instead of having to settle for string/brane
philosophy/theology).

That's imo. I'm not a physicist, but I was taught the basics in 1960s and
imo, and in the opinion of two other students, it wasn't hard.

Anyway... Why can't they simply say that:

1. An isolated electron IS an isolated electron, a microscopic subatomic
particle or quantum object.
2. If you DO abc to it, it behaves like a particle (as we define
particle).
3. If you DO xyz to it, it behaves like a wave (as we define wave).

Either way, you are DOING something TO the electron. You have to DO
something to even SEE an isolated electron. That's the whole bit about the
"observer affecting it" - which sounds rather mystical! They could make
that clearer and not so mystical sounding - such as - you are DOing
something TO the electron in order to even see it - and that of course is
going to change something. What you actually are seeing is "isolated
electron affected by what you did." That's just SO clear. Analogy: in
order to feel what someone's skin feels like, you have to DO something to
that person - touch them. In which case, the skin might not feel the same
as it would had you not touched them. You caused a change. REAL simple
analogy, concrete.

There seems to be a problem, for some, that regular objects in a room, or
people, don't behave like electrons, like micro quantum objects. I have to
scratch my head - HUH? Macro objects are not "just isolated electrons" or
isolated particles of any kind. Macro objects are a combination of these
micro objects acting together, interacting and so forth. That's THE
difference.

Electrons are in the air and in my handbag. Obviously, air is not like
bag.
I can pick up bag, lift it up, carry it, put things in it. I can't pick up
air like that and carry it - I mean the way I pick up the bag. In both bag
and air, there are (almost??) no isolated electrons. Both air and bag are
macro. Both air and bag are a COMBINATION of particles and forces. Micro
quantum objects are not combinations. They are solitary, isolated
subatomic
things.

Make two holes in a wall. I can throw the bag through 1 of the 2 holes,
but
not both at the same time. I can't throw air, but air can go through 2
holes at the same time. Is it a mystery to anyone that air and bag do not
act the same even though both are made up of atoms? No, I don't think it
is! Is it a mystery that sodium and chlorine do what they do - but
combined
they do something else? I don't think anyone had to make up two realities
for that. But they invent two realities for micro objects and macro
objects? Why?

OK, so you can measure how fast I'm moving and also locate me, both, at
the
same time. You can't do that with an electron. Could it possibly be that
when subatomic particles are isolated/solitary, that they interact with
space/time differently than they do when they are combined? I'd assume
that
straight up. NO need to invent other universes.

IMO, that COMBINATION state, common to all macro objects, IS the so-called
"boundary" between the micro and the macro that they speak about. It's not
two realities. It's the difference between isolated and combined.

Can we see an electron in its "natural state?" OK, what temperature is
natural? You can't even define "electron in a natural state." Is "in the
sun" natural? Or "in a room?" Is it natural for electrons to be bound to
other particles? Or not? In stars, electrons behave like high energy
waves, I assume. In planets, electrons are bound to other particles -
which
makes big macro objects, including the planets themselves.

Imo, it's not hard to explain this at all, but the Copenhagenists obscure
it
terribly. Imo, it's not some huge problem at all; there is no
contradiction. I'm not a physicist, and I never had trouble understanding
this - but the way they explain it - UGH.

ANALOGY:
If you subject H2O to 32 degrees F or lower, it behaves one way.
If you subject H2O to 33 degree F or above, it behaves another way.
And so on, various temperatures.
But H2O is still H2O. Is it ice, gas, liquid or plasma? It's H2O. It
behaves differently dependent on what you DO to it. "What is the natural
state of H2O?" Is that even a valid question? No.

This, imo, is a very simple and clear analogy for the whole electron thing
spoken of in the article, something physics is all twisted up about.

There is no need for "more than one reality." That kind of mystical
sounding talk, imo, led to the stuff I think is a total waste of time -
all
that multiple universe and string/brane crap.

The article complains that physicists are taught that equasions of QM work
in one part of reality, the micro, but are not relevent in the macro.
PHEW! I disagree. It's not 2 parts of reality. It's ONE reality.

Physicists should maybe be told that equasions for QM work on ISOLATED
subatomic quantum objects - but are not relevent when these quantum
objects
are COMBINED with each other to make even a macro object like an atom, or
a
brick, or a person. They are bound to each other, interacting - that is
WHY
they behave differently.

Why not say that macro objects are a COMBINATION of particles and forces.
Micro objects are isolated subatomic quantum objects, not combined with
anything. The moment such a micro object is combined, it becomes macro and
no longer behaves "so strangely." NO macro object is "just electrons."
Even at the tiny, but macro, size of an atom, that's a combination, acting
together, affecting each other.

The combination IS the so-called boundary - but this is not some boundary
between two realities. Micro quantum objects are solitary subatomic
objects. Macro non-quantum objects are combinations of these subatomic
objects interacting together. That's the difference. Sure they don't
behave
the same way.
Depending on the combination in the macro world - my bag doesn't behave
like
the air, either.

This, imo, is SIMPLE. It's not 2 realities at all. Isolated particles
behave as they behave - and we can't know how they "REALLY" behave because
we have to DO something to them to see them - and so far well, we see
electrons behave like particles or waves. Has anyone even theorized that
the "oddness" of solitary quantum objects might have to do with the way
they
interact with space/time WHEN they are not combined with anything?

The boundary is 1. micro: isolated solitary quantum object and 2. macro:
combination of these objects interacting that make another kind of object.

Why don't they explain it this way? They go overboard to muddle it up so
badly that we end up with imo waste of time diversions into string/brane
rubish. Years of it, so bad that people had to be "INTO" that bs to get
jobs.

At least there is solid real evidence, reproducable, for the Copenhagen
people. So big deal, it's not possible to "really see" isolated quantum
micro object because you have to DO things to it to see it - or not
possible
to know some "natural state of quantum objectness" because the whole
"natural state" makes no sense to begin with (as with my H2O example). So
what? What's the problem?

Everett coming to the crazy idea of applying QM to macro objects,
concluding
that there are more than one version of him looking at the electron - oh,
there must be an infinite number of hims - that's wacked, imo. It's great
science fiction - on TV!

One other thing: for ONE physicist that argued about this with Andy Jones.
I seem to remember Andy Jones having a theory about the cosmos expanding,
some kind of dark force doing it - and gravity being something that
opposes
this force. Heh - HE WAS RIGHT. He said that before they discovered dark
energy causing exactly this expansion - defeating gravity.

My basic question, btw, was - WHY don't the Copenhagen guys explain this
in
terms that are a LOT easier to understand? Or don't they themselves
realize
that isolated little micro things do not behave the same as combined
bigger
macro things? Don't they know that there are not 2 realities, but just two
states: solitary versus combined?

One more thing, mass can be turned into energy; long before anyone DID it,
back in school I said, "then sound can be turned into light." Having a
clue
about HOW to do such a thing - well, heh, way over my head. Well well,
someone actually DID IT, Seth Putterman, I think. Why isn't this being
sought after as a source of clean energy?

Thanks Please don't eliminate the groups - that one physicist I said
something to tends to see things on one of the groups I posted to.

Copenhagen was a compromise t. It was basically not theory, but

Classical Theory abstract form allows the slight digression as long as

I was NOT a prinicple aside from Einstein's objection concerning the

You need to forget about air abstracted Copenhagen. Aether does not

So maybe think about alternative to Copenhagen to pass the time of

And to cause the state buy dematerialization into collapsable function

It is a cooked International Standard. And now you can see the

ANd it was not hard as long as the crosssection was used to determine

SO just use activation foild covertly to maintain the correct neutron,