Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Believe As In "faith"?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Duane Eddy on October 22, 2004 22:30:15 UTC

1. If you define the quantum theory to be based on the premise that two independent properties of a photon can not be determined because of limits in the minimum quantum measurement which can be taken. And that if you take the first measurement the photon is disturbed from its original state and therefore a second valid measurement is not possible.

Then in my opinion this is all that is necessary to use and accept the validity of the theory and its conclusions, and I do.

2. If you define the quantum theory to be based on the premise that the photon is undefined in some sort of “magic land” until it is measured, this must be accepted by blind faith. You can not know this to be true as you have no way to tell its properties before you take measurements.

This site agrees with my understanding of quantum mechanics.

I can not say I agree with everything written here as the individuals who are quoted disagree with one another.

Finally I would like to address the reference to random properties.
Let us suppose that we flip a coin and it falls under the table in a position that I can see it and you can not see it.

I would say it is a known value and you would say it is a 50% random chance value.
And indeed if you repeated the process many times you would be proven true as the process would prove that the coin land on heads 50% of the time.
Likewise my visual inspection would also prove true.

Assuming that there is a specific photon state does not mean I wound not expect randomness in measurement.

I had to read that last sentence three times to be sure it was what I meant.
For some reason when I converse with you my brain hurts.
I guess that is probably good.


Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins