Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how?

In article <1124402903.671258.18280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

> > > > > A little entity, as you call it, would have a hard time interfering
> > > > > with itself through the two slits of a Young's experiment.
> > > >
> > > > ***{While I sympathize with your interest in that particular conundrum,
> > > > I must point out that even it it were totally unexplained at the present
> > > > level of knowledge,
> > >
> > > which it is not.
> >
> > ***{There are a number of partial explanations put forth by persons who
> > think in causal terms, but none that are completely satisfying. Any such
> > attempt, however, is superior to the QM claim that a "probability wave"
> > passes through both slits, interferes with itself, and magically
> > delivers the electron to a position on the screen when an observation is
> > made. Such verbiage does not rise to the level of explanation for the
> > simple and sufficient reason that proponents of QM explicitly deny,
> > adopting the perspective of Max Born, that the Schroedinger wave, a.k.a.
> > deBroglie wave, is composed of entities. (In that regard they are of a
> > kind with those in other areas of physics who deny that "force fields"
> > are composed of entities.)
> >
> > The reason for such denials is not difficult to understand. If the
> > proponents of QM alleged that lesser, unobserved entities were involved
> > in producing the probabilistic behavior which the wave function
> > describes, they would be asked to identify those lesser entities and to
> > state the principles of their operation, something which they know for a
> > fact that they cannot do. Hence to avoid being put in that uncomfortable
> > (for them) position, they deny that lesser entities are involved, and
> > invoke magic instead.
> >
> > Such behavior is not new. Throughout human history, allegations of magic
> > have been pressed into service as *pretend* explanations, by men whose
> > character flaws prevented them from admitting that they could not find a
> > real explanation. Thus the modern claim that a non-material "probability
> > wave" followed by a "wave function collapse" causes the photon to behave
> > as if it passed through both slits at the same time, is no different in
> > principle from the stone age tribesman's claim that the crops failed
> > because the gods were angry.
> >
> > --Mitchell Jones}***
> >
> > > The fact that it is not behavior consistent with an
> > > explanation involving little entities in no way says that it is
> > > unexplained. The fact that you have a hard time believing the better
> > > explanation in no way invalidates it.
> >
> > ***{The "better explanation" you have in mind would be that
> > "Schroedinger's equation told the photon how to behave," right? :-)
>
> Well, not exactly, no, because Schroedinger's equation doesn't apply to
> photons.

***{Thats just a writing glitch. If you will look above, you will find
that I referred explicitly to an "electron" when discussing probability
waves, Schroedinger waves, deBroglie waves, etc., despite the fact that
I had been talking exclusively in terms of photons prior to that time.
Unfortunately, the prior context crept back in a bit later; hence the
glitch. :-( --MJ}***

> Dirac's equation pertains to charged fermions, and there is a field
> term in Dirac's equation that describes the *interaction* between
> fermions. Nature tells that interaction how to behave, we just observe
> what nature tells its creatures.

***{Just as long as it doesn't tell you anything about causation, right?
:-) --MJ}***

> > If not, then please state what you believe the "better explanation" is,
> > and tell me how it differs from the above.
> >
> > --Mitchell Jones}***
> >
> > > > that would not mean we should embrace the notion of
> > > > forces springing into existence out of nothing. When you don't have an
> > > > answer to a problem, the proper response is to admit to yourself that
> > > > you don't have the answer, and simply keep looking. To embrace magical
> > >
> > > You and TomGee both with that "magical" word. So if it doesn't bear
> > > resemblance to macroscopic, deterministic, time-ordered behavior, then
> > > it's magical? What's magical about it?
> >
> > ***{The denial that the phenomenon arises out of a causal process is
> > what's magical about it. It's the difference between alleging, for
> > example, that Brownian motion occurs due to the impacts of unseen
> > entities, and alleging that it takes place because some psychic, or god,
> > or government, or equation, ordered it to do so. Causes are real,
> > identifiable entities that follow continuous pathways through space to
> > the location where the effect is produced.
>
> That sentence right there (above) is the cornerstone of your prejudice
> and also where you are wrong. There is no such limitation on the agents
> of cause and for you to constrain it so requires justification on your
> part.

***{I have stated the justification in vast detail, and you have chosen
to ignore it. Here, between the lines of asterisks, is one rendition (I
have said it several different ways) of those earlier comments:

***************************
All forces are carried by entities. Period. It has to be that way,
because any other concept destroys the very foundations on which
science, and, indeed, all knowledge, rests.

Why so? Simple: if forces do not need to be carried by entities, then we
cannot infer the presence of entities when forces are exerted. If a
photon exerts a force on the retina, we cannot infer the existence of
the photon. The photon need not have existed at all. Thus if we think we
are doing an experiment, based on seeing it before us, we have no basis
for such a conclusion: the forces that were exerted on the retina do not
imply that entities (photons), impinged on the retina, or that, before
reaching the retina, the photons bounced off of experimental apparatus,
because in neither case were entities required to exert force. Therefore
if forces need not be carried by entities, then we lose all basis for
the inference from sensation to source--which means: we have no basis
for believing in the existence of any entity, a conclusion which
specifically includes our own physical bodies, those of other people,
and, indeed, everything else in the material universe.

Bottom line: if forces need not be carried by entities, then we have no
basis for belief in the existence of anything, including ourselves.
***************************

If you disagree with the above, please insert your comments at the
appropriate point.

--Mitchell Jones}***

> > Magic accepts no such
> > limitation, and, for that reason, is neither part of reality, nor part
> > of science. --MJ}***
>
> Neither does science, pal.

***{You embrace magic every time you assume a force reached its target
without being carried to it by an entity, bub. --MJ}***

> > > > thinking because you can't bear to admit you do not know an answer is
> > > > to
> > > > set a course toward intellectual disaster. Like any vice, with
> > > > repetition it gets easier, and as your mind fills up with the sorts of
> > > > garbage opinions to which magical thinking leads, your reasoning
> > > > abilities will progressively decline. Frankly, that is not a path that
> > > > I
> > > > would wish on my worst enemy.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the supposed single photon version of Young's double slit
> > > > experiment, I would agree that self-interference by one particle moving
> > > > through a true vacuum--i.e., where no etherial medium is present--would
> > > > be hard to imagine. However, if we suppose that the particle is moving
> > > > through an aether, multitudinous scenarios arise by which that medium
> > > > might be set into vibration, resulting in waves that travel ahead of
> > > > the
> > > > photon, through the slits, and establish a pattern of standing waves on
> > > > the other side. Result: when the photon pops through one of the slits,
> > > > its motion on the other side would be influenced by the pattern of
> > > > standing waves which were present there, leading to the observed
> > > > results. The devil, of course, is always in the details; and in this
> > > > case crucial details are matters of speculation, not fact.
> > >
> > > Yes, and of course there's the small problem that while one can
> > > probably construct a scheme where an aether would predict the behavior
> > > of this *one experiment*, the further implications of the aether would
> > > predict behavior which is *ruled out* by experiment.
> >
> > ***{You do not and cannot know that, because such knowledge would
> > require awareness on your part not merely of every aether theory anyone
> > has ever come up with, but also awareness of every aether theory that
> > anyone *might* come up with. In fact, it is explicity the goal of every
> > competent theorist to come up *only* with explanations which do not
> > conflict with any facts, whether experimental or otherwise. In that
> > regard, aether theories are no different than any others, and you can no
> > more dismiss a particular variant because some other variant failed than
> > you can dismiss a particular variant of the big bang theory because some
> > other variant failed. The only way to dismiss an entire class of
> > theories, as opposed to specific variants, would be to find a false
> > premise that was demonstrably essential to all variants worthy of the
> > name. While that is easily done with big bang theories, finding grounds
> > sufficient to dismiss all aether theories would be a hopeless task,
> > since no knowledgeable physicist or engineer nowadays claims that the
> > vacuum is empty, and since anything real which might be there could
> > reasonably be characterized as an aether. --MJ}***
>
> And so you rest your case that *eventually* a viable ether theory will
> be found that does all these things.

***{I repeat: any aether theory that has not been explicitly falsified
is superior to all "modern" theories which postulate magic. The stuff
you guys put forth boils down to "The equation told the experiment how
to behave," and, when someone asks how an equation influences the
behavior of real objects, the stock answer is: the equation provides all
the information that is needed." That's no different than saying "It
just does," when someone asks how a broom can carry a witch through the
air. --MJ}***

> Article of faith. That's your
> perogative.

***{Faith is your bailiwick, not mine. Belief that forces can appear at
specific locations without being transported there by entities is no
different than belief that witches ride brooms. Both require a leap of
faith to be accepted. Hence you, by accepting the former, are as surely
a proponent of faith as those who believe in the latter. --MJ}***

> > > At which point,
> > > one would have to abandon the aether theory, even if it does a fine job
> > > of explaining double-slit interference (which, by the way and as you
> > > admit, you have not shown at all, and further evaluation of an idle
> > > speculation is not effort-effective).
> >
> > ***{I admit that every attempted causal explanation of double slit
> > interference of which I am aware has some flaw. For many, the flaw is
> > that they contradict experimental results in some other area, as you
> > said. And those which do not clash with experiment suffer from lack of
> > detail, and thus are better described as *approaches* to a theory, than
> > as theories themselves. The worst of these, however, are superior to the
> > postulation of magic. --MJ}***
>
> Not so. If everyone of the "nonmagical" ideas has a flaw

***{You have no evidence of that, and you cannot, for the reasons
explained earlier. On the other hand, all of the magical ideas are
flawed, precisely because they abandon reason and embrace magic. --MJ}***

> , then at some
> point one might wonder whether one's view of nature is a tad too
> confined and ask whether a less constrained concept of causal agent
> might be in order.

***{That being the concept of a causal agent which omits the agent,
right? :-) --MJ}***

> Especially if it's nature's concept.

***{The concept of a causal agent that omits the agent is called magic,
and it most assuredly ain't part of nature. --MJ}***

> > > > Hence I am
> > > > comfortable with the view that this is a matter that will be fully
> > > > explained later, when more is known about the structure and properties
> > > > of the medium, of photons, and of barriers with slits cut in them to
> > > > permit the passage of photons.
> > > >
> > > > Bottom line: this is just a problem which cannot be completely solved
> > > > with the information presently available, like millions of others, and
> > > > that state of affairs in no way supports the view that reason ought to
> > > > be abandoned in favor of magical thinking.
> > > >
> > > > --Mitchell Jones}***
> > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > PD
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how?
    ... >>> in producing the probabilistic behavior which the wave function ... > I had been talking exclusively in terms of photons prior to that time. ... saying that there is a *causal agent* that produced that force. ... >>> more dismiss a particular variant because some other variant failed than ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Creating Flatfile with Repeating Header
    ... I have removed the Promoted propertys in the Schema and also the ... hirarchical structure. ... need the promoted fields. ...
    (microsoft.public.biztalk.general)