You don’t understand it, and it seems like you don’t want too. Its been 6 months and you didn’t even ask a single question; you just continued with the assumption you are correct in a subject you know nothing about. I see no reason to have any further contact with you. However it is possible I’m somehow wrong, so you have exactly 1 chance to change my mind [in your next message]. Don’t waste it.
1 Like
Sorry, if I haven’t asked anything in 6 months, it’s not because I wasn’t interested, but because I have a life, right?
Anyway, this conversation is by far the most informative and interesting. This week, I remembered it and found it interesting to continue.
Wow, this is a lot of pressure.
According to what you have said before, the probabilities of finding a particle in QM do not follow a classical model. This experiment also shows that we can’t measure X and Z momentum simultaneously, which, for me, with total honesty, means that the amount of information you can have about the system is limited.
This video also says that when you measure the system, you change its state, although it does not specify why. Do we have to assume that this is because there is a physical interaction?
Anyway, a measurement changes the state of the system, and a measurement adds information. We can say that the physical interaction between silver atoms and the measurement process is changing it, and this interaction follows a different logic than classical mechanics. But this different logic of QM can be interpreted in many ways, and some of them specifically focus on the idea of information.
Why am I dishonest for saying that the presence of information seems to be altering the system? I mean, this is a valid interpretation… I will change my mind if I can understand how you see it, but at the moment, I don’t see where it is wrong or dishonest.
This is a great example: I already told you why, more than once [and gave examples].
The 2 possible explanations I came up with for this behavior are:
- You didn’t read what I wrote (you were wasting my time).
- You read what I wrote and didn’t understand it, but instead of asking for help you just ignored it and just continued insisting your extremely naive perspective was accurate (you were wasting my time).
What I’m asking is for you to give me a 3rd explanation, because if either of the 2 explanations I suggested above is true, then I want nothing to do with you.
I think this is the explanation you are referring to, and I understand it. I have read it, and I have also read your explanation about negative probabilities.
Anyway, I think the problem is how we interpret this behavior, not exactly how it works technically.
If you don’t want to continue, that’s up to you. But don’t say that I don’t want to learn or that I’m dishonest, because that is certainly not the case.
@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU
You failed [to] offer a 3rd explanation. I have come to the conclusion that you are wasting my time. I will never interact with you again.
1 Like
Oh… what a surprise. It was not a predetermined conclusion that was going to happen regardless of anything I said.
There was zero uncertainty about this conclusion, no matter what path I chose.
Next time, just say it directly: “I don’t want to admit you could be right, so I will fabricate an offense to escape it.”