Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Elijah_Turner t1_jc1xtzd wrote

Reply to comment by rejectednocomments in Why There Is No Absolute Ground For Truth: A Review of Criticisms Against Strong Foundationalism by throwaway853994

Is it the author who’s wrong about the theory, or is the theory wrong?

1

rejectednocomments t1_jc1yh45 wrote

The author.

Okay, when you have one slit open and fire a photon or an electron or whatever, you get a dot on the screen on the other side. When you have the other slit open, you get a dot in a different location. If you have both slits open, you don’t get either dot, but instead a band suggesting a wave.

2

Elijah_Turner t1_jc1zokz wrote

Ok I’m trying to read up on it, and other articles explaining the double slit experiment kinda say the same thing. The photon simultaneously takes every possible trajectory. Again, I’m reading things in layman’s terms.

Can you please give me something more substantial than just negation here? Because I still don’t see how the author is wrong…

1

rejectednocomments t1_jc200c7 wrote

Who says it also goes through none of the slits and only one slit all at once?

2

Elijah_Turner t1_jc21kzx wrote

Superposition implies that the electron both exists and doesn’t exist at any point at the same time. Like, that’s the proof of that statement right there. As observed by the double slit experiment…

Unless you’re gonna substantiate your side a bit more, I’m not that into the endless negation. Explain to me why QM is fundamentally misunderstood in this article as it relates to the PNC.

1

imdfantom t1_jc228wm wrote

Different person

I was going to answer elsewhere but I will respond here quickly for now.

>Superposition implies that the electron both exists and doesn’t exist at any point at the same time

Ah, not exactly.

The electron isn't in both "A" and "not A" states, it is in one state which is a superposition of "A and not A".

I understand the distinction seems meaningless, but it makes all the difference

Also, the discussion points seem to be veering to interpretation of QM which is a can of worms we shouldn't really open.

QM is a very useful tool, but we have to be very clear when we are discussing QM results versus QM interpretation. The former is agreed upon by all people who study QM, the latter is still up in the air .

3