A Creation Story for Materialists

[Max Power]

No, I don't see "why" they "must."

Okay.

Let's say you fire 100 photons at the screen through 2 slits. For the first 50 you cover the first slit, and for the second 50, you cover the second slit (or you can randomly cover each slit if you want). You will get a pattern on the screen that corresponds to the addition of two one-slit patterns.

Now, if you fire 100 photons through the 2 slits, leaving both of them open. Intuition tells you that since each photon should travel through one of the slits, you will get the same pattern as above, but you do not. The resulting interference pattern corresponds to two slits being open, (this is the one in the picture). This means that each photon somehow interacts with BOTH slits at the same time.

 

[Annie]

Okay.

Let's say you fire 100 photons at the screen through 2 slits. For the first 50 you cover the first slit, and for the second 50, you cover the second slit (or you can randomly cover each slit if you want). You will get a pattern on the screen that corresponds to the addition of two one-slit patterns.

Now, if you fire 100 photons through the 2 slits, leaving both of them open. Intuition tells you that since each photon should travel through one of the slits, you will get the same pattern as above, but you do not. The resulting interference pattern corresponds to two slits being open, (this is the one in the picture). This means that each photon somehow interacts with BOTH slits at the same time.

I do not buy into 'intuition.' Max, you are adrift. Paddleing heroically, but adrift.

 

[Max Power]

I do not buy into 'intuition.' Max, you are adrift. Paddleing heroically, but adrift.

So what do you not understand?

 

[Annie]

So what do you not understand?

Any of what you have posted. None of it makes sense in relation to what is observable.

 

[Max Power]

Any of what you have posted. None of it makes sense in relation to what is observable.

Bottom line:
It is possible for a particle to occupy multiple states at once.
This has been experimentally verified.

 

[dilloduck]

Bottom line:
It is possible for a particle to occupy multiple states at once.
This has been experimentally verified.

And this solves which question?

 

[Max Power]

And this solves which question?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=343234&postcount=69

 

[dilloduck]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=343234&postcount=69

Oh---I thought science had proven something neat like how the universe works.

 

[manu1959]

Bottom line:
It is possible for a particle to occupy multiple states at once.
This has been experimentally verified.

science is wrong .... A can not be B at the same time ....

 

[dilloduck]

science is wrong .... A can not be B at the same time ....

Science has been wrong quite often over the centuries---but we are to trust it to provide us with the answers for everything?--I'll wait for the finished project and decide then.

 

[manu1959]

Science has been wrong quite often over the centuries---but we are to trust it to provide us with the answers for everything?--I'll wait for the finished project and decide then.

agreed....

 

[Max Power]

science is wrong .... A can not be B at the same time ....

Why not?

 

[manu1959]

Why not?

because

 

[Max Power]

because

Hahaha.

 

[manu1959]

Hahaha.

how do you laugh and not laugh at the same moment

 

[Nuc]

Science has been wrong quite often over the centuries---but we are to trust it to provide us with the answers for everything?--I'll wait for the finished project and decide then.

Science is always a work in progress. Is that a good reason to ignore it, denigrate it and choose superstition instead?

 

[dilloduck]

Science is always a work in progress. Is that a good reason to ignore it, denigrate it and choose superstition instead?

no--I love science. It's interesting and had provided us with a lot of cool stuff. It just hasn't any answers to certain questions yet it brazenly attacks religious philosophy as if it were threatened by it. Religions have done this to science in the past too. Wierd huh?

 

[Bullypulpit]

science is wrong .... A can not be B at the same time ....

On the macroscpic level, this may be the case. On the quantum level, however, Newtonian physicis and Aristotelian logic breal down.

 

[Bullypulpit]

no--I love science. It's interesting and had provided us with a lot of cool stuff. It just hasn't any answers to certain questions yet it brazenly attacks religious philosophy as if it were threatened by it. Religions have done this to science in the past too. Wierd huh?

Simply because science has gaps in knowledge is not a valid reason to try to insert a <i>deus ex machina</i> into the gaps. Which is precisely what the advocates of "creation science" and "intelligent design" are engaged in.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Simply because science has gaps in knowledge is not a valid reason to try to insert a <i>deus ex machina</i> into the gaps. Which is precisely what the advocates of "creation science" and "intelligent design" are engaged in.

Simply because God-based beliefs can't be scientifically proved, is not a valid reason to totally exclude it from curriculum or denigrate it, which is precisely what the advocates of "scienctific theory only" are engaged in.