Re: (De)coherence

From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:23:30 -0500

Eric wrote (in a long post, most of it logical and followable):

> Take the a double-slit-like experiment. A particle can take
> two paths, A and B. We can in principle detect which path
> the particle went through.
So far so good, the problem starts when it is assumed that the
particle "takes BOTH paths" in its complementarity.

I learned about this QM marvel in the early 40s. My take:
IF we take 'particle' as it is usually defined and 'slit', 'pass', etc.
as well, how human current abstraction-symbolics-language is
using them, then the "complementarity" theorizing does not
make sense - hence calling it a paradox "we can live with".

My conclusion (heretically rejecting all religious QM teachings)
WE DON'T KNOW what is going on, our observation is not
only misdone, but also misinterpreted. The cat is not BOTH live
and dead, rather in other words: we don't know. To quantize our
ignorance is futile, because physicists do not like to deal in its
(or any other) infinity.
There is an incredible edifice built on such ignorance, all in
perfect mathematics and math.logic.
We are at the 3659th level of conforming conclusions (give or take
another million) and a power for the adepts to crucify the unfaithful.

This list started with fresh new ideas of ingenious, well trained
brains. During the years it slips more and more into scholastic
formalistic physical science. It is a pity.

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Cavalcanti" <eric.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 6:39 AM
Subject: (De)coherence

SNIP
Received on Tue Nov 18 2003 - 09:35:00 PST