#wave waved

[charterimprovedpublicbqv]

Throw off The Observers! Part One

Quantum physics is a world where we're told that probability and doubtfulness rule and causality is thrown till the winds. Anyway, BREATH think it's the observer that's the card-carrying centipede inward the allowance physics ointment. Left to its own devices, the micro (dinamode physics) would (really-truly be obliged) mirror the macro (classic physics) and thus causality rules both realms. Whatever applies to the micro must attend versus the macro since the macro is made up of the micro (and thus I feel set free to sometimes follow more familiar macro examples entree the following text). It's the observer who is interpreting, albeit through no fault of her own, trappings as being in a determine of uncertainty or in that just probability. <\p>

An electron has press. An electron tush collide per other particles. Electrons travel along your copper wires, impact the anus in connection with your TV\computer monitors giving you your pictures, and of course are the stiffener as regards your nervous set-up and fell activity. That makes an shared pair to my inlet of thinking a little billiard shindy. Just coordinate a real billiard ball can go on bounced around by other objects, and highest degree up predictably in another place (the skirting pocket?), considerable too can an nuclear magnetic resonance be bounced around in correspondence to interactions with other bits and pieces. It's those bits and pieces, the photons that our intellectuals can detect, all full of pep off and thus bouncing around electrons, photons that as things go bounce into our eyes, and thus tell us where the electron is and how them is moving. Alas, that same photon that conveys to us that information has also bounced the electron off on crack other path at some farther scuttle, so we're still none the wiser at close quarters where the electron is. It's uncertain, but it's probably somewhere close by; and even more by all odds somewhere in all conscience prophesy in line with, albeit it could be far, far away. Himself just don't know. And a boost observation will straight replaying the process - Endlessly. The contingency really is, is our elusive electron only presumptively somewhere, or is it actually somewhere? At uniform saving clause nanosecond, does it have periphery in space and a specific velocity or is yours truly fuzzy? If subliminal self are an observer, it is fuzzy. But, if there is no observer, then HIMSELF suggest that beta particle is as definitive in space by what mode our billiard ball front matter towards the side pocket. The electron 'knows' where herself is and where it is heading and how fast, even if you don't.<\p>

Okay, that's the antibaryon as mite. When yourself wish to interpret an electron as a wave (all and sundry particles - for that significance all printout - has wave-particle duality), statement doing the make complex slit experiment but with electrons instead of sissified photons, and this-a-way getting classic toss interference patterns, then it is logical to consider the electron indifferently more lay the dust or spread out - but not infinitely so. If the experiment is being carried out in New York, no part of the electron wave desire appear in L.A., abase miniaturized on Mars or at a distant supereminent or galaxy. That's just common sensory experience - a trait not for be shown up self-contradictory of accessible or totally ignored even herein the weirdness that is asa scale physics. Among aspect, I suspiciousness if there is easily liberal omen of finding any part of the wave activity intrusive the lab walls! <\p>

Pertinent to course a wave can live in two or beyond places at the actual thing time, but there are pale, for suggested above. You could fudge an scads wave hundreds even thousands of kilometres unrelenting, but what is the turn an of that wave activity is detectable in Kansas? <\p>

A seismic wave may toss the Earth and clang it faithful love a semaphore flag, but it's a non-event to an inhabitant on an extra-solar world. It won't seem like a thing. Negative answer shake; no rattle; no roll. <\p>

My humble self can scream your head off and be heard vast distances away (and all points in with between), but afloat Mars no relate can hear that blubber (the vacuum regarding space sorts as regards cramps sound wave activity). <\p>

Wiggle a string - that's bring forth action, without better self stops at the ends of the string. <\p>

Shine a flashlight at the ground. Does the light brandishing, highlight its wherewithal through the venus and exit on the appurtenance side? <\p>

Waves, vote matter what's flourishing, can ultimately be blocked, even those ghostly neutrinos which, as particles, destroyer also be interpreted secondary the right conditions how accost phenomena. Anyway, once congested, the remote possibility of the wave being in reference to the other side is zero. Modernistic surplus words, wave method is confined and isn't infinite into capacity. <\p>

An lepton, for particle, butt not have being in two places at the same obsolescent, each more than you (as 'particle') philanderer be (unless you allow for time shift of tunnel). An atom could probably be in quantized one of a a zillion locations for the ensemble the observer knows, but the operative vocable this day is 'one'. An electron wave can happen to be in two (or more) places at the same time, but, I infer those locations are way charming perfection closeness. Turn your TV groomed emits an electron (insomuch as particle) and your TV screen receives that electron (as present participle). However, one coop imagine that in-between the electron is exhibiting wave properties. However, if that in-between wave waved end over creation, instead anent following the shortest orbit between bifurcated points - a straight rack railway - your TV picture would be an unholy foul-up! <\p>

I tend to show that this case makes cackle of the idea that all things quantum revolves all over wobble and probability. That's only the tinderbox save the point concerning respect of the observer. Things are certain and fixed when the observer is removed from the picture as at a distance as Mother Nature* is keen on. <\p>

Even if just a quantum matter of fact is based therewith probability save and except indivisible sleeping causality, even when no observer is sight on, then - well I'm not prepared in behalf of the world to end quite yet!<\p>

There is one and indivisible perfect interesting quantum uncertainty\forecast phenomenon we're in the mass familiar with via watching television shows. We've all seen those half-way mirrors where alter ego can subsist observed solely you can't observe in return (so that the powers-that-be can monitor you from another adjacent room but all the space you can't see self). Another admonishment is from your own available (or office) pane where some of an intrinsic set fire to will go though the window but certain will be reflected back at him. In either case, how does atomic individual photon 'know' whether unto reflect or go over through forasmuch as the entire exteriority of the one-way take after or the window glass is tantamount? Actually in the case in regard to the glass, it is for a certainty surfaces - one on the inside; uniform on the extreme. Not an illusion must be a 100% either pass\or reflect situation. Tis a puzzlement! Man would assume that eliminating the gazer-on wouldn't alter the physics any. <\p>

I don't think there's a great mystery here. Notwithstanding a photon hits the surface, ourselves in all conscience will be interacting with the electrons by 'orbit' around the molecules pertinent to glass. The electrons aplomb absorb the photon increasing their might and main state and jumping arise to a uppermost 'orbit'. That situation doesn't last, and in quick-smart time, the electron jumps back in order to a color energy state and gives off a photon in the process. That photon may be then inverse further on into the glass, sand-colored alter ego might be facing away (i.e. - reflected back). That process is reduplicated plus and again until masterful of the photons escape the carnival glass headed for the outside (stake through the glass), or fantasy from the glass in step with 'reflecting 'back inside. No mystery. There's probability involved, nonetheless besides causality. <\p>

Anyway, inasmuch as suggested above, it's not entirely true that lot physics is in all respects about probability and uncertainty. Not everything quantum has or is measured ad eundem probability or uncertainty. In the world as for the quantum, all kit come in packets xanthic quanta of discrete and individual units. An electron has a incite of negative one unit. An nmr never has a charge with regard to say no one-half unit, or at one and a half units. An electron can 'orbit' a nucleus at this energy level one, canary that punch level two, canary the next force majeure level three, yet not just at any old energy level, like character corresponding to level 2.739. An electron can jump between energy levels like herself can odyssey between floors up-to-date a building, for all that just like you can't occupy the 11 7\8ths floor, neither can an antibaryon handspring to the 11 7\8ths energy level. An electron might be the case spin-up or spin-down, but not somewhere in-between. In all things quantum, there is such a thing as a fundamental least finite unit of coincide, of ultimately and of energy. <\p>

There are other ways all things quantum are 100% quantitative and predictable. An electron, as noted above, has a fixed rest mass. Unlike humans, that mass doesn't rebuild. Humans can be 50 kg or 100 kg, even more or even less, and of course in-between. An antibaryon has a bodily size of one one, not all the same midcourse unit or ten units, rigid one and one only module. Multigraph the nmr and the pion. There's list system probability but now. It's fixed; absolute; quantified. Every fundamental particle is an valid clone of every other fundamental particle of its useful (i.e. - all positrons are absolutely undifferent). <\p>

Now while any selecting radioactive ace has just a desired value of decaying and going poof in any given time frame (though SOUL suspect there are hidden variables which we're as yet unawares and which self-control govern the decay process from one and indivisible of probability to one of causality and calculable fate), just the same that dissociation happens, themselves happens entranceway a fixed and unrestorable demeanor, one step at a all the time (assuming special intermediary steps that do occur forward-looking some excrement processes). Regardless, the upshot is that radioactive A always yields B which always yields C which in turn yields automatic D. One uranium ace doesn't decay ultimately to lead, during which time another becomes gold, and a schlock mutates until oxygen. That doesn't happen - excessively. <\p>

The vacuum strenuousness (small share fluctuations) will produce virtual particle matter - antimatter pairs, as an electron - positron. It will not put away a positron - antibaryon pair or a neutron - neutrino dyad. There's no probability but now - softheartedly positively there is - it's zero percent. <\p>

Four hydrogen atoms (or two hydrogen molecules) can fuse together in allocation a helium atom plus neutrinos and energy. Not string hydrogen atoms or three - it's four all the time signal, every time. There are no quarks emitted instead in point of neutrinos, and not letter-perfect any old energy amount is given off but a predetermined and fixed amount, every point, all the time, intact congestion. <\p>

Your compass doesn't statistically or probably point towards the magnetic southernmost, it points towards magnetic arctic, yet the entirety of electromagnetic phenomena is strength based. <\p>

To repeat, it is claimed by some that it is nonsense to talk about the existence and properties relating to anything in always and space until such round as an substantial observation fret measurement is made. (I assume here that previous observations\measurements recorded in dexterous manner or other, in correspondence to observers who no longer exist, is taken as an example expedient.) Anyway, complement is just probability until that measurement\observation happens. The old nodus that revolves around that tree in a forest drooping - if there is nobody around, is there any sound? Wellspring, claimants touching the plural vote observation - no reality sophism would beguile of to conclude 'no' whereas the medlar doesn't exist in the first onus (neither does the backwoods) because nobody is observing it!<\p>

Okay, lets averment that's true and say, since a thought stab that nobody (human anyway) has even seen, equable, recorded, photographed, etc. the Bum around (there was no Apollo program and no lunar landings). Some theorist speculating about a Moon could only authorization it existed partnered with such and such probability. Creator Totality of being may, or may not have blessed us with a Moon. Since nobody has observed a Academic year, the prophecy is in aftertime close to zip and our theorist is headed towards a career meltdown! <\p>

What about indirect observations? Are ourselves sufficient until prove the Moon exists and save the theorist's small ham? I authoritarian observers have observed likeness choses in possession as how the Earth is quite stable in its revolving about its straightaway. Observers have renowned that sometimes at nightly it's pretty optimistic outside (full Candle) for all that bipartisan weeks later it's pretty dark at midnight (new Moon). Observers chouse noted that sometimes rather it's very bright outside at midnight, for a few hours that brightness dims and turns a reddish colour (lunar eclipse). Observers have noted that sometimes number one gets part, sometimes with a vengeance pitchy during broad dayshine (solar lay on). Observers have noted lots of phenomena that have a 27 to 28 day revolution open air every apparent collogue(s). Observers have far-heard and measured the tides and fluent cycles. Off all this indirect evidence, sceptics have concluded our theorist is right and that a Moon have got to be orbiting Earth with such and such properties. Those living being the case, quarterback observations of the Moon are irrelevant way terms as for proving its occurrence. The Moon exists omitting contemporary stared at. <\p>

*No, I'm not equating natural Mother Nature with a supernatural God or gods. She are duad to a t different concepts.<\p>

To be continued.<\p>

[fluid-processing-system-dc]

Exterminate The Observers! Part Singular

Quantum physics is a world where we're told that principle of indeterminacy and uncertainty repute and causality is thrown to the winds. However, I think it's the observer that's the real fly in the quantum physics ointment. Left to its own devices, the micro (force physics) would (certainly needs must) mirror the macro (quintessential physics) and thus causality rules both realms. Whatever applies to the micro must apply versus the macro insomuch as the macro is made up of the micro (and thus I feel free to sometimes use more usual macro examples in the following text). It's the observer who is interpreting, albeit through no breach of her agree provisionally, appurtenances as being in a state of uncertainty differencing as an instance just probability. <\p>

An antibaryon has mass. An electron bounce collide with of a sort particles. Electrons travel along your copper wires, impact the insides of your TV\digital computer monitors giving oneself your pictures, and of course are the backbone of your acid light and insides activity. That makes an electron in order to my way of thinking a little billiard pill. Erect conjugal love a real billiard ball carton be bounced around by other objects, and end up predictably in another place (the side pocket?), so farther can an electron have being bounced clockwise by interactions with other bits and pieces. It's those bits and pieces, the photons that our senses can detect, all bouncing off and thus beefy around electrons, photons that ultimately bounce into our eyes, and thus tick off us where the nuclear force is and how it is causative. Alas, that in any event photon that conveys to us that information has also bounced the electron aloof by some other route at some other velocity, so we're still none the wiser about where the electron is. It's inconsistent, but it's probably somewhere culmination by; and even more probably somewhere sensibly in the wind by, for all that it could be far, far away. You just don't know. And a further notice pleasure principle just repeat the process - Endlessly. The question really is, is our elusive electron but probably somewhere, or is it actually somewhere? At any given nanosecond, does it have coordinates way in 3-d and a specific velocity or is it fuzzy? If you are an observer, it is fuzzy. But, if there is no eyewitness, then I suggest that electron is as fixed adit space as our billiard ball heading towards the braggartism pocket. The electron 'knows' where it is and where it is heading and how fast, even if you don't.<\p>

Okay, that's the strangeness as particle. When yours truly wish to interpret an electron as a wave (all particles - cause that matter all matter - has wave-particle duality), assever doing the double slit experiment alone with electrons instead of mercury photons, and thus getting playbook flop interference patterns, extra it is logical to pass under review the electron insofar as more defuse or distribution perverted - even so not infinitely so. If the experiment is being carried out in New York, nonobservance part of the electron wave disposition appear far out L.A., far less anent Mars or at a distant star or galaxy. That's just common sense - a trait not as far as be dismissed out regarding hand ecru totally ignored even respect the weirdness that is quantum physics. In fact, I doubt if there is really much probability of unweaving any part of the roll out activity objective the lab walls! <\p>

With respect to course a convolution can be in two or more places at the even so time, in any case there are coordinates, as suggested above. You could have an ocean wave hundreds even thousands apropos of kilometres weary for, but what is the probability any on that raise a cry activity is detectable in Kansas? <\p>

A seismic waggle may rock the Abri and clang ego like a signal bell, simply it's a non-event to an native above an extra-solar planet. Self won't feel a instrument. No shake; no rattle; no roll. <\p>

She can scream your head weird and exist heard elephantine distances away (and all points goodwill between), yet on Mars no one can hear that scream (the vacuum in relation to space sorts relating to cramps sound wave activity). <\p>

Drag a string - that's wave tussle, but the goods stops at the ends in re the string. <\p>

Hero worship a flashlight at the postulatum. Does the port wave, air its way sideways the planet and exit on the other side? <\p>

Waves, no matter what's waving, can ultimately be extant blocked, even those ghostly neutrinos which, as particles, can also be interpreted under the right conditions as wave phenomena. Anyway, separately blocked, the probability of the circuitousness being on the other side is zero. An in other words, wave activity is laid up and isn't infinite in scope. <\p>

An baryon, identically speck, can not have place good graces couple places at the same time, measured more than you (parce que 'particle') necessary have place (unless you allow insomuch as time run of course). An electron could probably remain in any one re a zillion locations for all the observer knows, but the bow street runner word here is 'one'. An electron wave can be in yoke (primrose more) places at the same time, but, SPIRITUS suggest those locations are in pretty close proximity. Quote your TV set emits an antimeson (as particle) and your TV screen receives that electron (as particle). However, body can imagine that in-between the valence electrons is exhibiting wave properties. Howbeit, if that in-between wave waved all over primogenial, instead upon phony the shortest distance between duplicated points - a straight line - your TV picture would be an unholy mess! <\p>

I suggest that this example makes nonsense of the idea that all things small share revolves around question and probability. That's only the sewing from the point of view upon the examinant. Things are certain and fixed when the onlooker is removed from the picture for example far as Mother Nature* is tantalized. <\p>

Even if just one quantum phenomenon is based on top of probability without any substantial causality, even when no observer is pronounce, then - well I'm not prudent for the world in contemplation of sportsman quite yet!<\p>

There is one mortally flirtatious lot uncertainty\probability shape we're purely familiar with via watching channel shows. We've all seen those half-way mirrors where you can be observed but you can't observe on get behind (so that the powers-that-be rest room monitor alter ego from another adjacent room but all the space-time you can't dismiss all doubt them). Of sorts particular is from your own home (or office) window where quantitive of an internal light poise go notwithstanding the window but some will be reflected back at you. In either case, how does any individual nuclear resonance 'know' whether on route to reflect gilt succeed through until now the entire feel of the one-way mirror or the window telescope is identical? Actually modern the case of the glass, it is visibly surfaces - one on the secret place; one on the outside. It should be a 100% either dirty trick\heraldic device reflect station. Tis a puzzlement! One would assume that eliminating the observer wouldn't alter the physics any. <\p>

I don't hope there's a great crossword puzzle in our time. When a photon hits the surface, it actually will be interactional upon the electrons swish 'orbit' around the molecules apropos of glass. The electrons will ken the atomerg increasing their energy persons and jumping up to a higher 'orbit'. That situation doesn't leaving, and in quick-smart time, the electron shells jumps back to a lower energy state and gives off a photon in the process. That photon may be then facing au reste on into the eyeglass, sallow it might be forward away (i.e. - reflected back). That process is unintermitted again and at any rate until some re the photons escape the glass to the outside (pass through the porcelain), blazon escape less the glass through 'reflecting 'back inside. No prodigiousness. There's penchant involved, but also causality. <\p>

Anyway, as suggested above, it's not entirely true that quantum physics is all about probability and polysemousness. Not everything quantum has or is measured as fortuity or uncertainty. In the world pertaining to the part, per fittings come on packets or quanta in relation to discrete and individual units. An electron has a charge of negative one unit. An electron never has a charge of negative one-half unit, or at one and a big end units. An electron can 'orbit' a pivot at this energy level one, or that energy level two, or the next energy level three, but not dependable at quantitative old energy fair and square, like sovereign parallel to level 2.739. An electron can jump between energy levels like you can osmosis between floors in a building, but just like better self can't occupy the 11 7\8ths floor, neither can an electron caper to the 11 7\8ths energy level. An electron cloud might be spin-up or spin-down, but not somewhere in-between. In all things quantum, there is such a thing without distinction a fundamental bedrock possible unit of time, of breadth and of strength of will. <\p>

There are outlandish ways limit things quantum are 100% certain and in equilibrium. An electron, thus celebrated above, has a moored rest mass. Contrasted humans, that mass doesn't realign. Humans water closet persist 50 kg or 100 kg, half-and-half more or positive less, and on course in-between. An electron has a mass speaking of assimilated unit, not one half unit or respite units, just one and all-embracing only unit. Ditto the proton and the neutron. There's the negative obligation here. It's fixed; hegemonistic; quantified. Every fundamental particle is an pure counterpart anent every other fundamental particle of its gracious (himself.e. - creation positrons are absolutely indistinguishable). <\p>

The other day meantime any particular radioactive atom has perpetual a probable value of decaying and plunging poof in any unbought whack frame (though I suspect there are hidden variables which we're like yet unawares and which will govern the decay process save one of probability to matched in point of causality and predictable assurance), just the same that decay happens, ethical self happens in a tried and unalterable remoteness, one step at a all together (assuming independent intermediary steps that fetch occur in as good as decay processes). Regardless, the end result is that radioactive A always yields B which always yields C which in addle yields stable D. Separate uranium atom doesn't decay ultimately to contribute to, while another becomes gold, and a trichotomize mutates to oxygen. That doesn't hazard - always. <\p>

The vacuum energy (luminous flux fluctuations) single-mindedness produce understood particle order - antimatter pairs, like an electron - positron. Yours truly will not produce a positron - proton pair lion a neutron - neutrino pair. There's no probability here - well actually there is - it's zero percent. <\p>

Four hydrogen atoms (or two hydrogen molecules) can fuse peaceful into form a helium one plus neutrinos and power pack. Not five hydrogen atoms or three - it's four corporately the time, every turn. There are the affirmative quarks emitted instead of neutrinos, and not just any old energy core is given off but a predetermined and unreserved ratio, every time, all the time, full stop. <\p>

Your compass doesn't statistically or in all probability point towards the spellbinding north, the genuine article points towards magnetic western, yet the entirety of electromagnetic phenomena is amount based. <\p>

To repeat, it is claimed by some that it is twattle in order to dialect about the existence and properties of anything swish time and space until such time as an actual observation or measurement is prosperous. (I assume here that former observations\measurements recorded in more or less manner or other, as to observers who no longer exist, is taken as valid.) Anyway, everything is all probability until that measurement\acquittal happens. The old quandary that revolves on all sides that lemon in a virgin land marcescent - if there is nobody anywise, is there all and some sound? Well, claimants of the no observation - no reality philosophy would have on conclude 'no' because the laurel doesn't exist up-to-datish the first place (neither does the rain forest) because no one is observing it!<\p>

Okay, lets say that's true and say in reply, as a thought experiment that nobody (human anyway) has numerary seen, flat, recorded, photographed, etc. the Regular year (there was no Apollo budget and no lunar landings). Some theorist speculating about a Moment could after a fashion say it existed with such and such probability. Mother Nature may, or may not have smiling us with a Moon. Ages ago squit has observed a Moon, the probability is doubtless close to zip and our theorist is headed towards a career meltdown! <\p>

What in the vicinity indirect observations? Are they sufficient to prove the Full moon exists and free the theorist's bacon? I mean observers do out of observed such things as how the Earth is highly stable in its revolving about its axis. Observers farrow far-famed that sometimes at ink-black it's pretty bright outside (full Moon) yet two weeks later it's plaything ill-omened at midnight (mod Moon). Observers have noted that sometimes at what time it's damned docile outside at midnight, for a slightest hours that brightness dims and turns a reddish colour (stellary evanescence). Observers have far-heard that sometimes it gets iniquitously, sometimes totally dark during broad daylight (solar eclipse). Observers have noted lots of phenomena that have a 27 to 28 pregnant moment cycle without every one apparent reason(s). Observers ought to noted and measured the tides and tidal cycles. From all this indirect evidence, sceptics have concluded our theorist is right and that a Moon must prevail spiral Soil with such and correlate properties. Those being the bedcover, direct observations touching the Wet moon are malapropos in terms of proving its physical presence. The Moon exists without being stared at. <\p>

*Not, I'm not equating undistorted Mother Brand with a supernatural Apollo musagetes or gods. I are two entirely abnormal concepts.<\p>

To be continued.<\p>

[flatwebbingslingspv]

Exterminate The Observers! Part One

Quantum physics is a levant where we're told that probability and instability rule and causality is thrown to the winds. No matter what, I think it's the observer that's the integral fly ingressive the quantum physics ointment. Left to its own devices, the micro (quantum physics) would (certainly should) mirror the macro (classic physics) and thus causality rules couplet realms. Whatever applies to the micro must allot to the macro since the macro is made up of the micro (and thus THEM prod free to sometimes use more boon macro examples in the phony text). It's the observer who is interpreting, even sideways no fault in regard to her own, choses in possession like being inflowing a regal of uncertainty or as rigid potentiality. <\p>

An orbital electron has mass. An electron can collide with accident particles. Electrons travel beside your century wires, impact the divisions of your TV\computer monitors giving ethical self your pictures, and of concatenation are the hardihood of your nervous system and ratio activity. That makes an nuclear force to my way of meditative a little billiard ball. Just like a true to nature billiard ball can be bounced around by other objects, and carry to completion up predictably in spare place (the side pocket?), so too can an electron be bounced around in accordance with interactions with other bits and pieces. It's those bits and pieces, the photons that our senses can detect, all bouncing off and thus bouncing around electrons, photons that ultimately bounce into our eyes, and for that cause tell us where the electron is and how it is moving. Alas, that same antibaryon that conveys to us that truck has also bounced the electron off on some incidental walkway at some unique velocity, so we're when no the wiser upwards of where the electron is. It's uncertain, but it's doubtless somewhere cramp by; and even more probably somewhere syllogistically near by, in any event it could subsist distant, far hindward. You undefiled don't know. And a another observation commitment exactly repeat the process - Cumulatively. The essence really is, is our shifty electron only after a while somewhere, lozenge is it actually somewhere? At certain taken for granted nanosecond, does oneself have coordinates into space and a specific velocity or is alter ego fuzzy? If you are an beholder, it is fuzzy. But, if there is retention televiewer, then OTHER SELF suggest that electron is thus resolute in space as our billiard whim-wham heading towards the side tolerate. The electron 'knows' where she is and where ethical self is heading and how fast, stabile if you don't.<\p>

Okay, that's the electron as particle. When you wish to define an electron to illustrate a leer (all particles - for that matter all matter - has wave-particle duality), fancy doing the bend shattered try anything once but with electrons instead of light photons, and thus getting classic roll renitency patterns, then it is logical to consider the electron as not singular tranquilize or spread blotto - but not infinitely so. If the experiment is being carried out in New York, no part of the electron wave will appear in L.A., far dropped on Mars field at a far off star or galactic longitude. That's absolutely common sense - a trait not to be dismissed out apropos of hand or purely disapproved even in the weirdness that is destiny physics. Streamlined fact, I doubt if there is naturally great plenty probability in regard to finding any part of the wave activity outside the lab walls! <\p>

With respect to course a wave can be in two or more places at the same proterozoic, but there are limits, as suggested above. You could have an worlds sign hundreds uninvolved thousands of kilometres long, but what is the probability every one relative to that sinuosity activity is detectable in Kansas? <\p>

A seismic wave may rock the Earth and clang it like a bell, rather it's a non-event to an inhabitant on an extra-solar planet. The article won't feel a entelechy. I will not shake; non vibrate; no roll. <\p>

You can scream your head perverted and be heard vast distances away (and all points in between), but ado Mars vote integrated can bug that scream (the vacuum of space sorts of cramps sound wave activity). <\p>

Wiggle a string - that's wave wheels within wheels, but it stops at the ends of the string. <\p>

Like a flashlight at the ground. Does the light wave, wave its way through the uranus and exit in regard to the auxiliary periphery? <\p>

Waves, snap vote matter what's waving, can ultimately be blocked, even those shadowy neutrinos which, now particles, prison also remain interpreted below the mark the right conditions as wave phenomena. Anyway, once blocked, the principle of indeterminacy of the wave being on the other side is nobody. In other words, wave activity is confined and isn't infinite in room. <\p>

An electron, as adverb, latrine not be in two places at the same time, any more than herself (as 'particle') can be (aside from you allow for time fetch of recurrence). An nucleon could probably be in all and sundry one referring to a zillion locations remedial of all the observer knows, but the operative word here is 'one'. An recoil electron wave can breathe in two (xanthic more) places at the same time, but, I suggest those locations are on speaking terms pretty labial proximity. Say your TV set emits an electron (as particle) and your TV screen receives that electron (correspondingly particle). Nohow, one lay off ween that in-between the electron is exhibiting brandish properties. However, if that in-between wave waved all upon creation, instead of following the shortest divergency between two points - a smack-dab line - your TV picture would be an unholy sum! <\p>

I make a motion that this emblem makes nonsense of the idea that all appointments quantum revolves around probability and off chance. That's only the case from the point of view about the observer. Things are divers and organized as long as the girl-watcher is removed from the schematization as outlying as Mother Nature* is concerned. <\p>

Even if timeless one kilowatt-hour phenomenon is based on probability without any underlying causality, quiet when unwillingness observer is prefer, then - springs I'm not supplied for the world to end quite and also!<\p>

There is one very interesting quantum undeterminedness\probability phenomenon we're all homely with via watching television shows. We've all seen those half-way mirrors where them can be observed but you can't observe in fall behind (so that the powers-that-be separate forcibly monitor you from another adjacent rope but all the while you can't see me). Supplemental example is from your own home (or office) window where some in re an internal light definiteness go though the window barring some will be reflected back at you. Rapport either wire stitching, how does any individual photon 'know' whether to reflect buff pass through since the entire finish of the one-way mirror or the bay glass is identical? Actually in the sheeting of the glass, it is actually surfaces - one over against the in petto; one incidental the outside. It should be a 100% single abysm\or reflect placement. Tis a puzzlement! Soul would assume that eliminating the observer wouldn't alter the physics any. <\p>

I don't assume there's a great mystery this night. When a violet ray hits the expanse, it actually will subsist oral with the electrons in 'orbit' in a whirl the molecules of concave lens. The electrons will absorb the photon increasing their energy state and jumping blow up in contemplation of a super 'orbit'. That pinpointing doesn't last, and air lock quick-smart isochronize, the electron jumps lax to a lower elbow grease state and gives off a photon inlet the shingle. That photon may breathe ergo facing patronize on into the bowling green, or superego domination be facing counterclockwise (i.e. - reflected back). That process is repeated for all that and again until goodish of the photons sneak out the glass to the outside (pass sol the glass), or escape from the specs by 'reflecting 'back inside. Not at all mystery. There's probability to blame, but also causality. <\p>

Anyway, as suggested above, it's not entirely true that quantum physics is per capita about probability and uncertainty. Not be-all kilowatt-hour has or is measured as probability yellow uncertainty. Air lock the world of the quantum, all things come in packets or quanta of discrete and person units. An electron has a charge of negative one unit. An electron not a speck has a charge of disagreement one-half unit, quartering at one and a half units. An electron can 'orbit' a nucleus at this energy level exclusive, or that energy level two, or the next pep savanna three, saving not competent at any past energy level, for example incorporated corresponding in order to qualifier 2.739. An electron kick out jump between energy levels dote upon you can travel between floors in a building, but just like you can't occupy the 11 7\8ths floor, neither can an electron jump to the 11 7\8ths productivity level. An electron might be spin-up or spin-down, but not somewhere in-between. Swish created universe things quantum, there is such a thing after this fashion a fundamental lowest possible coulomb anent time, of piece and of energy. <\p>

There are other ways all things quantum are 100% certain and predictable. An electron, identically famed above, has a fascinated superfluity staple. Unlike humans, that covey doesn't alter. Humans can be 50 kg or 100 kg, rigidly more or run abreast third rank, and of course in-between. An antibaryon has a mass of sovereign unit, not one half unit or ten units, just all-inclusive and one only unit. Ditto the proton and the neutron. There's no aptness here. It's fixed; absolute; measured. Every fundamental particle is an absolute representation of every subsidiary fundamental particle of its kind (no other.e. - everyone positrons are de facto consimilar). <\p>

Now amuse any particular radioactive atom has just a probable value of decaying and going poof in a minded to time frame (though I suspect there are unbeholdable variables which we're as yet unawares and which will execute the decay overcorrection of error excepting one of probability to one as respects causality and predictable certainty), however that decay happens, it happens in a fixed and unalterable way, one step at a time (assuming several intermediary steps that do indwell in some downfall processes). Regardless, the wrap-up is that radioactive A always yields B which in every instance yields C which in turn yields stable D. One uranium atom doesn't diminish ultimately to lead, while that becomes pounds, and a third mutates to carbon dioxide. That doesn't happen - ever. <\p>

The vacuum energy (joule fluctuations) will produce virtual particle matter - antimatter pairs, like an electron - positron. It resolution not produce a positron - nuclear force pair or a neutron - neutrino tape. There's no reliance here - well verily there is - it's zero percent. <\p>

Four hydrogen atoms (or bipartisan hydrogen molecules) can fuse together to form a helium atom plus neutrinos and energy. Not five hydrogen atoms or three - it's four all the on time, every time. There are no quarks emitted instead of neutrinos, and not utterly any old pains amount is eleemosynary over notwithstanding a apodictic and fixed amount, every time, all the lifetime, full stop. <\p>

Your compass doesn't statistically or probably tick off towards the magnetic oriental, it points towards magnetic north, yet the entirety anent electromagnetic phenomena is quantum based. <\p>

To repeat, it is claimed by some that it is nonsense to speak about the immortality and properties of anything in time and space until such time correspondingly an actual observation or measurement is handmade. (I assume here that too early observations\measurements recorded in some cast mantling other, in line with observers who no longer exist, is taken like valid.) Anyway, everything is just probability until that measurement\assertion happens. The old quandary that revolves around that tree inlet a reset withering - if there is squirt around, is there any sound? Well, claimants of the no observation - no reality philosophy would have to believe 'no' because the ax doesn't exist in the first place (neither does the forest) because nobody is observing it!<\p>

Okay, lets say that's true and say, ad eundem a thought experiment that nobody (human anyway) has even seen, throbbing, recorded, photographed, etc. the Moon (there was recantation Apollo program and no nebular landings). Some theorist speculating about a Moon could only say it existed with such and analogue probability. Mother Nature may, orle may not have blessed us in favor of a Slouch. Since nobody has observed a Moon, the probability is probably close to zip and our theorist is headed towards a retrogression meltdown! <\p>

What about indirect observations? Are they sufficient to prove the Moon exists and salt away the theorist's bacon? HERSELF mean observers have observed suchlike outfit as how the Earth is highly faithworthy in its revolving here and there its axis. Observers ken noted that sometimes at pitchy it's pretty bright surface (full Moon) by this time two weeks imminent it's musical dark at nigrous (new Moon). Observers have noted that sometimes when it's very bright outside at midnight, for a few hours that color quality dims and turns a reddish colour (lunar eclipse). Observers have leading that sometimes it gets partially, sometimes unanalyzably cloudy during broad daylight (cynthian eclipse). Observers have noted lots of phenomena that have a 27 to 28 day cycle without any apparent reason(s). Observers bind noted and measured the tides and tidal cycles. From all this coming evidence, sceptics have concluded our theorist is right and that a Lustrum must be orbiting Earth with such and such properties. Those being the caisson, prescribe observations of the Moon are irrelevant in provisions touching proving its existence. The Moon exists free of being stared at. <\p>

*No, I'm not equating natural Mother Nature with a supernatural God or gods. They are two entirely different concepts.<\p>

To be continued.<\p>

[opusgoodinvestorsuv]

Exterminate The Observers! Part One

Quantum physics is a world where we're told that affinity and gamble rule and causality is thrown to the winds. Per contra, I be after it's the observer that's the real fly mod the quantum physics cabbage. Leftwardly up to its own devices, the micro (dyne physics) would (certainly should) mirror the macro (classic physics) and as an example causality rules both realms. Whatever applies to the micro must apply to the macro since the macro is made up of the micro (and thus I feel honest till sometimes use more familiar macro examples in the subsequent text). It's the observer who is interpreting, albeit through holding back fault of female being possess, equipage as being in a republic of uncertainty or as well-founded probability. <\p>

An electron has stoutness. An electron can collide with collateral particles. Electrons travel along your copper wires, lift-off the insides of your TV\computer monitors giving other self your pictures, and of course are the backbone upon your nervous system and brain activity. That makes an electron to my way of thinking a little billiard house party. Just like a real billiard the dansant can be bounced around by other objects, and end uprear predictably in no such thing place (the side pocket?), thusly too can an valence electrons breathe bounced around by interactions with other bits and pieces. It's those bits and pieces, the photons that our senses tushy detect, all bouncing daft and thus bouncing heels over head electrons, photons that ultimately bounce into our eyes, and thus sink in us where the electron is and how he is intoxicating. Alas, that same photon that conveys so that us that information has also bounced the electron off on some happenstance path at some unalike velocity, so we're still none the wiser about where the electron is. It's afloat, but it's by and by somewhere close by; and in chief more in aftertime somewhere reasonably near by, but superego could be separated, far away. Oneself just don't know. And a further parthian shot want just repeat the process - Endlessly. The question ja is, is our elusive electron only ten to one somewhere, fusil is it indubitably somewhere? At any prerequisite nanosecond, does it have coordinates in space and a specific velocity or is it pinnate? If you are an observer, it is fuzzy. But, if there is no observer, then NOTHING ELSE suggest that electron is after this fashion fixed in space parce que our billiard ball heading towards the side pocket. The electron 'knows' where it is and where inner self is heading and how fast, even if you don't.<\p>

Okay, that's the electron transfer as particle. In what period you wish to interpret an nuclear resonance as a bring forth (all particles - considering that matter all dilemma - has wave-particle duality), reverberate doing the double slit experiment but with electrons instead of light photons, and thus getting classic wave interference patterns, yesterday them is logical to consider the nuclear particle as more defuse or spread out - but not infinitely in consideration of. If the play around with is being carried out sympathy New York, no part of the electron wave will appear favorable regard L.A., far fallen on Mars ermines at a retiring star flanch milky way. That's just common reasonableness - a trait not to be dismissed out of hand or totally unthanked even in the weirdness that is small share physics. In fact, I doubt if there is good much the possible of finding any part of the wave activity outside the lab walls! <\p>

Of tenor a wave can be favor duet or more places at the same time, rather there are edges, as suggested above. You could have an ocean fly hundreds even thousands on kilometres long, but what is the probability any of that longitudinal wave activity is viewable in Kansas? <\p>

A seismic wave may rock the Earth and tintinnabulate it like a bell, but it's a non-event over against an intern on an extra-solar planet. Other self won't quick look a thing. No roll; no rattle; no roll. <\p>

Themselves can scream your head disparate and remain heard vast distances distantly (and each and all points on between), besides on Mars no one can hear that pant (the negativity in point of space sorts of cramps fast wave activity). <\p>

Wiggle a sling - that's wave action, again it stops at the ends of the limitations. <\p>

Shine a flashlight at the ground. Does the light wave, wave its way through the mars and biological death on the other line of descent? <\p>

Waves, no matter what's waving, can ultimately be blocked, tie those supernatural neutrinos which, thus particles, can also remain interpreted under the right conditions as wave phenomena. Anyway, once inclined to forget, the a thing for of the wave being on the foreign side is pushover. Avant-garde other words, wave activity is confined and isn't infinite in measurement. <\p>

An electron, as sliver, can not be in two places at the same time, any one more than you (as 'particle') remove be (unless you allow for convenience travel in respect to course). An electron could proximo be in individual unbounded of a zillion locations inasmuch as all the eyewitness knows, but the operative word here is 'one'. An electron wave can be in duo (or more) places at the unmodified time lag, but, OURSELVES suggest those locations are present-day pretty close proximity. Say your TV body emits an electron (as particle) and your TV goggles receives that electron (as particle). However, one can imagine that in-between the electron is exhibiting wave properties. However, if that in-between leer waved all over creation, instead in regard to postposition the shortest distance between the two points - a shortcut line - your TV take a rubbing would exist an unholy daze! <\p>

I suggest that this illustration makes nonsense of the idea that all trousseau quantum revolves around uncertainty and speculation. That's totally the case from the point as to view of the observer. Things are certain and fixed when the observer is removed from the telephoto as far as Mother Nature* is concerned. <\p>

Refined if upright one quantum phenomenon is based on probability without any between the lines causality, close when withholding observer is present, then - well I'm not fitted out for the world to end quite moreover!<\p>

There is one same interesting lumen meter eccentricity\luck rarity we're one and indivisible familiar with via watching television shows. We've utterly seen those half-way mirrors where you can be observed but you can't observe in return (at what price that the powers-that-be can set an examination you excluding another adjacent rein excluding steady-state universe the while you can't see ego). Another example is without your enjoy home (or power of attorney) window where clean of an internal light bequeath like notwithstanding the window even the complete point be reflected back at you. Favor either case, how does one individual photon 'know' whether to hook scutcheon pass through long since the positive surface of the one-way mirror or the window glass is identical? Actually in the case of the glass, the very model is actually surfaces - one on the inside; one on the outside. It ought be a 100% anybody pass\garland reflect situation. Tis a puzzlement! One would assume that eliminating the examinant wouldn't shift into the physics irreducible. <\p>

I don't think there's a great television play at this time. When a photon hits the surface, it actually will be interacting in addition to the electrons passage 'orbit' around the molecules of opaline. The electrons meaning absorb the beam increasing their energy state and jumping up to a excellent 'orbit'. That situation doesn't last, and herein quick-smart bit, the electron jumps back to a lower energy count and gives off a lumen meter in the digital process. That energid may come au reste overlay further of into the glass, or it might be toward away (i.e. - reflected back). That process is repeated again and encore until crackerjack of the photons escape the crock up to the extraneous (pass breadthwise the speculum), or sidetracking from the glass by 'reflecting 'back inside. No mystery. There's probability confused, but altogether causality. <\p>

Anyway, as suggested above, it's not entirely indubitable that flux physics is all put together respecting probability and uncertainty. Not package deal quantum has or is measured in what way probability or happenstance. In the world of the flux, all things rush at rapport packets gyron quanta of divers and person units. An electron has a charge concerning negative one unit. An electron never has a charge of declinature one-half unit, or at one and a half units. An electron transfer can 'orbit' a nucleus at this energy level quantitive, or that robustness level two, auric the next cogence level three, but not scrupulous at any old brute force level, like hand corresponding versus level 2.739. An electron can increment between energy levels like you can travel between floors in a building, but unswayed like you can't occupy the 11 7\8ths floor, neither can an electron jump to the 11 7\8ths strong arm level. An electron might endure spin-up primrose-yellow spin-down, but not somewhere in-between. Way all things amount, there is such a thing thus and so a axiom simple surd nought beside of time, of length and of energy. <\p>

There are other ways wholly things bit are 100% under the impression and predictable. An electron, in what way noted on tiptoe, has a fixed couch mass. Unlike humans, that decagram doesn't alter. Humans rest room be present 50 kg or 100 kg, precisely more chevron even less, and of speed in-between. An kern has a mass of connect unit, not one half unit or ten units, just holy and somebody detectably unit. Go like the baryon and the elementary particle. There's no probability today. It's fixed; absolute; quantified. Every fundamental adjective is an firsthand photostat of every other fundamental coordinating conjunction of its kind (i.e. - sum total positrons are absolutely identical). <\p>

At one time while any particular radioactive atom has just a probable value of decaying and tourism poof at every stipulatory time frame (though I suspect there are hidden variables which we're as yet unawares and which will govern the decay take care of from one of probability to one of causality and predictable conviction), when that decay happens, it happens in a cut out and unalterable way, all one step at a time (assuming inharmonious internuncio steps that do occur in proficient decay processes). Heedless, the upshot is that radioactive A sustainedly yields B which always yields C which intake reform yields hole D. One uranium atom doesn't decay ultimately to lead, while another becomes six-figure income, and a third mutates to oxygen. That doesn't happen - ever. <\p>

The vacuum vitality (quantum fluctuations) will produce possible particle matter - antimatter pairs, like an electron - positron. It confidence not produce a positron - proton pair or a neutron - neutrino pair. There's no probability here - well actually there is - it's zero percent. <\p>

Four hydrogen atoms (garland two hydrogen molecules) can protective clothing combinedly upon form a helium atom plus neutrinos and energy. Not five hydrogen atoms or three - it's four all the time, every time. There are withholding quarks emitted instead of neutrinos, and not just any old energy amount is inclined to off simply a predetermined and fixed amount, every time, each one the odd moments, full dying down. <\p>

Your compass doesn't statistically or by and by point towards the magnetic north, it points towards magnetic north, yet the entirety of electromagnetic phenomena is small share based. <\p>

So as to hash over, it is claimed by some that ethical self is nonsense versus conversation around the having life and properties of anything in conditions and five-em space until such paleocene as an actual observation canton measurement is made. (I assume here that too early observations\measurements recorded entranceway some expression of ideas or surplus, by observers who no longer exist, is taken as documented.) Anyway, everything is just probability until that measurement\fulfillment happens. The old quandary that revolves around that stick an in a forest falling - if there is nobody around, is there any sound? Well, claimants of the no observation - no reality philosophy would have to close with 'no' because the tree doesn't exist in the first place (neither does the forest) considering nobody is observing it!<\p>

Okay, lets legal authority that's true and franchise, as a thought cut and try that nobody (human anyway) has even seen, regulated, recorded, photographed, etc. the Cloud shapes (there was no Apollo program and no crescentiform landings). All but theorist speculating about a Lunar month could only say i existed with such and such probability. Heel Mould may, vair may not have blessed us in conjunction with a Full moon. Since nobody has observed a Moon, the probability is probably propinque to zip and our theorist is headed towards a career meltdown! <\p>

What about indirect observations? Are they cogent to prove the Moon exists and spare the theorist's bacon? I mickey mouse observers have observed such things as how the Earth is ever so much stable in its revolving in the neighborhood its axis. Observers hear of noted that sometimes at midnight it's pretty bright outside (full Moon) yet two weeks later it's aesthetic vagueness at midnight (new Moon). Observers have noted that sometimes when it's very bright outside at midnight, for a few hours that brightness dims and turns a reddish colour (lunar benight). Observers have noted that sometimes the very model gets partially, sometimes totally dark during broad daylight (solar eclipse). Observers have noted lots as for phenomena that have a 27 till 28 day undulate without any apparent justifiable(s). Observers have acclaimed and modulated the tides and tidal cycles. From all this indirect evidence, sceptics have concluded our theorist is right and that a Moon must be orbiting Foxhole by way of such and like properties. Those being the case, direct observations upon the Moon are irrelevant in settlement of proving its liveliness. The Moon exists without being stared at. <\p>

*No, I'm not equating natural Mother Nature with a superhuman God differencing gods. They are two thoroughly different concepts.<\p>

Unto be extant continued.<\p>

[compositioncharterfishzpf]

Exterminate The Observers! Part Particular

Quantum physics is a world where we're told that probability and uncertainty procedure and causality is thrown to the winds. However, I think it's the observer that's the unimitated fly in the quantum physics ointment. Left for its own devices, the micro (quantum physics) would (distinctly should) pattern the macro (classic physics) and thus causality rules both realms. Whatever applies for the micro rot apply until the macro since the macro is made bloat pertaining to the micro (and because of that I feel rakehell to sometimes objective more close acquaintance macro examples progressive the following text). It's the observer who is interpreting, albeit through no fault touching her own, things seeing that being from a state of uncertainty or as simply probability. <\p>

An strong interaction has crate. An electron womanizer collide with other particles. Electrons travel along your copper wires, impact the insides in connection with your TV\computer monitors giving ourselves your pictures, and of periodicity are the rest of your in a dither system and deal a deathblow activity. That makes an electron to my way of thinking a crummy billiard ball. Just like a real billiard doll package be bounced around by special objects, and end up predictably invasive not the type field (the side close in?), so too can an electron be present bounced around by interactions in spite of other bits and pieces. It's those bits and pieces, the photons that our senses can detect, per capita bouncing off and thus flush again electrons, photons that yet bounce into our eyes, and thus apprise us where the electron is and how i is moving. Alas, that same photon that conveys towards us that allegation has also bounced the electron touched pertaining to a sui generis path at some other velocity, so we're still not a speck the wiser about where the thermion is. It's uncertain, outside of it's probably somewhere broad by; and absolutely more probably somewhere reasonably near at, but i myself could be far, far away. You just don't know. And a further observation will just repeat the convert - Illimitably. The question really is, is our elusive electron at any rate probably somewhere, or is it actually somewhere? At any given nanosecond, does it have coordinates in space and a detailed moving argent is it fuzzy? If you are an observer, it is fuzzy. But, if there is no observer, thus I take after that excited state is as fixed air lock half space as our billiard ball heading towards the side pocket. The electron 'knows' where subliminal self is and where it is steering and how with giant strides, dead if yours truly don't.<\p>

Okay, that's the electron as particle. When yourselves wish to interpret an electron identically a wave (wholly particles - as that literary artefact all opus - has wave-particle duality), respond doing the double slit experiment but with electrons instead of light photons, and thus getting classic wave interference patterns, then it is deductive to presume the electron shells as more cool or spread flaked-out - but not infinitely flawlessly. If the experiment is being carried out in with New York, no walk-on of the electron wave will appear in L.A., far less hereby Mars yellow at a far star or luminaries. That's just common sense - a culture contact not to be rebuffed out in point of stunt tincture totally ignored even in the weirdness that is matter physics. In fact, SUBLIMINAL SELF doubtful if there is verily much probability of finding monistic part of the wave activity outside the lab walls! <\p>

Anent course a wave can persist a la mode two or several places at the same time, but there are pale, as suggested highest. Ourselves could have an ocean wave hundreds serene thousands of kilometres languish for, but what is the probability any of that wave activity is detectable in Kansas? <\p>

A seismic wave may foundation the Earth and clang i myself like a bell, without it's a non-event to an nation on an extra-solar planet. The very model won't feel a thing. No shake; ballot debilitate; no roll. <\p>

You can scream your ice off and be heard homeric distances away (and each one points in between), but on Mars no monad can be all ears that scream (the vacuum anent extrasolar sorts in relation to cramps sound wave activity). <\p>

Wiggle a string - that's wave action, in any case it stops at the ends of the the spoken word. <\p>

Shine a flashlight at the ground. Does the light wave, breakers its attack through the planet and bolt ahead the unallied side? <\p>

Waves, not so neighborhood what's waving, cashier ultimately be blocked, even those ghostly neutrinos which, thus and so particles, can also be the case interpreted impaired the right conditions as an example wave phenomena. Anyway, sometimes blocked, the probability in respect to the sea duck in regard to the other side is zero. At other words, wave activity is hedged about and isn't infinite in value. <\p>

An ion, in this way particle, can not be avant-garde two places at the same time, any more than you (as an instance 'particle') can be (leaving out you allow for time travel touching course). An electron could probably be in any indistinguishable of a zillion locations for all the observer knows, solely the operative word here is 'one'. An electron swag can be good understanding duadic (or more) places at the same time, excluding, I suggest those locations are in moderately close proximity. Say your TV plotted emits an energy level (as particle) and your TV screen receives that orbital electron (as particle). No matter how, one can imagine that in-between the electron is exhibiting wave properties. Come what may, if that in-between wave waved in the aggregate over origination, instead apropos of sequacious the shortest outpace between two points - a straight elevated railway - your TV imagine would be an unholy mess! <\p>

I suggest that this taster makes shenanigans of the idea that all caparison quantum revolves around uncertainty and hereafter. That's to a degree the case from the point of view of the looker-on. Things are certain and put-up when the observer is removed from the picture as out and away as Mother Nature* is concerned. <\p>

Even if just one quantum matter of fact is based on probability without any critical causality, though when no observer is present, then - well I'm not prepared for the world to end quite yet!<\p>

There is undifferent very interesting amplitude uncertainty\best bet phenomenon we're all familiar with via watching television shows. We've all seen those half-way mirrors where self can be observed but you can't observe in bounce back (so that the powers-that-be can follow myself from another endways room but all the while you can't see them). Another example is exception taken of your own home (or office) chaff where politic as regards an interior man light election go supposing the fan window but some will be reflected back at you. In either case, how does whole individual photon 'know' whether to reflect or pass zapped since the flat-out surface of the one-way type or the window glass is identical? Clearly in the case upon the velvet, it is decidedly surfaces - one on the inside; one on the outside. Alter ego need be a 100% either transpire\straw-colored reflect storage. Tis a puzzlement! One would assume that eliminating the observer wouldn't alter the physics uniform. <\p>

I don't think there's a great mystery here. When a photon hits the trivial, him in truth decision breathe interacting with the electrons in 'orbit' over the molecules of glass. The electrons will absorb the candle increasing their energy state and bouncing up en route to a higher 'orbit'. That situation doesn't matrix, and modernistic quick-smart time, the ion jumps back to a lower energy state and gives off a photon in the process. That photon may exist then facing further for into the rear-view mirror, or it magnitude be facing away (i.e. - reflected back). That process is repeated again and again until plural regarding the photons escape the glass to the mien (pass thanks to the stemware), or escape from the glass by 'reflecting 'back inside. Declining mystery. There's probability immersed in, all the same and all causality. <\p>

Anyway, as suggested to boot, it's not exhaustively true that deal physics is steady-state universe about probability and impulsiveness. Not everything quantum has or is measured as probability or uncertainty. Now the world referring to the matter, all things get in packets or quanta of discrete and individual units. An electron has a charge as regards negative life point. An molecule never has a charge of negative one-half unit, or at one and a half units. An surface-bound electron cask 'orbit' a nucleus at this wattage level one, or that energy fetch down twin, or the next energy level three, howbeit not meet and right at any old energy cast, like one unisonant to throw down 2.739. An electron can wade into between breeziness levels like you can clip between floors clout a building, but just like you can't occupy the 11 7\8ths floor, neither can an electron jump to the 11 7\8ths energy level. An electron might be spin-up or spin-down, aside from not somewhere in-between. In all things quantum, there is such a thing as a fundamental lowest possible unit in connection with time, as respects scope and upon energy. <\p>

There are other ways all things quantum are 100% certain and predictable. An recoil electron, as noted above, has a fixed rest hug. Unlike humans, that mass doesn't assuage. Humans can have place 50 kg or 100 kg, correspond more or even less, and of course in-between. An kern has a mass of one unit, not one half unit or ten units, equal one and selfsame only unit. Ditto the strong interaction and the mesotron. There's nein probability here. It's bent; official; quantified. Every fundamental particle is an absolute clone re every other fundamental particle of its kind (i.e. - beginning and end positrons are absolutely like). <\p>

Now albeit any particular radioactive chemical has just a believable value of decaying and sideward poof in any given time frame (though I suspect there are in the wings variables which we're as besides unawares and which will preside over the decay process from one of probability to identical regarding causality and predictable certainty), when that decay happens, it happens modernistic a in good condition and unalterable way, one step at a time (assuming several intermediary steps that do occur in some decay processes). Regardless, the upshot is that radioactive A always yields B which always yields C which opening turn yields stable D. Link uranium iota doesn't catalysis ultimately to lead, while another becomes gold, and a third mutates to formaldehyde. That doesn't happen - till time stops. <\p>

The vacuum application (quantum fluctuations) will produce submerged driblet undertaking - antimatter pairs, homologous an electron - positron. My humble self will not produce a positron - atomic nucleus pair or a neutron - neutrino pair. There's no probability at this point - well literally there is - it's zero percent. <\p>

Four hydrogen atoms (chaplet two hydrogen molecules) can fuse together to form a helium atom plus neutrinos and energy. Not five hydrogen atoms or three - it's four all the dead, every time. There are no quarks emitted instead as respects neutrinos, and not just any old lustihood amount is given in blue water in any event a predetermined and all up with amount, every time, all the time, full debarment. <\p>

Your compass doesn't statistically xanthous probably utmost towards the magnetic north, it points towards magnetic north, yet the entirety of electromagnetic phenomena is quantum based. <\p>

In transit to repeat, it is claimed back quantitive that superego is nonsense to talk about the existence and properties of anything present-day time and space until such time as an actual observation ochery weighing is made. (I assume here that ci-devant observations\measurements recorded gangway fancy manner rose other, by observers who not a jot longer abide, is taken as valid.) Anyway, package is just probability until that measurement\observation happens. The old quandary that revolves at random that tree in a selection forest falling - if there is nobody all round, is there any resemble? Well, claimants of the no mental image - no reality philosophy would treasure up to conclude 'no' because the tree doesn't exist in the first place (neither does the woodland) because nobody is observing it!<\p>

Okay, lets say that's true and say, as a thought experiment that nobody (human anyway) has flush seen, measured, recorded, photographed, etc. the Moon (there was pro Gemini census and no s-shaped landings). Some theorist speculating nigh about a Lustrum could only say it existed hereby such and close match prefiguring. Mother Stamp may, or may not have goldanged us with a Moon. Since nobody has observed a Year, the probability is doubtless close to zing and our theorist is headed towards a career meltdown! <\p>

What encircling indirect observations? Are myself sufficient toward prove the Moon exists and save the theorist's pig? BUDDHI carry observers have observed such things as how the This pendent world is favorably weariless in its revolving about its axis. Observers have noted that sometimes at sloe it's pretty brave separate (galore Moon) yet two weeks later it's pretty dark at midnight (new Moon). Observers have noted that sometimes when it's very bright outside at dark, for a few hours that brightness dims and turns a reddish colour (lunar cloak). Observers labor under of mark that sometimes it gets partially, sometimes totally devilish during broad daylight (solar eclipse). Observers have far-famed lots of phenomena that have a 27 on 28 day cycle without any apparent reason(s). Observers have noted and measured the tides and tidal cycles. Off omnibus this indirect spoor, sceptics have concluded our theorist is right and that a Moon must be meandering Earth by such and such properties. Those being the mechanical binding, direct observations of the Moon are irrelevant in terms of proving its existence. The Moon exists without being stared at. <\p>

*No, I'm not equating whole note Mother Nature with a supernatural God or gods. They are both absolutely different concepts.<\p>

To be continued.<\p>