It seems to on any macro-scale. The "seems to" not just a throwaway phrase, but rather a pretty good clue as to what is, er, seems to be, the case. The real trick here is to not use the "I don't knows" as grounds for knowing. — tim wood
And you know this how? — tim wood
My private opinion is that the electron is particle-like, and only cloudlike in the sense that it moves around really, really fast. And it would not offend my scientific sensibilities if someone were to suggest that maybe the particle-like in its motion sets up a kind of standing shock wave, though in what medium or made of what I don't know. — tim wood
However, electrical energy does not travel though the wire as sound travels through air but instead always travels in the space outside of the wires. This is because electric energy is composed of electric and magnetic fields which are created by the moving electrons, but which exist in the space surrounding the wires. — http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3199
What seems to be, often is not what is the case.... So there is another way to look at the persistence of objects.... When we do not take this law for granted, then we see that what is expressed by this law requires a cause....From this perspective, we do not take for granted that the body will move in a predictable way.... I know this by inductive reasoning.... It is an inductive conclusion, and such conclusions lack necessity.... Every... thing has a location. If it does not have a location it is a fictional thing. — Metaphysician Undercover
Opinion and cogency all we got, most of us, for the most part. We do get to ask, "Does that make sense?" and, "How do you know?"This is just my opinion. — flannel jesus
Why then does electrical energy travel through the field around copper wires, instead of traveling through the copper wires, where the electron particles are supposedly located? Or do you think that particles of the wire, the electrons are actually outside the wire?
However, electrical energy does not travel though the wire as sound travels through air but instead always travels in the space outside of the wires. This is because electric energy is composed of electric and magnetic fields which are created by the moving electrons, but which exist in the space surrounding the wires.
— http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3199 — Metaphysician Undercover
And TPF being the kind of site that it is, I am asking you what you think. Does MW make sense to you as a real thing? I think it's absurd. Absurdity can be a road to sense, but it does not stop the absurdity from being absurd. In the case of MW, I don't happen to see the sense that it might lead to.I have no means of convincing you, or interest in doing so. All I can do is chat a bit about it. I think it's interesting. — flannel jesus
And TPF being the kind of site that it is, I am asking you what you think. Does MW make sense to you as a real thing? — tim wood
I get that; you've been clear. Allow me to try this: if you will simply buy this deed I have to this bridge and the underwater land under the bridge, which today only I am having a sale on, you will get rich! Compelling? Are you getting out your checkbook? I can hope you would have to make clear to your conservator why you think buying my deed is compelling, at least enough to buy. In a sense on TPF we submit and subject ourselves to a kind of conservatorship of thinking by our TPF brothers. So why do you think MW is worth your favor? What is wrong or mistaken in my thinking it's an absurdity?I just think it's the most compelling option. — flannel jesus
So in the Bell experiments the two particles don't have a definite spin, the actual, resolved world is consistent with an infinite number of potential spins they may have. When they encounter a magnetic field, these virtual worlds collapse to an actual one where one has one definite spin, and the other the opposite. Since there is no consistent world where the particles have anything but opposite spins, the collapse creates the appearance of action at a distance.
This combines the genuine randomness of Copenhagen with the "out" for non-local causality of MW, without the egregiousness of gigatons of matter being created every nanosecond, at every point in space (I don't know if anyone actually believes that last bit).
Is this kind of interpretation a "thing", or am I talking out of my ass? — hypericin
At the moment one particle gets measured, by exactly what mechanism does the other particle know to come out measured the opposite? — flannel jesus
collapse *immediately*?the virtual worlds collapse to an actual state of affai — hypericin
To me MW is only palatable if the "worlds" are virtual, not actual....
So for instance, an electron cloud represents all the probabilities of locations an electron may be that is consistent with the position of the nucleus (itself a tighter cloud), and the surrounding fields. These can be thought of as virtual versions of the world, and none is more actual than any other, just more or less likely. The infinite worlds collapse to a definite state of affairs when interaction with other definite states of affairs make it necessary. But this then is just the basis for a new set of virtual possible worlds.
So in the Bell experiments the two particles don't have a definite spin, the actual, resolved world is consistent with an infinite number of potential spins they may have. When they encounter a magnetic field, these virtual worlds collapse to an actual one where one has one definite spin, and the other the opposite. Since there is no consistent world where the particles have anything but opposite spins, the collapse creates the appearance of action at a distance.
This combines the genuine randomness of Copenhagen with the "out" for non-local causality of MW, without the egregiousness of gigatons of matter being created every nanosecond, at every point in space (I don't know if anyone actually believes that last bit). — hypericin
At the moment one particle gets measured, by exactly what mechanism does the other particle know to come out measured the opposite? If it happens immediately, it's spooky action at a distance. If it doesn't happen immediately, then what does the narrative look like? — flannel jesus
When particles s,t are emitted, there are infinite virtual worlds where s,t can have any allowable spin. But crucially, these are the same virtual worlds, since their spins are linked. Upon measurement of s to have spin +A along one axis, the virtual worlds collapse to an actual state of affairs, where s has +A, and t has -A. The particles don't "know" anything, their spin just belonged to the same set of virtual worlds. — hypericin
:up:it seems to me the last part is what is meant by "entanglement." — tim wood
As to randomness, I'll add this: that randomness is really hard to define. I suspect that at the level of the things themselves, nothing is merely random, for reasons I think obvious (yes?). — tim wood
I'm not sure. Intuitively it might seem so, but this is a domain that is far far away from that where our intuitions were formed. God may or may not ultimately play dice with the universe, how can we say? — hypericin
As to cause, one of the basic presuppositions of Newtonian science, Newton held that some things were caused and some things were due to the operation of law — tim wood
But you it seems would take a bit of snake, and of newt and frog and bat and dog, and some other ingredients, and boil up a potion that you would call knowledge, but in fact is nonsense or worse. So, for any of your "conclusions" in your posts, never mind all your qualifications and variant perspectives, how do you know? — tim wood
I'm afraid your source is not very good. It seems to be mistaking the skin effect which is applicable to AC signals, for a general rule about electrical conduction.
In either the AC or DC case, electrical current travels through the conductor. That link provides some explanation as to why in the AC case the conduction of current becomes more and more confined to the outermost portions of the conductor as the frequency of the AC signal increases. — wonderer1
Your assertion is not very convincing wonderer1. I've read a fair bit of material authored by Richard Feynman, much is available on the net. And, he is very explicit in saying that the flow of current is not in the body of the conducting material, because the electrons are freed from the atoms, and the flow is therefore in the field — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.